political correspondent at chief political correspondent at the times, aubrey allegretti . as the times, aubrey allegretti. as always, i want to hear from you. get in touch via gbnews.com/yoursay now it's time for the news bulletin with polly middlehurst. >> michael, thanks very much indeed. and good evening to you. we start this bulletin with some breaking news that's come to us in the last hour or so. it has been a record day. we understand, for migrants crossing the english channel in small boats due to good weather, gb news can reveal that at least 750 illegal migrants arrived in uk waters today, surpassing the previous one day record of 711 on the 1st of may. that means more than 41,000 migrants have now made the crossing since rishi sunak promised to end the crisis in january last year. and it comes as an election debate over immigration took place

tonight, with seven representatives of the main political parties taking part. as you heard on channel 4. reform uk chairman richard tice addressed the record number of small boat crossings today to pick people up out of the boats and take them back to france. >> that will stop the deaths. that's the compassionate thing to do. that will stop the illegal trade. under the 1982 un convention of law at sea. france has international obligations in order to pick people up and take back their failing in those obligations. we're entitled to do that. that's the kind thing to do. it will stop people dying i >> meanwhile, the prime minister faced questions from farmers on a visit to devon this afternoon. rishi sunak argued that nigel farages party wouldn't be able to deliver on any of its promises because, he said a vote for reform was a vote for laboun for reform was a vote for labour. he said it had been a privilege to understand the contribution that farmers make to society before warning that 40,000 jobs could potentially be lost as a result of labour's

manifesto . manifesto. >> now, the contrast at this election is crystal clear because whilst we're going to do all those things for you, as david said in the labour manifesto, there were just 87 words about farming, no commitment to food production and food security , no commitment and food security, no commitment at all about the farming budget in the next parliament. forget about increasing it like we're going to do. they won't even say that they're going to protect it, right.7 like that is the choice for you at this election, which is why it's so important that you come out and vote and you talk to your colleagues. meanwhile in a new policy development this afternoon, nigel farage said he'd abolish the tv licence fee, which funds the tv licence fee, which funds the bbc. >> the reform uk leader was speaking during a town hall style event this afternoon, and it came as the bbc said it would allow reform to take part. in an extra question time leaders special. after the reform uk team complained about not being included . labour says it'll included. labour says it'll

bnng included. labour says it'll bring face to face banking back to the high street, with 350 new hubsin to the high street, with 350 new hubs in towns and villages , it hubs in towns and villages, it would see staff from several banks sharing the same space, helping fill gaps left by branch closures. the consumer group, which says more than 6000 branches have closed since 2015. and just lastly, the liberal democrats have been promising today on the election trail to spend £10 million every year to tackle the practice of sewage dumping by water companies. new inspectors would work as part of a newly created clean water authority under the lib dems. that's the news. for the latest stories, do sign up to gb news alerts. scan the qr code on your screen or go to flash alerts . screen or go to flash alerts. >> and thanks very much, polly. good evening again. i'm michael portillo , a gb news presenter portillo, a gb news presenter who was a conservative member of

parliament over a period of 20 years off and on. there was a gap of two and a half years following my rather high profile defeat in the 1997 general election. and that brings me to reflect on the general election campaign that we're experiencing now for the tories, ever since the soggy election announcement by bedraggled prime minister in downing street, it's been an uphill battle. given labour's lead in the polls. perhaps it might have helped the tories to focus on sir keir starmer's party, especially what it's going to do and how it's going to pay for it. but the conservatives seemingly can't help but make the campaign about themselves interrupting labour whenever it's making mistakes and blurting out policy announcements. this campaign at times has been fought as though it were a presidential election, a battle between two candidates. but the two candidates are often criticised for a conspicuous lack of charisma needed in a president after the boris johnson years. some would argue that that's not a bad thing, but it certainly has paved the way

for the likes of nigel farage. even the lib dems with ed davey slapstick campaign have taken advantage of the robotic rishi sunak and sir keir starmer, the labour party thinks that if it can just simply stay out of the news and avoid a scandal, it can walk into number 10 and they may be right. recently the conservatives campaign has looked confused over whether they hope or aim to win the election, or whether their message to electors is that they should avoid giving labour a super majority. one result of this muddle is that the conservatives will not know where to invest their campaigning efforts. can they be seen to abandon seats that have traditionally been regarded as marginal, but which may already be lost , to put resources into be lost, to put resources into seats traditionally thought to be safe where the conservative candidate is in fact now in mortal danger. in 1997, as i recall , at least, some mortal danger. in 1997, as i recall, at least, some opinion polls pointed to a labour super majority , but they tended to be majority, but they tended to be discounted as too bad or too

good to be true, depending on your allegiance . well, i did your allegiance. well, i did believe them. a poll of opinion in my constituency published in a newspaper on the sunday before the election, revealed that i was just three points ahead of the labour candidate . it was an the labour candidate. it was an invitation to the largest number of liberal democrat voters to switch to labour to defeat me. labour published the article as a leaflet, and my guess is that it was highly effective in promoting tactical voting . on promoting tactical voting. on the day of the election, i toured the patch in my campaign vehicle, calling in at polling stations. i was struck by how many people refused to catch my eye or even return my greeting. i abandoned the tour halfway through the day, too horrified to continue . it seems that many to continue. it seems that many conservative incumbents could suffer the same fate. they know already that over the last five years of tory government, people have ceased to listen to what their party has to say. i rather assume that whilst half the party talks of winning and the other half warns of an upcoming

