Good morning. Good morning, and thank you for coming. Today, I want to dispel two of the biggest myths in British politics. Firstly, that our economy is doing worse than other similar countries. Secondly, that there's not much difference between the economic policies of the two main parties. Since 2010, the UK economy has faced not one but three massive external shocks, dealing with the consequences of the financial crisis, a once-in-a-century pandemic, and a 1970s-style energy shock caused by the invasion of Ukraine. Each time, conservative governments have done what people elect conservative governments to do, to take the tough and difficult decisions necessary to put the economy back on its feet. Indeed, that is exactly what Rishi Sunak and I have done since taking office just over 18 months ago. Back then, inflation was over 11%. The Bank of England said we faced the longest recession in a century. The OBR said we would see the biggest fall in living standards on record. Families were worried about their future. But what actually happened? Inflation has fallen to just 3.2% and is expected to fall further next week. According to the OMS last week, the UK economy has not just exited a technical recession, but is now growing faster than any large European country, faster even than the United States.

In other words, working with the Bank of England, we have delivered the soft landing many thought impossible. To point out, as the Labor Party do, that living standards have fallen this Parliament without mentioning the pandemic or the energy crisis is taking everyone for foules. In fact, a conservative government protected living standards with an unprecedented £3,200 in cost of living support for the average family. As a result, in the last year, living standards grew by 1.3%, despite the OBR predicting they would fall by more than double that amount. Real wages have gone up for 10 months in a row, giving families confidence that we are winning the battle against inflation. Even more significantly, we have used the last 18 months to take profoundly important decisions for the future of the economy, tackling labor shortages for companies wanting to expand with childcare reforms, pension tax changes, and welfare reforms, tackling our productivity gap with the most generous investment allowances of any developed country, something the CBI called a game changer that will fire up the British economy, unblocking delays to infrastructure projects with planning reform, boosting clean energy projects by speeding up access to the national grid and securing more capital for growth industries with the mansion house reforms which back our technology sector, now double the size of Germany's and three times the size of France's.

But it isn't just what the Prime Minister and I have done over the last year. Over the last 14 years, our conservative predecessors have taken equally difficult decisions. Today, we can see the results. 4 million more jobs, more new jobs than nearly anywhere else in Europe. Indeed, around 800 more jobs for every single day, conservative governments have been in office. More greenfield, foreign direct investment than anywhere in the world, except the United States and China. Faster growth than any large European economy, or indeed, Japan, and the IMF predicting that we will continue to grow faster than any of those countries over the next six years. Has that growth been lower than more benign periods when we haven't had similar international shocks? Of course. But has that growth been higher than it would have been without conservative governments prepared to take difficult decisions to put the economy back on its feet after those shocks? Of course, again. And that is why the record of the last 14 years, more jobs, more investment, and more growth than our neighbors, demonstrates that we have rewarded the trust of people who vote conservative because they trust us to do the right thing on the economy.

But this is an election year. People won't just make a judgment about our record, they make a choice about the future. Naturally, faced with that economic record, it suits labor to say they won't be making any big changes to conservative economic policy. But it's also a myth, indeed, the second big myth in British politics today. Because when it comes to labor policies on jobs, welfare reform and tax, the difference, if they are elected, will be profound and damaging for every family in the country. Let's start with jobs. The President of the CBI described the UK as a job-creating factory. That's because over the last 14 years, we have painstakingly built one of the most flexible labor markets in Europe. But Angela Reina wants 70 new burdens on employers, which would turn that job-creating factory into a French-style inflexible labor market. Now, it may sound good to offer full employment rights from day one, and certainly, it pleases the unions. But if the impact is fewer new jobs, then the impact on young people and families up and down the country will be an unmitigated tragedy. Unemployment in France is nearly double the UK. Indeed, it's not far off where it was under the last labor government here.

