hello this is bbc news — the headlines: a massive explosion has severely damaged the strategically important road and rail bridge connecting occupied crimea to russia. the un nuclear watchdog calls for the urgent protection of the zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in ukraine after shelling cuts its external power.

ten people have been killed and eight injured in an explosion at a petrol station in the republic of ireland — police say it appears to have been a "tragic accident". protests continue in iran and around the world as three people are killed in the country. now on bbc news — it's political thinking with nick robinson. welcome to political thinking. one question haunts the chancellor, any chancellor of any political party. it is what will the iss say because the verdict of the institute for fiscal studies on whether the numbers add up, any budget and what these days we have to call fiscal

events, can be devastating for a politician. —— it is what will the ifs say. that word is treated like the word of god, not least broadcasters like the bbc who have experts from the ifs on our programmes all the time. my guest this week is the director of the ifs, pauljohnson. welcome to the programme. if the ifs is the word of god that makes you god. how does that feel? , , ., that feel? very strange. ch uckles _ chuckles all we are, as it were, we are a research institute who happen to work on fiscal things, which means public spending and tax and when the government all the opposition make big announcements on tax or spending we analyse it and we analyse it of the back of decades of experience we've got. we've got the numbers. we have the understanding of what this stuff means. so we are able to say,

do these add up, will it achieve what the chancellor says it will achieve, and what are the risks? when martin lewis was in that seat, the money saving expert, of course, and he has a similar status now it seems to me around the cost of living issues. he said to me that it made him feel physically sick, the fact that people look to him for that sort of guidance. do you ever not sleep at night or worry about it or is itjust what goes with the job? i or is it 'ust what goes with the “ob? ., �* , , ., ., ., job? i don't sleep at night for all sorts of reasons! _ sorts of reasons! chuckles it is hard to get i's head around the idea that this has the impact... you have to be careful because it is easy to be talking to you right now, the idea there might be thousands of people listening is one that almost does not occur to you at the time. that can lead to errors. i have huge sympathy with politicians who have

made mistakes in what they say because that is a terribly easy thing to do in this sort of circumstance. but it does feel difficult. it does feel stressful at times. but i believe it is something that needs to be done. [30 times. but i believe it is something that needs to be done.— times. but i believe it is something that needs to be done. do you want to confess to _ that needs to be done. do you want to confess to an _ that needs to be done. do you want to confess to an error? _ that needs to be done. do you want to confess to an error? we - that needs to be done. do you want to confess to an error? we have - that needs to be done. do you want i to confess to an error? we have made errors, of to confess to an error? we have made errors. of course- _ to confess to an error? we have made errors, of course. the _ to confess to an error? we have made errors, of course. the last _ errors, of course. the last election, something we put out had an error in it, we had to ring round all of thejournalists an error in it, we had to ring round all of the journalists and say, sorry, we got this wrong. in terms of what i've said on air, i'm sure i've made one, but i cannot bring any to mind, really. you i've made one, but i cannot bring any to mind, really.— i've made one, but i cannot bring any to mind, really. you must think, have i gone — any to mind, really. you must think, have i gone too _ any to mind, really. you must think, have i gone too far _ any to mind, really. you must think, have i gone too far there? _ any to mind, really. you must think, have i gone too far there? have - any to mind, really. you must think, have i gone too far there? have i - have i gone too far there? have i sounded hyperbolic rather than cool and judgmental? sounded hyperbolic rather than cool andjudgmental? i sounded hyperbolic rather than cool and judgmental?— and judgmental? i think there are times when _ and judgmental? i think there are times when i've _ and judgmental? i think there are times when i've done _ and judgmental? i think there are times when i've done that. - and judgmental? i think there are times when i've done that. you i and judgmental? i think there are l times when i've done that. you get caught up in the excitement of the moment. i do find fiscal things exciting, i'm afraid.— exciting, i'm afraid. what a terrible confession! - exciting, i'm afraid. what a terrible confession! you - exciting, i'm afraid. what a i terrible confession! you tried exciting, i'm afraid. what a - terrible confession! you tried to translate it _ terrible confession! you tried to translate it a _ terrible confession! you tried to translate it a second _ terrible confession! you tried to translate it a second ago, - terrible confession! you tried to translate it a second ago, it - terrible confession! you tried to translate it a second ago, it is l terrible confession! you tried to translate it a second ago, it is a j translate it a second ago, it is a dreadful thing, translate it a second ago, it is a dreadfulthing, isn't translate it a second ago, it is a dreadful thing, isn't it, and when i