labour supermajority , the voters labour supermajority, the voters will shut their ears to both . will shut their ears to both. well, joining me now to discuss the polls is a director of jl partners scarlett mccgwire. good evening. i wanted to ask you a little bit about methodology because actually, if you ask a thousand people how they're going to vote in 360, say labour and 200 say conservative, that's not the result you publish, is it? it.7 >> it? >> well, it isn't, it isn't. so i think normally you'd say you'd ask. we tend to use a sample of 2000 people. that can vary. but let's say 2000 people, you get a goodidea let's say 2000 people, you get a good idea of who they should be from census data and historic vote share. so you have an idea of what they should look like age wise, gender wise, region wise, how politically interested they are. so you have those numbers in mind. you try as best you can to find those numbers anyway, as part of those 2000, you will have to do a little bit of what we call weighting at the end, though, which is to make sure that those numbers match exactly as they can. the national sort of a nationally representative sample. so that means for example, older voters, older voters can be harder to

reach. it obviously is very important that we include them as part of the poll and include them in a representative way. so it may be that you make your older people that are in the survey slightly more important. >> in the end result, you use the word weighting there w e i g h t, which which is a manipulation. you must feel a bit nervous as you're manipulating because because you're going from something which was real to something which was real to something which is a bit of a confection . which is a bit of a confection. >> i think pollsters do get very nervous about it. and we actually see especially in the united states, there have been some quite big errors, even very recently, about this. so people have say, up weighting, so increasing , have say, up weighting, so increasing, ethnic have say, up weighting, so increasing , ethnic minorities, increasing, ethnic minorities, for example, so that 1 or 2 people can end up representing a whole group of voters. now that's obviously not ideal. and that's obviously not ideal. and that's why you try and ensure that's why you try and ensure that when you first ask people, your initial survey is as as representative as you can. i think there's a lot i don't think there's a lot i don't think we get that nervous about the sort of weighting that we do. and i think other pollsters in the uk do as well. >> we've heard a lot in this election about mrp polls. they seem to be a bigger sample and

they seem to try to fit characteristics to particular constituencies . may i just ask constituencies. may i just ask you, first of all, has this actually been tested in battle .7 actually been tested in battle.7 do we know that mrp works. >> so we know that mrp in principle works. it sort of slightly depends on the mrp on the data that's going into it. and then the different versions of that model that someone might build. so it has been proved successful in the 2019 campaign here, for example, and in campaigns in europe , although campaigns in europe, although you only have to look at the different mlps, we've got out at the moment without wanting to sort of to make any speculations . if you look at the seat projections that have come out even since the beginning of june, all using these mrp methods that you say they can range from as low as 66 to as high as 180. so someone must be wrong. it's you know, and that's for the conservative seat. total so they are only as good as i say as the data going in. and then some of those assumptions and those sort of very educated guesses that you're making about voters and constituencies going out of them talking about being wrong. >> i have a feeling my memory tells me that in 1992, when on the whole, the polls were wrong,

one set of pollsters said afterwards, oh yes, well, actually we got it right. but we didn't like to be out on a limb. so we adjusted our results so that we wouldn't be out of kilter with the others, if that was said, i mean, that strikes me as , as pretty doubtful me as, as pretty doubtful practice. do you think that happens, that everyone you don't mind being wrong as long as you're all wrong. but but no one wants to be out there on his or her own being wrong. >> there have been examples of that historically. you mentioned 92. 2017 is also a good example. there's a pollster that sat on a what turned out to be a very accurate poll during the 2017 campaign, just because it seemed so out of kilter with other places that were predicting quite a strong conservative win. we obviously all know what happened with that 2017 election. i think, though, as far as most pollsters are concerned, they are confident in their methods, they're confident in their data, and if it's to be put out publicly, they put it out anyway. >> i mentioned my little sob story about the poll that was taken in my constituency, which told voters effectively to how vote. it told them that they could get rid of me. and what are the ethics of polls conducted in particular constituencies? do you think?

>> i think the ethics are completely fine. i think if there's someone that you have to, if you put something in the pubuc to, if you put something in the public domain, i think it's one of the reasons why we have a better polling industry than a lot of other countries. you have to publish all your data, all your questions anyway. so i think i think individual constituency polling is very good. ours is very good. it's proven to be very accurate. i know what you mean about influencing the result, but you could say that about sort of all polling or even the whole sort of polling media political ecosystem. it's quite hard to distinguish between the two. and if you have no problem in principle with tactical voting or the sort of principle of casting your vote against someone rather than for someone, i don't think that individual constituency polling is problematic, and very briefly, rather tongue in cheek, i think this morning michael deakin in the telegraph said, let's not have any polls at all because it would be so much more enjoyable. >> we wouldn't know what was going to happen at the election. he's got a point. >> no, i want to keep my job. i think, but i think, no, i don't think, but i think, no, i don't think he i don't think he has got a point actually, because i think then what would happen is that you'd have private polls, which would be spun out, which would be briefed. and i think