We must not turn the clock back. On welfare reform, labor has said they are against sanctions. That will mean more people on our welfare roles, not less. But Conservatives know that if businesses are going to find the workers they need without depending on unlimited migration, we need to move people off welfare into work. Melstride's welfare reforms will help 1 million people do just that at a cost of £2.5 billion. The OBR say the impact will be to reduce the flow of people signed off work and not having to look for work by two-thirds. A quiet revolution that will make sure those who can work, do work, and we give help where it's needed. Labor doesn't want to talk about these decisions because they would duck them. But Conservatives know it is simply not possible to grow the economy without a plan for where additional workers will come from, and we have that plan. The final area of substantive difference between the parties is tax. In her May's lecture, the Shadow Chancellor spoke for an hour, 8,500 words. Not once did she mention reducing the tax burden. But Conservatives look around the world. We notice that the lower taxed economies of North America and Asia generally grow faster than the higher taxed economies of Europe.

Labor like to criticize recent tax rises, thinking people don't know what caused them, the furlough scheme, the energy price guarantee, and billions of pounds in cost of living support. But Labor supported those policies, which is why it is playground politics to use those tax rises to distract debate from the biggest divide in British politics today, what happens to the tax burden next. Because Conservatives recognize that whilst those tax rises may have been necessary, they should not be permanent. Labor do not. We are prepared to do the hard work to bring taxes back down because we know that doing so will lead to more growth for the economy, more prosperity for British families. That's why we've taken four pence off employees' national insurance, saving the average person in work £900 this year. That is a vital relief for families after a cost-of-living squeeze, but it will also grow the economy. The OBR say the cuts in employee national insurance will lead to the equivalent of 200,000 more people in work, filling nearly a quarter of vacancies in the economy. Making work pay makes the economy work, too. As a result of these changes, since 2010, the effective tax paid by someone on an average salary has fallen under conservative governments from 24% to 19%.

Combined with increases to the national living wage, that means the The undertax income of someone on the lowest legally payable wage has gone up by 35%, and we're not stopping there. If we can afford to go further responsibly to reduce the double tax on work this autumn, That is what I will do. Because over time, we make no apology for wanting to keep cutting the double tax on work until it's gone, but only when we could do so without increasing borrowing and without cutting funding for public services or pensions. Labour's approach is different. Every single Labor government since the 1970s has increased the tax burden. As we know, global shocks have sometimes forced conservative governments to do the same as I did in the autumn statement of '22. But conservative governments never do so by choice, and we've never accepted such decisions need to be permanent. That is why since that autumn statement, decisions in my fiscal events have reduced the tax burden by nearly 1% of GDP compared to what it would have been. Labor makes a different choice. For them, higher tax is a means to a progressive end. Today, we produce the evidence that taxes would go up under a future Labor government.

We are publishing 50 new official costings of announced labor policies that show their commitments cost a total of £59 billion over the next four years. That's not even an exhaustive list of their commitments, just the ones they've talked about most visibly. Given their fiscal rules, the only way to pay for such huge spending commitments is to raise taxes by considerably more than the £20 billion of tax increases they have already outlined. In fact, the gap between what they will spend and what they will raise, according to these independent official costings, is £38 billion £2,100 per working household. Kierstam's first step will not be the motherhood and apple pie we heard yesterday, but to help himself to you and your family's wallets. Crucially, in the final year of this forecast, labor would need to raise taxes by more than £10 billion or break their fiscal rules. That is the equivalent of two pence on Employee National Insurance, the very two pence they refuse to vote for after the spring budget. Now, they may hope people won't notice. They may try to distract people by claiming the government has its own black hole of £46 billion as a result of our ambition to abolish Employee National Insurance over time.

But this is nonsense, as even Thorsten Bell at the Resolution Foundation has said. Because unlike labour's commitments, which are for the next parliament, our ambition has no time commitment because we've been explicit that we will only deliver it when it can be afforded. It will come through growth in the economy and not by increasing borrowing or cutting spending. It is frankly disgusting to try to scare pensioners by misrepresenting that policy, but it won't fool anyone. With 38 billion pounds, of unfunded spending pledges in the next parliament, taxes will go up under any future labor government as sure as night follows day. But taxes will go down under a conservative government because we will do the hard work necessary to keep our economy competitive. So my challenge to the Labor Party today is simple. You refuse to vote for the national insurance cuts in the budget, so come clean with the British people. Are you planning to reverse them? And if not, which other taxes will you put up to pay for your 38 billion pound black hole? Because on tax, jobs, and welfare reform, there It's not just clear blue water between the parties. There is deep blue water, an ocean of deep blue water.