use it i think, how do you explain it? ., ., y ., use it i think, how do you explain it? ., ., ,., use it i think, how do you explain it? ., ., , ., even it? how do you explain fiscal? even when i studied _ it? how do you explain fiscal? even when i studied economics - it? how do you explain fiscal? even when i studied economics i - it? how do you explain fiscal? even when i studied economics i wasn't i when i studied economics i wasn't that sure what fiscal men. it is government tax and spending. —— fiscal meant. economics is printing money. fiscal is pretty much everything the government does and how it spends it.— how it spends it. you've been doing this 'ob how it spends it. you've been doing this job for — how it spends it. you've been doing this job for about _ how it spends it. you've been doing this job for about 11 _ how it spends it. you've been doing this job for about 11 years. - how it spends it. you've been doing this job for about 11 years. i - this job for about 11 years. i cannot think of a period of fiscal debates and the numbers adding up have been hotter. you were around for the vote about brexit, three general elections, the scottish independence referendum, you had corbyn economics and now you have trussonomics. i corbyn economics and now you have trussonomics-_ trussonomics. i look back at the austerity years _ trussonomics. i look back at the austerity years and _ trussonomics. i look back at the austerity years and that - trussonomics. i look back at the austerity years and that was - austerity years and that was relatively straightforward. i think the referendums were particularly difficult because we just look at

the economics and the economics may come up against the politics in those sorts of circumstances. when you have a yes no referendum, everybody says everything about remaining as good or everything about leaving is good whereas actually the economics make it in the way of that. when it comes to elections we don't find it that hard. normally there are good things to say and bad things to say about both parties, whatever they are both saying. right now we have a very big shift in fiscal policy as we have seenin shift in fiscal policy as we have seen in the last few weeks from the chancellor. that gives us lots of opportunities to explain what is there and what its impacts are likely to be. certainly a big moment. i don't think it has been qualitatively different from what we've seen in the past. the talking heads that taxi _ we've seen in the past. the talking heads that taxi from _ we've seen in the past. the talking heads that taxi from north - we've seen in the past. the talking heads that taxi from north london | we've seen in the past. the talking l heads that taxi from north london to the bbc studio to dismiss anybody challenging the status quo. where do you live? like

challenging the status quo. where do ou live? ~ ,, challenging the status quo. where do ou live? ~' ,, ., challenging the status quo. where do ou live? ~' ., ., ., you live? like you, north london. it is a town house, _ you live? like you, north london. it is a town house, a _ you live? like you, north london. it is a town house, a 1960s _ you live? like you, north london. it is a town house, a 1960s terrace, . is a town house, a 1960s terrace, but today i cycled down from our offices. d0 but today i cycled down from our offices. , ., ~ ., but today i cycled down from our offices. y ., ~ ., ., offices. do you think, though, that she and others _ offices. do you think, though, that she and others in _ offices. do you think, though, that she and others in the _ offices. do you think, though, that she and others in the governmentl she and others in the government when they have a go at the anti—growth forces, have they got you in mind? anti-growth forces, have they got you in mind?— you in mind? well, i hope not, because we — you in mind? well, i hope not, because we have _ you in mind? well, i hope not, because we have been - you in mind? well, i hope not, because we have been very - because we have been very pro—growth. what of the anti—growth forces that are being described, i think those who are against planning reform, those against tax reform, those who haven't been investing enoughin those who haven't been investing enough in education and infrastructure and so on. we've been talking a long time about the importance of all of those things if you want growth. there is a truth that there are trade—offs here. we talk about these all the time. that's why it's complicated because there is no precise thing that is right. i think over the last decade and more governments have been on the wrong side of this. they've not focused enough on growth. there is a