that would be a lot more damaging to democracy than having an informed electorate. >> there would be no polls, no doubt. scarlett mccgwire from jlp partners. thank you. jl partner, i beg your pardon. thank you very much. well, with me now to discuss the latest developments in the campaign is my panel pr consultant and former labour aide, stella sikiru, and our chief political correspondent at the times, aubrey allegretti. aubrey, this dilemma that the conservatives have about whether to tell us that they may win or to plead with us not to give labour too much of a majority, is there any way through this? i mean, if i were a voter and i wanted to take the conservatives seriously, i don't know what i'd do. what would i do? i'd instead of not voting conservative, i suppose i'd vote conservative again. is that is that what they're hoping for? i think that's right. >> i think the conservative party is trying to sow the sort of seeds that defeat is certain, and therefore people don't need to punish the party any more, and they can afford to give the party its vote to sort of avoid it completely. being an extinction level event , and also extinction level event, and also so that it can provide this effective opposition in the next parliament. if labour does get

some kind of super majority , some kind of super majority, whatever that is. i think the trouble is, obviously lots of conservatives have been warning against this unchecked power and this blank check . they haven't this blank check. they haven't sort of made any of those complaints previously. so it it looks a bit cynical to make that complaint when you're the person that might be the person who is, you know, disadvantaged rather than the shoe being on the other foot. and when boris johnson won an 80 seat majority, they were crowing, you know, all night long, stella, i made the point that, if you're confused about what the outcome is going to be or the strategy , what are the or the strategy, what are the risks is you mis allocate your resources because you send them to marginal seats, because you want to make it look as though you really think you might win, whereas you ought to be sending your resources to your safe seats because actually they're the ones you're in danger of losing. >> i just want to ask you, do you believe in campaigning at all? i mean, do you think it makes much difference where you apply your resources? >> i think it makes a difference. i think canvassing makes a difference. and if it doesn't make a difference to the person who is being canvassed, then it definitely makes a difference to the person who is

doing the canvassing, because it is very, very educational. and it really does help you to really test your policies, your manifestos, your communication skills, your candidate. if you're working for someone, i think there is also something to be said about the kind of voter who will be persuaded by seeing a candidate show up on their doorstep. sometimes what you will find is there will be some people who will be saying, i nobody has contacted me in months, and now suddenly you remember about me because each election time now what i would argue is that the same person may be if you contacted them a year ago, they would be like, what are you doing? leave me alone. i don't don't want to be seeing you . but as i said, seeing you. but as i said, i think it has to. it depends on the kind of voter. i think there are some people who like to discuss things with the candidate. i think they are. >> oh, they're the worst sort. they delay you for ages. no. >> but why, michael? why? i love i love chatting with, i love chatting with people on the doorstep because they really do test your ideas. they let you. you realise what what cut through there is with policies

and also you get a sense of their emotions which you are not going to get from, you know, a poll or a focus group. >> obe. this point about we never see our candidate. i mean, of course, if you do the maths, if you've got 70,000 electors and you've got one candidate and the people are out at work dunng the people are out at work during the day and they're reluctant to open their door in the evening, it's extremely difficult for the candidate to be seen by more than a handful of electors. i used to i had urban constituencies, two of them, and what i thought was effective was standing at tube stations, railway stations in the morning, as people rush past you, not engaging you in conversation because they were moving so fast, but they would say, oh, respect , you were up at say, oh, respect, you were up at 6:00 this morning. you were you were there. what what do you think about the effectiveness of canvassing? i think that's probably true. >> i mean, i'm a journalist, so my experience of it is somewhat limited, but i have joined candidates out on the doorstep when i'm trying to sort of test the waters of how they're going down. often in by—election campaigns. and it is really hard to sort of get people to engage because often they're busy. if it's the middle of the day,

they're sort of, you know, they're sort of, you know, they're busy. they don't want to sort of talk politics. it's not normally at the forefront of their mind, but they probably do appreciate their candidates dropped by. and we've seen recently the emergence of these ring doorbells. other brands are, i'm sure, available. but being used sometimes by people who know they can see who's at their door, they can see someone wearing a rosette, and they might not want to open it because they don't want to be sort of talked to for five minutes. and so there are these stories about activists carrying. >> but actually the last, the last thing i apologise here to stella, but i think the last thing the candidate wants to do is talk for five minutes. the candidate jolly well wants to get to on somebody else, estella, i wonder whether, you know, canvassing is largely an occupational therapy or. or do you think perhaps, maybe the following does happen that there are people out there with a terrific hatred of the conservative party because they've been in for 14 years. but when they meet their candidate, they remember. oh, yes, we've known him ten years. the conservative candidate, he's not so bad. he's all right. i

can make an exception here. do you think that's one of the effects? exactly 100. >> and there is the other point, of course, that there is word of mouth. right. so you see someone, your candidate comes, you talk to them, and then you talk to your neighbours. you say to other people, oh, i've seen so and so and you know, and i think this person is very hardworking. we should give them another chance. it's not their fault about the party and all of that. but i think also there is something to be said about the character of each political party and their voters and their candidates. and i'm obviously from the labour party, so i would say that, but i definitely think that there are some labour activists who can be a bit more tribal, and they can see the labour party a bit more as i definitely see the labour party as my family . don't cringe. as my family. don't cringe. that's just how i see it. so so ihave that's just how i see it. so so i have i will have a sense of loyalty to the labour party, even if it's going completely , even if it's going completely, you know, off the rails. whereas i do think there are some other people who perhaps have careers in the private sector and i'm

