i'm ben bland with bbc world news. our top story: record temperatures in australia fuel unprecedented bushfires, more than a hundred are burning as a state of emergency is declared in new south wales. emergency crews are braced for worse still to come, temperatures as high as 47 degrees celsius are expected at the weekend. more angry exchanges in the us congress over president trump's impeachment. republicans want a quick trial in the senate, without witnesses. democrats hope to call key white house officials. and this video is trending on bbc.com. it's nandi bushell who has become an online sensation at the age of nine. she's already performed with lenny kravitz. she's been playing drums since she was a toddler, and her videos have been viewed many thousands of times. that's all. stay with bbc world news.

now on bbc news, it's time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. the scale of the conservative party triumph in last week's uk election promises to have seismic consequences. borisjohnson can get brexit done on terms and a timetable of his choosing. parliamentary approval guaranteed. not since margaret thatcher is a tory leader had such an opportunity to remake written. well, my guest is conservative mp and former cabinet minister andrew mitchell. borisjohnson has been handed immense power. what will he do with it?

andrew mitchell, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. i want to begin with some very interesting words coming from the mouth of boris johnson after his election victory. he said, "this election has changed this government "and this conservative party for the better." what did he mean by that? i think he's right. i think what he meant was that the paralysis that has characterised the past 3.5 years of mrs may's government has been swept away. there is a decisive conservative majority and it's sprung from the loins of the brexit argument in britain which has seen the country more divided than at any time in my political life and which hopefully this election will now heal. but surely he was pointing

to something else as well. perhaps even he was surprised by the degree to which voters in traditionally labour strongholds in the north and in the midlands of england gave their vote to the conservative party and he seems to recognise that gives the conservative government a new task to deliver on promises made to those very people. well, it certainly does and i think it's a great mistake to see this as some sort of clash between the conservative party moving towards the brexit party as opposed to being the one—nation party that many of us strongly believe conservatives should be. the challenge to which he is referring is how do we make sure the election is not a flash in the pan and that people who have given the conservative party their trust in this election like what they see,

think the conservative government gets on in serving their interests, dealing with some of the communities in britain that been left behind and so that, at the next election, they think the conservative government has done a good job and they wish to support it again. that is precisely the point. it seems to me the conservative party of the next few months, year or two, has to make some fundamental decisions about what it is and who it's for. there are thatcherites in the conservative party represented in the house of commons who still are preoccupied with making government smaller and yet, to deliver for the people we are talking about, who voted tory for the first time in some of the most deprived parts of england, making government smaller will not do. they need government to be more interventionist, more proactive and, frankly, to spend more money. i think we will spend more money. i think that we are clear, all the parties were clear during the election that we would invest more in britain's infrastructure.

i think the difference between the conservative... so the tories are going to borrow? i think yes, but i think the difference between the conservative party's offer and labour's offer, if i could characterise it like this, is that the conservatives‘ offers will be, if you like, the sort of expenditure one would make on a mortgage whereas the labour party appeared to me to be maxing out the credit card. and that sort of responsible investment, particularly into communities that have been left behind in the past, will be right at the forefront of boris johnson's government. but to me, one of the key clear indicators where the government is heading, and it's an ideological emblem, if you like, is the proportion of gdp which is taken up with public expenditure. traditionally in the uk it sits at around 39, a0%. under margaret thatcher, who did want to cut down government, it went to a record low of 34%. for you, as a senior conservative mp, do you want to see it rise to 40% and above, which it seems it will do

if borisjohnson‘s borrowing plans, his commitment to spend £100 billion on, as you say, transport infrastructure, rolling out new broadband, all sorts of spending plans, the tories could be the party of public spending. well, i have no precise level for gdp, i'm not looking at it in that sort of ideological way. why not? because i think that can borrow now, with interest rates being so low, so long as the markets and everyone else understand this as a responsible investment in our future and infrastructure and that's what i think we're going to do now and in terms of the dilemma you pose, i don't believe there is a dilemma between the one—nation traditions of the conservative party, the lure of the brexit party and what you described as the sort of thatcherites. the fact is one—nation conservatism, which boris epitomised when he was mayor of london, that is the way ahead and i believe his government will capture that and deliver. interesting you say blithely,

"we can borrow money at low rates, "the market will have confidence in us." they won't have confidence in a tory government if they believe your brexit policy is going to be damaging to the economy. the first big decision taken by borisjohnson since his election victory is that he is going to out or any possibility of an extension to trade negotiations with the eu beyond december 2020. the markets worry about that, business worry about that. do you? well, i think you've seen since friday morning a huge sigh of relief across the markets from british business. no, you haven't — what you saw is the pound strengthened and as soon as borisjohnson said there would be no extension of negotiations beyond december 2020, even if it meant a cliff edge and no trade deal, the pound lost all of the gains it had made in the previous two days. let's just look at this sequentially. first of all, there has been an enormous amount of relief.