That is the difference between more jobs or fewer jobs, more people on welfare or fewer, tax cuts or tax rises, more growth or less growth. In short, a prosperous future or a poorer one. Thank you. I'm happy to take questions. We're going to start with the great Chris Hope. Charles, thank you for taking GP news as a question. You say you want to cut taxes. You've been saying that for months, but you have cut national insurance twice, £900 off the average person tax bill, but you've frozen tax thresholds and the polls aren't shifting. Why not? Is it you, your party, the country wants to change, possibly? Secondly, do you want a second budget, pre-election to cut taxes? It is not a great insight, with greater respect to you, Chris, to say that putting up taxes, as I had to do in the autumn statement in '22, is not popular, but it was the right thing to do for the economy. We We can see today when the IMF are saying that our economy will grow faster than any major European country over the next six years, that those decisions have been the right ones. They paid off, and that's why we took them.

But now we're in an election year, and if people are worried about tax, then I would just say one very simple thing. There is a choice. The Labor Party does not want, and a future Labor government does not want to cut the tax burden. A future conservative government will. That is the big choice in British politics. Our argument is this isn't just about family budgets. We understand how important those are when it comes to cost of living pressures. Our argument is this is about the future growth of the economy, because we can see looking around the world that more lightly taxed economies have more dynamic private sectors, they grow faster, and in the end, that is more money for precious public services like the NHS. Second budget. I'm going to go on to Sam Lister. Where's Sam? Thank you. You're doing. Thank you, Chancellor. Pensioners are angry that they're being dragged into paying income tax. When are you going to look at the threshold. Also, you talked about the ONS, talking about the economy getting gangbusters, inflation is about to fall. At this point in time, would you say that the UK's economic woes are in the rear view mirror?

Well, when it comes to pensioners, I think there could not be a more stark choice when you look at the record of the two parties. The conservative Party introduced the triple lock. We have seen as a result of that, the state pension go up by £3,700 since 2010. The Labor Party increased pension taxes by £118 billion, taking money off every single pensioner in the country. What I say to pensioners as is we've cut national insurance this year. For people in work, that will mean a £900 reduction over the course of the year. At the same time, because of the triple up, we've increased the state pension by £900 this year. If we're going to continue to afford to be generous to pensioners, as I think we need to be, because I believe in that as a conservative, we should reward people who've worked hard all their lives, then we need to take the measures that will grow the economy, getting more people into work as these national insurance cuts to grows the economy. That means we'll have more for the NHS, which is used for pensioners, and more for state pensions. The economic woes in the rear view mirror.

What, you're saying I'm... That's what I'm- I'm asking. Yes. Well, look, the truth is that I do think we have turned a corner. Of course, it's going to take time for that to feed through into how people feel. But In a general election, people are very smart about making the choice that is the right choice for their family going forward. If you look at a combination of our record, more investment, more jobs, more growth than nearly anywhere else in Europe, combined with the IMF saying, We're going to grow faster than anywhere else in Europe. We have now the fastest-growing sector, the technology sector, we're the third biggest in the world. People can see that conservative governments have done the It's the right thing to create growth that means that families will be more prosperous going forward. Jason from the Mail. Thanks, Chancellor. Just to go back to Sam's point, the gap between the state pension and the personal allowance is now about £1,000. It's due to get smaller every year. Can you rule out the basic state pension ever being taxed? On your big headline, it feels like we're in an election campaign now.

You've politely Can you call labour's plans a myth. You're accusing them of lying about their plans, aren't you? Well, calling them a myth is about as rude as I get, Jason. But frankly, it is a lie. I don't make any bones about it. It is fake news, and it is an absolute disgrace to try and win this election by scaring pensioners about a policy that is not true. When it comes to taxes on pensioners, I would just say to every pensioner in the country, which is the party in British politics that wants to bring down the taxes that you and everyone else pays, and which is the party that we know will increase them? Today, we have produced costings. These are very significant costings. They are done by treasury officials. They demonstrate that labour's policies will cost £10 billion a year more by the end of the next parliament. Labor will try and say that our policies are a little bit different in this respect and a little bit different in that respect, and therefore, you can't believe these numbers. But we have taken these numbers from what the Labor Party themselves have said. We have been extremely cautious.