sure you will want to correct me on this, but i do think that tends to be more the case in the conservative party, where you will have people where they will join the party as a vehicle for, you know, a ministerial career or something like that. and beyond that, they will not particularly be interested to sit in a conservative party local, local committee to discuss the minutiae of the local party. >> i will tell you, you're probably out of date . i mean, i probably out of date. i mean, i think it's much more difficult to become a conservative candidate now than it was in my day. in my day, a minimal, experience of stuffing a few envelopes got you onto the list. but now, you know, many people even running for the conservative party are people have rather long, distinguished records of community service. and that's more or less, you know, what gets them in at the at the ground floor. anyway, we will discuss more later on in the programme . in particular, the programme. in particular, we'll be talking, about, some breaking news, for example, the immigration figures. i think it's the figures on small boats, which are pretty, pretty stunning, thanks very much to

the panel coming up, reform pledges to scrap net zero. i'll be speaking to a former environment secretary after

break. welcome back to state of the nafion welcome back to state of the nation . i'm michael portillo. nation. i'm michael portillo. you've been getting in touch with your viewers, ian says. was it jim callaghan who said at one point, the nation stops listening to you? i think that's what's happened to the tories now. yes. i think i pretty much made that point in my introduction. i agree with you introduction. i agree with you in and tessa says it comes to something, doesn't it, when all the conservatives have to offer is please vote for us to stop starmer winning a super majority again, i, i feel i'm more or less said that to you. so i agree with that comment too. thank you very much. tessa yesterday reform uk released its manifesto. one of the interesting pledges is to scrap net zero reform. says it will save 30 billion a year. they

don't show they're working , so don't show they're working, so perhaps they should have done. but what is clear is that the net zero project is going to be expensive. the institute for government projects total costs for achieving zero net by 2050 will be £1.4 trillion, but the savings would total £1.1 trillion. that works out to a net amount of just 321 billion, or £10 billion a year. so is maybe the reform party on to something? i'm very glad to be joined by the former conservative environment secretary, george eustice. george, lovely to see you on gb news, is reform onto something? it's a very, very expensive policy and even if it's not terribly unpopular now as those expenses come through, the likelihood is that it will become more unpopular with people. >> well, i think they're wrong to make this point. and the reason for that is, there's a number of reasons why we should move towards net zero. i mean, first of all, climate change is a reality. and although it's

true that the uk's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is relatively modest in the global context, you know, we should do our bit and we should , show our bit and we should, show a leadership role. i think the second thing that's important is we have, you know, very good scientific expertise in this country. and if we apply our minds to this, we can come up with some of the technologies that will help the whole world get there. and so we ought to be taking that leadership role. and then when it comes to the cost, you know, you have to look at this in the context of the fact that oil and gas is a finite resource. we probably past peak oil production about a decade ago. and as for the next 20, 30 years goes forward, oil and gas is going to become less available , prices will become available, prices will become higher and more volatile. and so if you care about your energy security, you actually need to decarbonise your energy reliance as well and move away from oil and gas. and so even for those who are very sceptical about climate change and think it's, you know, sunspots or something that's leading to higher temperatures, nothing to do with

carbon. even those who believe that there are other strategic reasons around our energy security, why we should be doing this. >> people can disagree with the policy even if they don't disagree that global warming is occurring on this point about global leadership. a third of the emissions in the world come from china. china has an aspiration to reach net zero, an aspiration to reach net zero, an aspiration by 2060. we, however, have bound ourselves with legally binding targets well, which are of a different nature . which are of a different nature. so i might say, i think this is probably what reform is saying, that the policy we should follow is the chinese policy. of course, we want to move towards net zero, but we don't want to cripple our economy along the way. and since we're such a very small economy and china is such a very large one, by the way, the united states is one sixth of emissions, and they're not legally bound either. what is the point of doing ourselves so much economic harm when we're not going to make a difference to the planet? >> well, this is, i think, where there's a legitimate point and

it's why i think rishi sunak was right late last year to recalibrate rate the pathway to net zero, because the thing that used to frustrate me in government is although it was zero net by 2050, we were constantly harried by the climate change committee, all sorts of other activists, other departments in whitehall used to say to defra, well , some of say to defra, well, some of these things you're talking about are uncertain. the technology is uncertain. therefore here we need you to commit to plant even more trees. and that's even though our tree planting ambition was was already off the scale . or we already off the scale. or we think you should have some kind of campaign to persuade people to eat less meat, which would have been just whistling in the wind. so what you actually need to do is you move towards decarbonisation is to create the space and the time for existing technologies to mature and get better, and for new technologies to come forward. >> and that's been the we haven't created the space in a time. we're talking about 2035. labouris time. we're talking about 2035. labour is talking about 2030 for some of these targets. we and you say a global leadership role. it looks to me like a global masochism role because