reason for that. it is because it is politically difficult. politically difficult to build new houses and roads and airports and so on in places people don't want them. it is politically difficult to reform tax because that leaves some people better off and some people worse off. other things aren't so politically difficult, such as investing in education rather than reducing spending on education, which the government hasn't done. most of the economics profession is very much in favour of the sort of supply side reforms which might lead to growth which i think the prime minister is in favour of. lets to growth which i think the prime minister is in favour of.— minister is in favour of. lets talk more about _ minister is in favour of. lets talk more about that _ minister is in favour of. lets talk more about that later _ minister is in favour of. lets talk more about that later on. - minister is in favour of. lets talk more about that later on. let's l more about that later on. let's first get a sense of where this institute comes from. you said something which will already surprise a lot of listeners and viewers, i think, surprise a lot of listeners and viewers, ithink, it's not surprise a lot of listeners and viewers, i think, it's not official. i think you are so much part of the furniture of british public life people assume there is some sort of constitutional status at the ifs but it is just a private organisation.

it is a charity. it's a research institution. it is almost by accident. we were set up years ago by tax professionals who are fed up with some of the tax policies that were being made up in the 1960s. we gradually morphed since then into an economic research organisation. it literally owns nothing. it has no assets, no money in the bank. when we recruit new graduates to come into the ifs i will say to them, look, this isn't coming into be like johnson and pontificating on the today programme this is about doing statistical analysis, analysing data, and applying serious economics to these problems. what you might see is the froth on the top. bare see is the froth on the top. are the all see is the froth on the top. are they all nerds? _ see is the froth on the top. are they all nerds? i— see is the froth on the top. are they all nerds? i hear they used to be. is there not a ifs day out where you played fiscaljust a minute. chuckles

i think that really did happen. i suppose we could be. the i think that really did happen. i suppose we could be. the niche one was a name — suppose we could be. the niche one was a name that _ suppose we could be. the niche one was a name that article, _ suppose we could be. the niche one was a name that article, you - suppose we could be. the niche one | was a name that article, you remove the name of it and you had to guess who wrote it. the name of it and you had to guess who wrote it— the name of it and you had to guess who wrote it. ., ,., ., ., who wrote it. there are some amazing articles. who wrote it. there are some amazing articles- you — who wrote it. there are some amazing articles. you could _ who wrote it. there are some amazing articles. you could not _ who wrote it. there are some amazing articles. you could not make - who wrote it. there are some amazing articles. you could not make it - who wrote it. there are some amazing articles. you could not make it up. - articles. you could not make it up. chuckles how did it start? was economics discussed in thejohnson house? goodness no. none of that at all. why i am like i am is a difficult question. you probably don't want to get into it, but i did not have an easy childhood. i went to a school which was later shutdown is failing, but i kind of survived by being a nerd and focusing on the schoolwork. that was your escape?— that was your escape? essentially, es. so that was your escape? essentially, yes- so was _ that was your escape? essentially, yes. so was listening _ that was your escape? essentially, yes. so was listening to _ that was your escape? essentially, yes. so was listening to the - that was your escape? essentially, yes. so was listening to the today| yes. so was listening to the today programme at an unhealthily early age and being excited and interested