if you look at the uk stock market, you look at the comments made around the world, in other financial centres, there is huge relief that there is now a government with a majority in a clear sense that can forge ahead. the value of the pound will go up and down but he is absolutely right to say we want to get the deal done by next december and to make it clear in law that is the decision of the british government, because all the shilly—shallying around over the last 3.5 years, these forced debates about whether you can take no deal off the table have done britain an enormous amount of harm, both in terms of our internal economy and reputation externally so i think he is quite right to be clear indeed that this negotiation can be done in that time. fine, then you are accepting there will be, to coin a phrase used yesterday by an eu official, a bare—bones deal at best with the european union which will be very far from the sort of frictionless trade that i dare say the manufacturers in your midlands constituency want to see. you are at peace with that?

yes, i think there will now be a clear sense of direction because people aren't going around the back any more telling the european commission that if they hold hard and negotiate toughly, may the brits will change their mind. the evidence of the election is clear now for everyone to see... i'm not sure you're addressing my point. the point is you can have a deal in 11 months if you want but it's going to be a very thin, very limited deal, just to ameliorate the worst of a cliff—edge exit. if you want that, it's fine, but your manufacturers must realise there will be no frictionless trade, theirjust—in—time supply chains will not work and that will have a damaging effect on the uk economy. look, it is complete nonsense to say that it has to take at least 2 years, 15 months, 18 months to do a deal. what matters is the intent of those negotiating. as i was saying a moment ago, the eu and now clear

from their side that britain is leaving, it will be enshrined in law, at least in principle, and we will leave at the end of january. so you can call the bluff of michel barnier in the eu? it's not a bluff anymore. the eu knows it's going to go ahead, we are not wallowing in indecision and that will help enormously the process of these negotiations. there are choices to be made as to the direction the uk looks to in the future when we talk about economic alignment. it's clear that borisjohnson doesn't want dynamic high alignment with the european union but he says he wants a deal with them. at the same time, he says he wants a very deep and meaningful and important deal with the united states of america. the rules on the different sides of the atlantic are very different. which should be his priority, the us or the eu? well, it's both. so you're a cake and eat it man? in the sense of a trade deal, i think that we are going

to negotiate and with the eu, and it is very difficult because we are negotiating with 26 sovereign states that have their own priorities and with america, we are negotiating with the biggest but a very big market as well and there will be trade—offs to be done. that is the nature of trade negotiations, and i think armed with his majority and his election victory, there will be wind in british sails which will make those trade deals much easier to achieve. but the point is, you have to make choices. of course. when it comes to food standards, for example, the us, just to take one symbolic element of this, it totally allows and believes in the efficacy of chlorinating chicken and other foodstuffs. in the eu, that is outlawed. we have to make a decision. are we going to make a decision to go with the americans and trade with them in foodstuffs or go are we going to go meet europeans standards? which are we going to do? it's a great mistake in my view to see it in those terms. why? because it's difficult? no, no, because you want to do is get all these negotiations and issues and pieces

on the board up on the table so you can see what the picture looks like and you can make the trade. you don't make the trade—offs before you start the negotiations. let's just think about where the leverage lies. we quote you the words of a very experienced us economist, politician, larry summers who, before the uk election, said, "it's delusional for the uk to expect a massive favourable trade deal with america after brexit because the uk will be in a fundamentally weak position with its key trade partners, including the us. "britain," he says, "has much less to give than europe as a whole did when it comes to negotiating with the us." he is just making the point that britain outside the european union is a smaller economic entity... it's diminished. ..than inside it. its leverage and power is diminished. there are advantages, however, from being much quicker on your feet, than having to negotiate, as europe does, bringing 27

countries as it is today, along with them. so of course, it's new, it's different, it's going to be an exciting and difficult negotiation but i have great confidence that in a new environment, it will be a hell of a lot easier than it was going to be before. i'm struggling to see a basis for this great confidence of yours, as you've effectively acknowledged. yes, our leverage will be diminished and leverage is what matters. it's not emotion, it's leverage. there is huge interest on both sides in doing a deal that will be in everyone‘s interest and i think that, at this stage, we got a year in which to do it... and the us negotiators, they want access to our healthcare system. that's what the negotiation will be. so you're happy with that. so the us pharma companies want to sell into our market at prices they regard as legitimate, it'll be much higher than the prices the nhs currently pays for drugs. they want changes to our patent rules, intellectual property rules.

you're suggesting to me because we are so desperate for a us deal, we will talk about that? i'm suggesting nothing of the sort. i'm suggesting there will be a sensible and serious negotiation which in everyone‘s interest should be concluded and when you see all the pieces on the board, inevitably there will be trade—offs made. 0n the national health service, it's already been made absolutely clear both by the president of the united states and the british prime minister that the nhs is not on the table. with respect, the americans have said various different things. we know from these leaked memos that the us is interested in accessing our healthcare system. the only issue is whether boris johnson is going to be adamant that it won't happen. you're suggesting all the pieces are on the table. since those memorandums were leaked, you have heard