I mean, independent think tanks think that the Green Prosperity Plan will cost over £100 billion. Labor themselves said a few months ago it would cost £28 billion a year. They're now saying it's going to cost £24 billion over the next parliament. No one actually believes that number, but that is the number that we have taken in these costings. We've been extremely cautious about the numbers that we've taken. Even on that most cautious reading of these Labor numbers, they are going to have a 38 billion pound black hole. These are done by the same Treasury officials that would advise a labor government if they win the next election. If they get into power, treasury officials will look at what they've said, just as we have done, and they will come to these same costings because it's going to be the same people who would be advising them, and they will say, How are you going to fill this black hole? To anyone who's worried about tax, whether a pensioner or anyone else, I would say the only answer to that question is that the Labor government would increase taxes as night follows day, and the Labor government will do the hard work to make sure that we don't have to do that.

Harry from ITV.

Thank you, Chancellor. You paint a rosy picture there of the way the economy is improving. But you know that labour's argument at the election will be that people don't feel it and that living standards have fallen since your party got into power in 2010. Then you'll talk about COVID and Ukraine, but in 2019, living standards were falling. Why should the public trust your party to improve living standards, given your record over the last 14 years? Just secondly, you talked about deep blue water. A question on water. People in the southwest are drinking unsafe water. We've seen sewage pumped into seas and lakes and rivers. Do you accept that your party has failed to ensure that the public have a clean, safe water system?

Well, first of all, living standards have risen since 2010 by £1,700 in real terms for the average family in the country. In fact, our GDP per head in real terms, which is the economic indicator most closely linked to living standards, not GDP, but GDP per head, has gone up by 13% over that period. But I'm very open, and I said this morning, Over this Parliament, yes, living standards have fallen because we had a pandemic and a global energy crisis That is two massive global shocks, the like of which we have never seen in a parliament before, two huge shocks in one parliament. What British people know, what British families know, is that conservative governments faced with those shocks don't duck the difficult decisions necessary, as Gordon Brown did in the run-up to the 2010 election when he left a government with no money and a conservative government had to pick up the pieces. We take those difficult decisions governments. I would challenge your suggestion that I'm painting a rosy picture. I'm painting a brutally realistic picture. It has been very, very tough. But that is why people choose conservative governments, because we take the tough decisions that are necessary.

Today, with the economy having got through a shallow recession rather than the deepest recession in 100 years, as the Bank of England predicted, and we've predicted to grow faster than any of our major European competitors, we can see that that has paid off. When it comes to water companies, I have the misfortune to represent constituents, as does Angela Richardson here, who have been treated lousily by Thameswater, and I'm very familiar with these problems. What I would say is that, again, the difficult decision we are taking as a government is to require water companies to invest more in their network than they have ever done before. In fact, nearly £100 billion of operating expenditure predicted for the next five years. The only company that has more leaks than Thameswater, which represents my constituency, is Scottishwater, which was not privatized. So. To talk about this as a privatization issue is a red herring. The question is how we get the best investment in the water network going forward, and that is what we're seeing because of government policy. Ryan from the Sun. Thank you, Chancellor. You talk about labour's tax rights, but could you level with motorists today?

Will you promise to keep fuel duty frozen for the next five years? What's also your position on the temporary 5P cut? What would you do with that? Well, obviously, I can't predict decisions that I will make in future fiscal events now. But if you look at our record, we are very clear that we understand that the cost of petrol is something that really matters to families. That's why the decisions I took in the budget will save the average family about 50 quid from their fuel bill this year. A very significant decision, even in very straightened financial circumstances. We recognize those pressures, and we also recognize that understanding the needs of motorists is also very important for overall economic growth and indeed tackling inflation. Steve from the Times. You made a broad commitment to cut taxes if you win the general election. Can you be explicit and level with us today that you will end stealth taxes, that you will bring them back into line and start increasing the income tax thresholds again? I I can't today tell you what will be in the conservative manifesto for the next parliament. But what I can do is make a very clear argument that we will bring down taxes, and I can do so with credibility because that is already what we have been doing.