in policies and politics from an early age. it is a huge privilege to think that from the age of, i don't know, 13, 1a, iwas think that from the age of, i don't know, 13, 1a, i was interested in this stuff and i wanted to make a career on it, analysing and communicating about it. if i could meet that paul _ communicating about it. if i could meet that pauljohnson, - communicating about it. if i could meet that pauljohnson, if - communicating about it. if i could meet that pauljohnson, if i - communicating about it. if i could meet that pauljohnson, if i met i communicating about it. if i could i meet that pauljohnson, if i met him now, would he believe it all? he would now, would he believe it all? he: would be amazed. the nerdy kid who now hopefully somebody is listening to. chuckles with that would be quite something. in some ways amazed, in some ways really delighted that it's being interested and excited by this important stuff.— interested and excited by this im ortant stuff. ., ., ., important stuff. you went to oxford. you did politics _ important stuff. you went to oxford. you did politics philosophy _ important stuff. you went to oxford. you did politics philosophy and - you did politics philosophy and economics. one of your tutors said you were quite quiet back then. quiet, low—key, interested in economics, but quite low—key? i’m economics, but quite low-key? i'm not sure i

economics, but quite low-key? i'm not sure i was— economics, but quite low—key? i“n not sure i was that quiet but there were quite a lot of noisy people around. ., ., ., ., were quite a lot of noisy people i around-_ yes. around. your tutorial parlour. yes, for example. _ around. your tutorial parlour. yes, for example, there _ around. your tutorial parlour. yes, for example, there was _ around. your tutorial parlour. yes, for example, there was one - around. your tutorial parlour. yes, for example, there was one ed - around. your tutorial parlour. yes, i for example, there was one ed balls, so getting a word in edgeways in that group was a little challenging. that was a very different kind of world to the one that i had been used to. ., ., , world to the one that i had been used to. ., .,, i. world to the one that i had been used to. ., ., , , ., ., used to. rumour has it you were a bit more left-wing _ used to. rumour has it you were a bit more left-wing than _ used to. rumour has it you were a bit more left-wing than him - used to. rumour has it you were a bit more left-wing than him as - used to. rumour has it you were a bit more left-wing than him as a l bit more left—wing than him as a student? bit more left-wing than him as a student? ., ., , student? that would be true, i think. student? that would be true, i think- lots _ student? that would be true, i think. lots of— student? that would be true, i think. lots of students - student? that would be true, i think. lots of students who i student? that would be true, i | think. lots of students who are interested in politics, then one took a particular view of politics and i was more involved in labour politics then than edward have been at the time. the politics then than edward have been at the time. . , politics then than edward have been at the time._ within | at the time. the left caucus. within colle . e, at the time. the left caucus. within college. there _ at the time. the left caucus. within college, there are _ at the time. the left caucus. within college, there are some _ at the time. the left caucus. within college, there are some students i at the time. the left caucus. within i college, there are some students who got together who had left—wing views at that stage in life but rather like you i have left my student politics behind.— like you i have left my student politics behind. like you i have left my student olitics behind. . , , ., politics behind. there are plenty of --eole politics behind. there are plenty of people who — politics behind. there are plenty of people who have — politics behind. there are plenty of people who have embarrassing - politics behind. there are plenty of i people who have embarrassing pasts. that's true. did you think may be politics is for me at that stage? i think there was a point early in

life when i thought that but i change my mind really quite quickly. i started my working life at the ifs straight out of university. lots of things in between before i came back again but i started working life there. very quickly you realise that nobody has a monopoly on wisdom, they are all being a little bit careful with the full facts, as it were, but thirdly you could have much more, i could, given who i am in my personality and so on, i could have much more impact if i were properly independent. and doing the objective end of things. i couldn't begin to imagine taking a party whip now. people have to do it. i am in all, actually, of politicians who are able to do that.— all, actually, of politicians who are able to do that. because it is so restrictive, _ are able to do that. because it is so restrictive, you _ are able to do that. because it is so restrictive, you mean? - are able to do that. because it is so restrictive, you mean? yes. l are able to do that. because it is. so restrictive, you mean? yes. all