what we are doing is not influencing china. what we're doing is not influencing the united states. therefore it's not actually having an effect on the planet . but what it not actually having an effect on the planet. but what it is doing is exporting jobs. now, many of our targets are about decarbonisation on a purely national basis. in other words, what is produced here but of course, if we export technologies like steelmaking , technologies like steelmaking, if we export production like oil and gas, then that comes off our tariff. but what we've done is we've exported the jobs and then blow me. we're importing the oil and gas from across the planet. and guess what? that puts up not only our vulnerability , but the only our vulnerability, but the energy that's required to move it across the planet . it across the planet. >> and that's absolutely right. and there's no point just exporting the pollution . you can exporting the pollution. you can say the same of livestock production. you could say , well, production. you could say, well, we're going to produce less meat in this country, but we're going to import it from australia. you won't have done a clever day's work because the average carbon emissions are double what they

are in the uk. in some other systems for livestock production elsewhere. so this is all of these are legitimate points . i these are legitimate points. i don't think it means that we shouldn't strive towards net zero, but it does mean we shouldn't be hurried into taking the wrong decisions prematurely. so in 2017, the theresa may government said that they were going to have a strategy of electrification first. since then, we've seen a whole new plethora of new renewable fuels coming forward, like hydrotreated vegetable oil. there are, you know, technologies where you can basically do pyrolysis on tyres and use that as an alternative fuel. there are technologies like methane capture that are coming forward quite quickly. and what we need to be doing is using many of those other technologies to get there, not trying to constrain ourselves to particular technologies, and then thinking that some kind of strategy . strategy. >> well, let me test you then, quick answers please. is the labour policy too fast, i don't think it'll be very different to what rishi sunak's done in that the one thing they've said

they'll change is that they'll bnng they'll change is that they'll bring forward the ban on fossil fuel cars, diesel and petrol cars to 2030. they almost certainly won't be able to do that, so they'll have to move it back again. >> and they're going to hurry the north sea more, aren't they? they're going to tax the north sea more. they're probably going to depress north sea production , to depress north sea production, i the big problem. >> so it sounds like you're in favour of labour's policy. >> no no no no no no no no no. definitely not. i mean i supported rishi sunak's change has gone far enough with his changes. i think he's got it right. yes. he's got the balance right. yes. he's got the balance right in that we are still committed to net zero by 2050, but we're making space for other technologies to come through. and so do you think for automotive, we're not going faster than the rest of the world. it made no sense for the uk to ban diesel and petrol cars in 2030 when the us, japan and europe weren't going to do so until 2035. and so indeed, indeed indeed, alignment was the right thing to do. >> has reform got it wrong? >> has reform got it wrong? >> well, they've got it wrong because they're basically saying jettison the whole thing. and i think that's that's wrong. so it's legitimate to say i wonder whether they've got it wrong politically. >> i wonder where the votes are.

>> i wonder where the votes are. >> well, there will be votes in what they're saying. yes, because there are people that are very sceptical about climate change or don't think we should be spending money on it. but i also think you need to do the right thing in these situations. and the right thing to do, in my view, is to stick to that 2050 target but recalibrate the road map to it and make sure you leave enough time and space for new technologies to come through. >> george eustice, thank you very much indeed for spending your tuesday evening here with me on tv news. coming up, we'll be discussing this evening's seven way leaders debate. who out on top? you can find out on top? you can find out after

break. hi. welcome back to state of the nation. i'm michael portillo, or at least i used to be. you've been getting in touch with your views. tim says the uk contributes 1% of global emissions. if our island sank into the sea tomorrow, it would make no difference to climate change and ava says we should

not sign up to net zero. all countries should have signed up to reducing 10% of current output per year. we would then be able to show we were leading without bankrupting ourselves . without bankrupting ourselves. so those two views, not necessarily representative, would please the reform party . would please the reform party. well, representatives from the seven main parties have been going head to head again this evening. tonight's debate has focused solely on the issues of immigration and law and order. let's have a look at a highlight i >> -- >> rape sentences have gone up from six and a half years under labour to about ten years now, and we have legislated to make sure to richard's point, that people who are convicted of rape are not automatically released at the half way point, as they were previously. >> labour shockingly voted against that measure during the passage of the police crime sentencing bill. >> how astonishing chris stands there when 97 of every 100 reported rapes in this country today , absolutely nothing will today, absolutely nothing will happen. and he talks about early

release. chris and his government are presiding over people being released 70 days early , a number of whom posed early, a number of whom posed a threat to the public. i mean, come on, chris, you should be apologising to this audience, not boasting . not boasting. >> well, i'm joined again by my panel pr consultant and former labour aide, stella and chief political correspondent of the times, aubrey allegretti stella. there we saw nick thomas—symonds , responding to chris philp, in your view , who had the better of your view, who had the better of that particular exchange? >> oh, of course, of course, the labour party has a much better position on this because the, the truth of the matter is that the truth of the matter is that the labour party has not been in government for the 15 years, so they have not presided over rapists and criminals and murderers being released early. and they also haven't presided over the complete and total failure of this government to build more prisons, which is one of the most important things that the labour party needs to