Employees' National Insurance is the most economically damaging tax, and by cutting it, we are helping to grow the economy the most. That's not just our view as Conservatives. This is what the Independent Office for Budget Responsibilities say in their analysis. On the other hand, the choice this year is a Labor Party that has got £38 billion of unfunded spending commitments That can only mean that they will increase taxes. I want to stress again because you're going to go through the document that we've given you this morning, and Labor will say, You can't believe this number, you can't believe that number. The numbers we've chosen are the most cautious end of the spectrum. For example, one of labour's pledges is 8,500 more mental health professionals. Treasury costing say that in the final year of the next parliament, that will cost between £542 million and £642 million. We haven't taken the 642 million pounds. We haven't taken the midpoint. We've taken the lowest estimate, £542 million. But we want to make the argument that even at the most cautious assumptions possible. It is not possible for labor to fill this blackout other than by increasing taxes. That is what a future labor government would do.

Who have we got? Tim from the Telegraph. Thank you. Thanks, Chancellor. The OBL says the tax burden overall is going to keep on going up. When will that change around? Secondly, how comfortable are you with the prospect of a foreign owner for Royal Mail? Well, I'll take the second one first. As a rule, we welcome international investment in British companies, and we think that one of the reasons that we've attracted more greenfield foreign direct investment that anywhere in the world, apart from the United States and China, is because of our openness to companies from overseas and to the additional, not just the capital they bring in, but also the expertise and the funding, and so we will continue with that approach. But we do always look at national security considerations and make sure that in terms of our core infrastructure, there are no risks to those going forward, and any bid for Royal Mail would go through that normal process. In terms of the tax burden, I'm very transparent in the words I've just given that I took decisions in the autumn of '22 to increase taxes in order to pay for £400 billion of support during the pandemic and the energy crisis, and that was the right thing to do.

That isn't the debate in British politics, because no other party is planning to remove those tax increases. In fact, it was supported right the way across the political spectrum. The question is, which party is prepared to do the hard work to bring down taxes going forward? In the fiscal events that I've done since then, two budgets and a further autumn statement, I have reduced taxes by nearly 1% of GDP compared to what they would have been. That demonstrates that it isn't just words, it's actions Conservatives will do the hard work to bring down the tax burden. Under a labor government, taxes will go up. George. Hi. Yes.

Thank you, Chancellor. To get taxes down, you obviously need increase growth.

Can I ask you two specific questions on growth?

One, do you think it's a good idea to restrict the number of foreign students coming to UK universities in that context? The second one, a relation to financial services, which I think you see as an engine for future growth. You passed a law requiring regulators to make growth and competitive an objective.

It doesn't seem to be working according to many of the people we speak to, and I think you probably share some of that frustration.

Do you think you need to revisit that law and that framework?

So Two very good questions. First of all, on international students, we have no limit on the number of international students that universities are allowed to recruit. We have, outside the United States, the most respected universities in the world, and international students bring in very important funding for that. But we have rightly introduced some changes that ensure that people are coming to this country because they want to study as some of the brightest and best from around the world, not as a vehicle which is primarily to bring their families over and to settle in the UK, which is not the purpose of the exercise. I think we will see some reductions in migration flows as a result of those decisions we've taken. But that doesn't mean that we won't continue to support sustainable increases in international students coming to the UK. The second question was about the growth duty on regulators. Actually, I think we are already seeing some really important changes as a result of that. The FCA are consulting on changing the listings rules and the prospectus rules for companies that want to list on the London stock market. They will make our rules every bit as competitive as Nasdaq.