arties so restrictive, you mean? yes. all parties have _ so restrictive, you mean? yes. all parties have part _ so restrictive, you mean? yes. all parties have part of _ so restrictive, you mean? yes. all parties have part of the _ so restrictive, you mean? yes. all parties have part of the answer, i parties have part of the answer, parties have part of the answer, part of the truth, and all of them also get pushed out to talk about things they clearly don't believe in, which must be extremely hard thing to do. in, which must be extremely hard thing to do— in, which must be extremely hard thin to do. ., ., , ., i. thing to do. how does pauljohnson, who has been _ thing to do. how does pauljohnson, who has been pretty _ thing to do. how does pauljohnson, who has been pretty left-wing, i thing to do. how does pauljohnson, who has been pretty left-wing, ed . who has been pretty left—wing, ed balls tells a story about you staring a carpet in a tutorial when he said, what's wrong with capitalism anyway? how do then work for a party during the height of thatcherism and stay neutral? you are recalled as working together on property, and you both having to accept, because the boss was andrew dall not, you aren't here to comment on whether that is a good or a bad thing, but you are to look at the numbers and reach conclusions. other people make the politicaljudgments. i think that's absolutely crucial. we do work on policy, we do work on inequality, we can point out the impact of policies on that. we study

inequality a lot. we look at how the structure of property has changed over time. structure of property has changed overtime. but structure of property has changed over time. but i think it is for other people to decide is the inequality too high. we could say it is less high than it is in the us, more than in western europe, about the same it was 30 years ago. is that too high or do you want to do things that change that? that is the politicaljudgment and one that we try at least to shy away from. let’s try at least to shy away from. let's to into try at least to shy away from. let's go into some _ try at least to shy away from. let's go into some of — try at least to shy away from. let's go into some of those _ try at least to shy away from. let's go into some of those difficult political waters you had to be in in thisjob at political waters you had to be in in this job at the ifs. we always have to remind ourselves, institute for... , ., ., for... very important to make the distinction- _ for... very important to make the distinction. austerity. _ for... very important to make the distinction. austerity. quite i for... very important to make the distinction. austerity. quite soon | distinction. austerity. quite soon after he became _ distinction. austerity. quite soon after he became director- distinction. austerity. quite soon after he became director of- distinction. austerity. quite soon after he became director of the i distinction. austerity. quite soon i after he became director of the ifs, hugely political. it raises one of the interesting questions about the limits of what you do. people on the left would say, look, if you only

look at what is called technically the microeconomics, whether the numbers add up, you lose the bigger picture, which is what the impact on society is of austerity, for example. and whether it is actually long—term making us poorer because the consequences of making the numbers up may be very bad for the economy as a whole. do you accept that? ., economy as a whole. do you accept that? . ~ , ., ., ., ., ., that? that mrs a lot of what we do. a lot of what _ that? that mrs a lot of what we do. a lot of what you _ that? that mrs a lot of what we do. a lot of what you will _ that? that mrs a lot of what we do. a lot of what you will c _ that? that mrs a lot of what we do. a lot of what you will c is _ that? that mrs a lot of what we do. a lot of what you will c is just i a lot of what you will c is just about that, but we work on all sorts of things like pensions. we spent a lot of time during austerity what it meant for spending on school. a lot higher than it was 12 years ago. we showed what that meant as we were talking about right now, poverty, inequality, and all of those things. we were never, as it were,

pro—austerity, what we were saying was that this is having this significant effect in terms of cutting spending and what effect thatis cutting spending and what effect that is having. the government has said it wants to achieve this set of fiscal targets. said it wants to achieve this set of fiscaltargets. here said it wants to achieve this set of fiscal targets. here is whether it will do that or not. the fiscal targets. here is whether it will do that or not. the language of the ifs for will do that or not. the language of the lfs for a _ will do that or not. the language of the ifs for a long _ will do that or not. the language of the ifs for a long time _ will do that or not. the language of the ifs for a long time was - will do that or not. the language of the ifs for a long time was the i the ifs for a long time was the language of the black hole. there is a black hole in the finances of the government. i made a lot of my career on asking lots of questions to gordon brown and george osborne about the black hole. i suppose the critique is, it assumes the whole has to be filled either by spending cuts or tax rises. —— with a hole has to be. that could argue be drive you towards more right—wing solutions. i you towards more right-wing solutions-— solutions. i hope we did not ourselves — solutions. i hope we did not ourselves use _ solutions. i hope we did not ourselves use the _ solutions. i hope we did not ourselves use the black- solutions. i hope we did not| ourselves use the black hole solutions. i hope we did not i ourselves use the black hole very often. it is no more than a shorthand. what we were doing was... george osborne set himself a set of fiscal targets, as did ed balls when