do, not just build more prisons, but planning reform more generally. i know it's boring, but clearly on every single issue, how can you be making promises about locking up criminals when you don't have anywhere to put them ? anywhere to put them? >> aubrey it was. i thought it was difficult position for chris philp there. i mean, he was talking about the rate of conviction, but of course it is the case that the government is having to let people out of prison because the prison estate isn't big enough. >> absolutely right. and, sort of law and order, crime and justice areas where the conservative party was traditionally much more trusted. it has lost that trust from voters, and it's much harder to regain it than it is to lose it. so i suspect the labour representative there, nick thomas—symonds, will be very happy that they're talking about the conservatives record. chris philp determined to try and turn the tables and talk about what life was like under labour pre 2010, but i think most people just think that there is enough distance now between 2010 that it's sort of nonsense for the conservatives to keep pointing back to that point and argue that things were worse then. i

think people just think it is worth letting the other side having a go earlier in the hour , having a go earlier in the hour, polly broke the news that at least 750 small boat migrants arrived in the uk waters . arrived in the uk waters. >> today. that takes the total number of migrants who have crossed this year to almost 12,200. stella . more bad news 12,200. stella. more bad news for the government, so you might rejoice in that. but all parties, when they were asked the other day in the in the debate, sorry, all major parties in england and wales i think now have to refine that again. labour conservative and liberal democrat all agree that migration should be reduced. how are you going to convince people that you're going to reduce migration? i mean, how is the labour party going to do that? >> yeah. >> yeah. >> so polls have already shown that people trust the labour party more with reducing migration than the conservatives. obviously but are they right to but are they right to. that's a very good question. i think they are right to i think that i think there are a lot of levers that the government has not, has not yet used, which the labour party will be doing . i think there is

will be doing. i think there is a difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration. personally, i hope that there is going to be a sensible plan and not something like what the reform party suggested, where they want to go for net zero immigration, because i don't think we are net zero migration. sorry, because i don't think the country is there. it's going to be economic hardship if that happens. and i think that you know, voters may want to have lower immigration, but they also want to have an economy that grows and they want to have prices that are stable and sometimes you can't have both things at the same time . both things at the same time. >> yes. i, immigration seems to be a pretty big issue. i'm not sure how far labour has got with convincing people that it would do better, but anyway, people appear to be pretty fed up with the conservatives about their failure to deliver on their promises. now just changing the subject a bit. this morning, sir keir starmer faced questioning from the british public on lbc, including a challenge from a headteacher of a special education needs school. she pointed out that 30% of her students don't have an educational health care plan, which would exempt them from labour's proposed vat charge on the school fees. and so they

would be forced into the state sector, where their needs cannot presently be met. and sir keir seemed to stumble in his response. >> just give some numbers for i get michelle back in the number of pupils receiving at send schools, 7600 pupils at private schools, 7600 pupils at private schools get send support with ghc 103,000. d0 schools get send support with ghc 103,000. do not secure. that's 7600 will be catered for . that's 7600 will be catered for. 103,000 will not. what does labour plan to do about that ? labour plan to do about that? >> well, nick, we've you know where there is a plan in place. we will, put the exemption in place whether where there isn't a plan, then that exemption doesn't apply . doesn't apply. >> not a not a thoroughly convincing answer and rather had the feel of a policy for the few, not the many. if nick ferrari has his figures there. right. i'm slightly surprised about this pickle that starmer is in. i'd heard him otherwise say , saying to the public, we

say, saying to the public, we know that some of you are going to lose out on this policy, putting vat on on private school fees. but we've thought it through. we're doing something with the money and i feel comfortable with my position, he didn't look very comfortable with his position there. >> i think it was quite a difficult performance for him, particularly because before that clip there was the headteacher or i think the deputy head who had asked the question in a really sort of open ended way, saying, how are you going to support these potentially 90,000 pupils who have sen needs ? but pupils who have sen needs? but we can't sort of do anything for them through this plan. they're going to be impacted by the vat rise . and when he gave that rise. and when he gave that answer, she then came back with this quite withering assessment of saying, actually, i don't think you've thought this through properly enough. i suspect it's probably one of those things where if labour gets into government, as it's sort of predicted to do, that the civil service will then go through with a fine tooth comb and say, well, you're going to have issues here. and the departments will sort of compete over the policy and say, you haven't thought about this. so it's probably a party policy

which again, when it meets reality and labour gets into whitehall , the civil servants whitehall, the civil servants will probably try to unpick stowlawn. >> it strikes me as quite a pickle because i mean, either 100,000 people are going to have vat applied to their fees. 100,000 people are going to have vat applied to their fees . and vat applied to their fees. and remember, we're talking about special educational needs schools or the labour party is going to have to revise the policy when it gets into government, which means that a great chunk of the money that it claims is going to be raised is not going to be raised. >> why in these countries, it's so hard to get the upper middle class and people who have disposable income to pay for everything, for anything at all whatsoever . and whenever the whatsoever. and whenever the lower middle class has to pay for anything, or the working class has to pay for everything, you never hear of it. you know why? because they are not in the media. but i am here. i went to a private school, by the way, and i'm very passionate about the fact that private school, the fact that private school, the vat exemption, needs to be lifted. now about the specific scenario with keir starmer . what scenario with keir starmer. what you should have said is that if they don't have a plan, they should apply for one, because if their kids have special education. so for example, if they have autism or something like that, they should apply for a plan. >> my goodness, you are a