he was shadow chancellor, and what we were trying to do was to say, well, they say they want to achieve this, is the set of policies they have set out likely to do that. let's turn to the other side of politics. the debate on brexit. not automatically a left right argument but there are probably more levers on the right than on the left. —— leavers. they say you missed out the dynamic effects, the possibility that brexit would unleash new innovation, for example, deregulation, for example. all sorts of things which might make the economy grow. and simply doing the numbers, what liz truss calls doing the abacus economics, cannot reach. that's not true on a few levels. we only do the economics at the ifs and not the politics. there are good political reasons for wanting to

leave the european union. but the economics are clear. if you sever links with your biggest richest trading partner you will be worse off. that may well be a price worth paying. that's the political judgment to make. that is why i say it is difficult in the referendum situation because you have remainers saying everything about it is wonderful and leaving would be disastrous. that's not true. and you have the leavers saying everything about leaving will be good, well, that's not true either. that brings us to where _ that's not true either. that brings us to where we _ that's not true either. that brings us to where we are _ that's not true either. that brings us to where we are now— that's not true either. that brings us to where we are now and i that's not true either. that brings us to where we are now and that l us to where we are now and that phrase i mentioned, liz truss' attack on abacus economics. you did say before she became prime minister that she would completely crash the public finances. where you write? did i say that? that is an example of a mistake in terms of the hyperbole i may have used. i think ou were hyperbole i may have used. i think you were talking _ hyperbole i may have used. i think you were talking to _ hyperbole i may have used. i think you were talking to the _ hyperbole i may have used. i think you were talking to the times i hyperbole i may have used. i think| you were talking to the times while on holiday. perhaps you were a

little less cautious. i remember that conversation. _ little less cautious. i remember that conversation. i _ little less cautious. i remember that conversation. i had - little less cautious. i remember that conversation. i had just i that conversation. i had just arrived on holiday and they rang me on a sunday morning. clearly we have seenin on a sunday morning. clearly we have seen in the last couple of weeks that the chancellor has announced £43 that the chancellor has announced £113 billion of tax cuts and i am fairly confident that had the office for budget responsibility reduced its forecast alongside that it would have shown that that put the public finances on an unsustainable path. what i mean is that the debt would be ever rising unless spending were cut. again, absolutely pro and in favour of progrowth policies, the sorts of tax reform and planning reform infrastructure investment, education investment, that gives you growth in the long run. governments can make a big difference to growth. that is a lot of what economics is all about. that is a lot of what economics is allabout. it that is a lot of what economics is all about. it what a lot of our work is about. you can make a difference to growth but it requires a lot more

than big, unfunded tax cuts. and we have seen over the last couple of weeks that that's probably going to have a deleterious effect on the economy in the short run because it has caused problems on the sterling market with the bank of england and so on. there is space for those sorts of policies but they need to be carefully thought through. yes. be carefully thought through. yes, sa liz be carefully thought through. yes, say liz truss's _ be carefully thought through. yes, say liz truss's supporters, but that is the problem of the growth, it stops you from doing anything different. you have to satisfy paul johnson, the obr, and everybody else, then they say economics has got it wrong over the years. they didn't spot that there would be a huge increase in inflation. some on the right did. they said supply is too big. they applied quantitative easing but that was always going to fuel inflation, they said. you

conventional economists, the orthodox treasury world, you all got it wrong. orthodox treasury world, you all got it wronu. .., ., . orthodox treasury world, you all got itwrona. ., ., ., , it wrong. economic orthodoxy... orthodoxy _ it wrong. economic orthodoxy... orthodoxy is _ it wrong. economic orthodoxy... orthodoxy is a — it wrong. economic orthodoxy... orthodoxy is a terrible _ it wrong. economic orthodoxy... orthodoxy is a terrible word, i orthodoxy is a terrible word, orthodoxy in that sense covers a lot, so in a sense the governments of sweden, denmark, france, germany, are following economically orthodox policies, which are much higher tax, much higher spending, policies, which are much higher tax, much higherspending, higher much higher spending, higher regulation much higherspending, higher regulation than we do, but so are the governments of australia, the us, canada, singapore, perhaps not singapore in the same way, but a lot of other countries also find themselves being economically orthodox. it covers a huge range of things. what doesn't sit within it is the idea that whether you are on the left all the right there is a free lunch somewhere and that free lunch is either massive public spending unfunded or massive tax cuts unfunded. you can make big

changes to the economy. but they need to be long—term, sustainable, and carefully put in place. there isn't a free lunch sitting out there. it's not the case that every policymaker in the world has been so stupid that they did not work out that the one thing you could do was slash taxes and everything would be fine, a massive ease of public spending and everything would be fine, it isjust harder than spending and everything would be fine, it is just harder than that. you've done thisjob fine, it is just harder than that. you've done this job for a long time. in future could you be involved in policy—making? you don't have to be a front line politician but you have in the past looked in more detail at whether people should be effectively obliged to pay towards their pensions, for example. is that the sort of thing you'd like to do more of in the future? i’ee to do more of in the future? i've recently done — to do more of in the future? i've recently done a _ to do more of in the future? ia: recently done a review on to do more of in the future? i�*”e: recently done a review on whether more tax policy should be devolved in northern ireland. i've worked with the devolved government on that, as well. when the opportunities arise to be involved

more directly i tend to take them. you wrote a rather passionate piece about your experience of your son's education, a very contrasting experience on what it had taught you about what was wrong with the education world. i about what was wrong with the education world.— about what was wrong with the education world. i have four sons. one of my — education world. i have four sons. one of my sons — education world. i have four sons. one of my sons who _ education world. i have four sons. one of my sons who struggled i education world. i have four sons. one of my sons who struggled in l education world. i have four sons. i one of my sons who struggled in the academic education world for various reasons, and what i wrote about was, well, it is very easy, isn't it, to go into work on education. i didn't really believe that it was fine for everybody. but you really feel it when you experience it more directly. it has also made me very passionate about the importance of other chances, apprenticeships and so on, because he's now doing staggeringly well having done higher level apprenticeship.

staggeringly well having done higher levelapprenticeship. he staggeringly well having done higher level apprenticeship. he is thriving in that world in a way he didn't thrive in the school. 50. in that world in a way he didn't thrive in the school. so, somebody want somebody — thrive in the school. so, somebody want somebody to _ thrive in the school. so, somebody want somebody to run _ thrive in the school. so, somebody want somebody to run part - thrive in the school. so, somebody want somebody to run part of- thrive in the school. so, somebody want somebody to run part of the l want somebody to run part of the education world, you are available? i am available for any decentjob. chuckles what attracts you for the future? you aren't going to do this for the rest of your life.— rest of your life. that's the hardest question. - rest of your life. that's the hardest question. what i rest of your life. that's the | hardest question. what will rest of your life. that's the i hardest question. what will i do when i grow up? chuckles i genuinely don't know. the worst thing about my currentjob is that it is difficult to think of anything better to go on to. if you are offering me a job on the today programme i would bite your hand off. . ., ,. , off. excellent. you were described as a failed treasury _ off. excellent. you were described as a failed treasury economist i off. excellent. you were described i as a failed treasury economist once. marvellous. as a failed treasury economist once. marvellous-— marvellous. vote to leave said you were a paid _ marvellous. vote to leave said you were a paid arm — marvellous. vote to leave said you were a paid arm of _ marvellous. vote to leave said you were a paid arm of the _ marvellous. vote to leave said you were a paid arm of the eu - marvellous. vote to leave said you were a paid arm of the eu because you took some eu grants. —— vote leave. you may become a target of