toughie. so you think the leader of the labour party should have said, don't tell him that. >> please keep me in the labour party. >> do you think he should have said to the head teacher, well, jon rahm will get the parents to apply. >> broadcasting is a very difficult thing to do. i would definitely not suggest that i'm a better media performer than keir starmer, but you are asking me what he should have said, and i'm telling you right now, like he's probably more tired than i am. he's has a busier schedule, so i'm going to tell you if there are times i wish he had said that because i think we'd have big headlines tonight. it's a very small number of kids that we're talking about and even and even smaller numbers still that will not be able to get a plan. and why would they not be able to get a plan if they're in a special education? i'm not quite sure because i'm, i'm well aware of their of the limitations of the of the education system and how overburdened state schools are not quite sure is the summary, isn't it? >> starmer is not quite sure. he's come up with a policy about which he's not quite sure. >> no, i think he is quite sure. it's a policy that the labour party has been trailing for, for, for some time, i think i think what happened there is

that his empathy skills kicked in and he didn't want to be rude to the headteacher, and he didn't want to say something, you know, against against pass. because of course, i completely understand. it's a very difficult thing to tell to parents. look, i know you want to do the best for your kids. people get very emotional when it comes to their kids education, and i totally get that. >> despite your emotionality, unfortunately, we have to bring the discussion to an end. i thank you once again very much indeed. thank you once again very much indeed . stella and aubrey, indeed. stella and aubrey, coming up, are you sick of hideous concrete monstrosities replacing britain's old buildings? our next guest is on

welcome back to state of the nation. i'm michael portillo, the plan by marks and spencer to flatten its iconic flagship store in oxford street has infuriated some campaigners and members of the public. the retailer says that low footfall

and poor building quality require it to demolish the almost century old building, and to construct a super modern mixed use unit on the site. well what would that mean? here is what would that mean? here is what the building looks like today. traditional, perhaps a little worn, it extends into the building by the side. however, the m&s replacement proposal is the m&s replacement proposal is the kind of thing that the late, great robert hughes would have described as a peculiarly modernistic hell of repetition and loneliness. but the enterprising architects that create streets have drawn up a counter plan, and when that was put to a poll, 79% preferred this more traditional mock up with a paltry 17% supporting the modernist plan . so i'm joined in modernist plan. so i'm joined in the studio now by robert kwolek, who's the senior senior architectural designer at create streets . okay. in this case, streets. okay. in this case, you've been able to produce a

nice looking design which draws on the 1930 building, extends it down the street. i believe creates the same space that marks and spencer are looking for . and does it supposedly at for. and does it supposedly at the same cost . so big tick for the same cost. so big tick for that. however. i mean, is this a principle that could be more broadly rolled out? i'm thinking that if we ask the public what they like in buildings all the time, is there not a danger that we're drawn to sort of hideous pastiches? i, i think , of all pastiches? i, i think, of all those supermarkets who apparently have tried to make their buildings look traditional. they've given them sort of clock towers and arches, and they are pastiche and personally , i find them personally, i find them absolutely hideous as as do i does all quick correction there, because it's, it's not our design, the, the alternative proposal, but actually won by our friend francis terry, who's sort of the eminent classical architect, son of quinlan terry. oh, yes. and he's been working with us for about ten years on a variety of, of projects . and variety of, of projects. and yeah, we just thought we could

do an alternative which was which was quite a bit better. but to your question about, you know, sort of pastiche and is this applicable to other supermarkets ? i mean, it really supermarkets? i mean, it really depends on the context. something that we find with a lot of the visual preference surveys we do, and we do quite a lot of them. it's not not just the one that we did for marks and spencers is that people, it's not really so much about a particular style for, for most people, whether it's tradition or modernist, but really about having variety and a pattern sort of, complexity, symmetry and some of those same design principles can be applied to to, buildings of all different styles. normally it isn't. and normally you do kind of find that a supermarket will say, well, go and in hampshire they'll do something with sort of red clay tiles and, you know, call it contextual, but it's not, you know, everybody can see that it's cheap and that it's, it's it doesn't work, we just say really that some architecture is good and some is bad. i mean, there are some there are some buildings which

are absolutely modern and they are absolutely modern and they are brilliant. yeah and there are brilliant. yeah and there are some buildings which, you know, emulate the qualities of 100 years ago and are awful and, and unfortunately, like so many things in life, you know, there are people who are good at things. there are people who are bad at bad at things. is it any more complicated than that? >> well, in a lot of these buildings aren't even designed by architects . so, you know, i by architects. so, you know, i wouldn't put the blame squarely on architects. i mean, yes, i think architects are do take a lot of the blame, because a lot of these issues that we've been talking about are even even using methods like visual preference surveys are just not used by architects. often they have a dismissive attitude towards what members of the public, public believe and the preferences that they have. and i think that is a problem. and it's something that that we would hope to see architects changing. >> let's have a look. we've got some pictures of poundbury, which is what we used to call the prince of wales project. but now, of course, the king's, how do you feel about this? i mean, it's all on a very human scale

and there are gardens and so on, but can this be done for the same price as worse architecture? i mean, i assume that one of the reasons that many modern houses are ghastly is that every conceivable penny has been shaved off the price. >> absolutely. i'm. yes it's true that developers do work to make their homes as cheaply as they possibly can, using the same kind of standard house types across the entirety of the uk , something like poundbury, in uk, something like poundbury, in an ideal world, it wouldn't be a lot more. truth is that it was about 10 to 15% more expensive to construct than a standard development. however, because it is built to such a higher quality standard compared to even developments that are also in dorchester, it was also selling for about 20% more. so you do get far better value. and if you can include higher quality asks within say something like a design code, then actually that quality can come out of the land value. so actually it doesn't mean that

the homes have to sell for more. it just means say that developers will pay less for the land because they know they have to put more money into quality . to put more money into quality. >> one thing of which i have no doubt at all, is that we are affected by the quality of the buildings around us. the good buildings around us. the good buildings raise our morale. thank you very much indeed, robert, that's all from me. but coming up next, we've got patrick christys, patrick, are you there? you are indeed. and can you tell us what's on your bill of fare this evening? >> well, i must say, michael, i've thoroughly enjoyed this show, so thank you very, very much, but we told you about it yesterday. we warned everyone about it yesterday. and now it's happening a record day. the first of, i suspect, many record days in quick succession in the channel. we're going to be giving you the inside track on that. why is rishi sunak not bringing up keir starmer support for blm ? shamima begum, foreign for blm? shamima begum, foreign criminals staying in britain and why is he not going after sir ed davey as well? on the lib dem leader i've got a very angry postmistress on as that could be interesting . and there's been interesting. and there's been a major breakthrough in the mysterious mh370 missing plane saga. have they finally cracked

the case? >> that is a thoroughly interesting agenda, and i'm most interested that you're talking about ed davey and the post office. that is something that is a dog that has scarcely barked a while. he's been falling into water all over the country. well, patrick christys next, i'll be back tomorrow at 8:00. this is michael portillo. this has been state of the nation. >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on . gb news. >> good evening. welcome to your latest gb news weather update. it's staying fairly dry and fine as we head into wednesday. sunny spells for many of us. another dry day on the cards. however, across the far northwest there are weather fronts approaching, but for many of us, we've got high pressure dominating across the uk and that's bringing all that dry and fine weather through this evening, though there's a risk of some heavy showers still continuing for

some northern areas of england. but elsewhere a dry and clear night to come. for many of us, we will see the clearest skies across the far northwest of scotland and northern ireland, two where temperatures could dip down into the low single figures . but for most of us to start the day, we'll be at around 10 or 11 degrees, a little bit fresher tomorrow morning than this morning, but still plenty of sunshine around. let's take a closer look at how things look. first thing tomorrow. and actually where it's been quite cloudy across the far north of scotland lately. it's going to be a much brighter start tomorrow, despite the chillier feel, and that sunshine will be spread quite widely across the uk into northern ireland, northern areas of england, north wales. there'll be some cloud around here and there, but generally wednesday is going to be a fairly fine day and actually an onshore breeze across the far southeast could bnng across the far southeast could bring a slightly fresher feel here. but for most of us, plenty of sunshine to come through tomorrow. sunny spells into the afternoon cloud will bubble up a little bit. that may allow the odd shower to break out here and there, perhaps across the south—west, but i think you'll be pretty unlucky to get caught

out in a shower. however, a different story for the far northwest of scotland, into the western isles and the highlands, where a weather front is approaching now in the sunshine. highs of around 23 degrees to come in the southeast, but widely into the high teens. for many of us, thursday is looking like another dry and bright day for the bulk of the uk. temperatures climbing towards 24, possibly 25 degrees on thursday . but weather fronts thursday. but weather fronts never too far away from the far northwest , which never too far away from the far northwest, which means it will be a little bit cloudier with a risk of rain here. but actually the further south and east you are, the more likely you are to see more in the way of sunshine and temperatures. climbing by by looks like things are heating up boxt boilers spot of weather

gb news. >> in a moment. headliners. but first, let's bring you up to date with the latest news

headlines. and today has been a record day for migrants crossing the english channel in small boats . gb news can reveal that boats. gb news can reveal that at least 750 illegal migrants arrived in uk waters today, surpassing the previous one day record of 711 on may the 1st. that means more than 41,000 migrants have now made the crossing since rishi sunak promised to end the crisis in january last year. that comes as an election debate program tonight took place with seven representatives from the main political parties on channel 4. reform uk's chairman richard tice addressed the record number of small boat crossings to pick people up out of the boats and take them back to france . take them back to france. >> that will stop the deaths. that's the compassionate thing to do that will stop the illegal trade. under the 1982 un convention of law at sea, france has international obligations in order to pick people up and take back their failing in those obugafions. back their failing in those obligations . we're entitled to obligations. we're entitled to do that. that's the kind thing to do. it will stop people

dying. >> richard tice will nigel farage says he'd abolished the tv licence fee, which funds the bbc. the reform uk leader was speaking during a town hall style event this afternoon. it comes as the bbc said it would allow reform to take part in an extra question time leaders special after mr farage's team complained that they hadn't been included . the prime minister has included. the prime minister has said it's his moral mission to cut taxes, as he continues to criticise labour's tax plans. rishi sunak made his comments ahead of official figures on inflation due to be released tomorrow. the tories said they were launching their plan to cut taxes tomorrow, pointing to their manifesto promises of tax cuts worth over £17 billion. meanwhile, labour said today it's going to bring back face to face banking to britain's high streets, with plans to open 350 new banking hubs in towns and villages that would see staff

from several banks sharing