some of liz truss's supporters who will say you are part of the anti—grace orthodoxy. how will you deal with that? anti-grace orthodoxy. how will you deal with that?— deal with that? partly by trying to oint out deal with that? partly by trying to point out that _ deal with that? partly by trying to point out that actually _ deal with that? partly by trying to point out that actually we - deal with that? partly by trying to point out that actually we are, i deal with that? partly by trying to | point out that actually we are, you know, we are in the vanguard of the programme orthodoxy. it is progrowth orthodoxy outside of it in some sense. it is normal to be attacked from all sides. but you will find that almost all of the frontbenchers or lots of them on both sides of the house quoting the ifs in support of the arguments they were making at that moment. it's always very nice to see ask quoted in ways that help arguments on either side of the house. you have to live with the fact that when you are saying things that are unhelpful that that might get thrown back at you. but it is easy to point at all sorts of things that liz truss and other people said, quoting us in support of their

arguments. said, quoting us in support of their arguments-— said, quoting us in support of their arguments. pauljohnson, i will let ou aet arguments. pauljohnson, ! will let you get back— arguments. pauljohnson, i will let you get back to _ arguments. pauljohnson, i will let you get back to north _ arguments. pauljohnson, i will let you get back to north london. i you get back to north london. chuckles thank you very much. chuckles thank ouve much. ., ., ., thank you very much. tottenham court road at the moment, _ thank you very much. tottenham court road at the moment, nick. _ thank you very much. tottenham court road at the moment, nick. thank- thank you very much. tottenham court road at the moment, nick. thank you | road at the moment, nick. thank you ve much road at the moment, nick. thank you very much for— road at the moment, nick. thank you very much forjoining _ road at the moment, nick. thank you very much forjoining me _ road at the moment, nick. thank you very much forjoining me on _ very much forjoining me on political thinking. politicians of all parties have quoted the ifs to make their case. but back a few years gordon brown wasn't mightily impressed with the verdicts of his predecessor robert choate. it used to be shouted out to the horror of treasury officials. i have an instinct of the word johnson might be used once or twice in the difficult weeks and months to come. thank you for watching. until next week.

the weather has been much quieter foremost today just a few showers in the north and west because we have a ridge of high pressure with us. those showers will fade back to the coast through this evening. we will have the winds are strengthening, more clouds starting to push into western areas through the night. the arrival of rain towards the dawn. milder for many arrival of rain towards the dawn. milderfor many in arrival of rain towards the dawn. milder for many in scotland and northern ireland, but for england and wales, a chilly night, low enough for a touch of grass frost first thing and mist and fog to form given we have light winds, as well. that should clear. then we should stay mostly dry or bright and sunny over east wales onwards. but the clouds they can, the winds strengthening, severe gales from the morning really across the western isles. heavy rain with those squally winds driving across scotland, northern ireland, to north—western fringes of england and wales. 17 or

18 elsewhere in the sunshine. lots of dry weather as we look to the early part of next week.

this is bbc news with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. i'm geeta guru—murthy. a massive explosion has severely damaged the strategically important road and rail bridge connecting occupied crimea to russia. the bridge — opened to great fanfare by president putin in 2018 — has been used to move military equipment into ukraine. the un nuclear watchdog calls for the urgent protection of the zaporizhzhia nuclear plant after shelling cuts its external power. police say ten people have been killed in an explosion at a petrol station in county donegal, in the republic of ireland. ceremonies have been taking place in thailand to mark the start of a four—day funeral for victims of a mass killing at a nursery.