I'm very confident that we will reverse some of the trends that we've been seeing in recent years and turn London into a European European hub for global tech stocks, and I very much hope we'll start to see some giant trillion dollar British energy, British tech stocks listed here in London as a result of that. But There is a need for culture change, too. Sometimes the biggest changes you make in politics aren't when you change the laws, but when you change people's minds and when you change people's mindsets. I don't pretend that it may take a while before that culture change feeds its way through all our regulators. Nick from the BBC. Thank you, Chancellor. Can I push you a bit more on stealth taxes? If you win the election, will you unfreeze the thresholds on income tax early?

And if you do, will they go up by enough to bridge the gap that people are now facing as a result of your policies?

nick, I would challenge the phrase stealth taxes. That suggests a tax that we're not open about, we're not talking about. We've been completely open about the fact that I had to put up taxes by £20 billion a year in the autumn statement of '22. I think it's very important that people understand that we did that because we had an extraordinary situation, the like of which we've never seen before in our lifetimes, two global shocks in quick succession. Because we took the It's a difficult decision to spend money in those global shocks to protect businesses with a furlough scheme, to protect families through a cost of living crisis, we actually see an economy now that has avoided what the Bank of England thought we were going to see, the longest recession in 100 years. We've actually seen living standards go up since then, not go down. Indeed, why do people care about the burden of tax? It's because the pressures on family finances and because of those difficult decisions, real wages, that is, wages That is, wages, even accounting for the rise in prices, have been going up now for nearly a year. We've taken those difficult decisions and been completely open about that.

But having raised taxes in a general election year, the choice is, do you want to bring them down again? A Labor Party has made it very clear that in government, they would not do that. A conservative government will, and we're prepared to do the hard work. I just want to make one final point about the costings that we've given you today, nick, which is it is quite important to say that we haven't included all labour's announced policies. We've been very strict about the policy. For example, they've said they have an aspiration to increase defense spending to 2.5% of GDP. Personally, I think it is an absolute scandal that they are not matching our commitment to increase defense spending when you see what's in the headlines about Ukraine today. But we have not included that aspiration to increase defense spending at all. There are plenty of other policies where labour's trying to give a nod and a wink to say, Don't worry, it'll be all right under labor, but they haven't made a firm commitment. They are not included. We've only included the firm commitments. Darren from sky.

Good morning, Chancellor. Politics is a funny old business in the sense that yesterday, you guys, the Conservatives, were accusing Keir Starmer of reneging on lots of pledges, and his responsibility was, Well, circumstances have changed over the last four years. Today, you're seeing a conservative government has had to raise taxes because circumstances have changed. Let's look to the future. You are standing here today saying taxes will fall under the conservative Party. Is this a cast iron guarantee? To put it another way, will you say, read my lips, taxes will fall under a conservative government, irrespective of the circumstances? Second of all, do you agree with Theresa Mays' assessment yesterday that Liz Liz Trust's government helped to undermine the public's confidence in conservative economic management?

Well, on that last point, mistakes were made, and the first thing I did as Chancellor was to reverse those mistakes, and I've been very open about that. To her credit, after appointing me as Chancellor, Liz Trust did not stand in my way at all. She told me very clearly I needed to do what I had to do, and I did. But if you're saying, Can I look into a crystal ball and predict what is going to happen in the world in the next 5 or 10 years and therefore give you a cast iron guarantee of when we will be able to reduce the tax burden and to what level? The answer is, of course, I can't, and it will be irresponsible to do so. That is why, by the way, our commitment to abolish the double tax on work, employees, national insurance, we haven't put a time limit on it because it will depend on factors that are beyond our control, such as the overall growth in the economy as to when we can afford it. But my commitment is that the tax burden will go down under a future conservative government. I can say very safely that if labor win the election because of this 38 billion pounds of unfunded spending pledges, taxes would go up under a future labor government.

I think that is very clear the document that you've received today. Now, anyone wants to do a bonus question? Yes.

Paul Montrana, channel 4 News. Thank you very much, Chancellor. Some keen observers on Twitter are very concerned about your inconsistent use of capital letters. T there, no capital for the R, so I'll leave that for you if you want to address that one.

Secondly, if I may, when asked who is more trusted on the economy, labor is now consistently ahead of you in the polls.

Are you concerned now that no matter what you say, events like this where you're not actually announcing anything, you're just landing blows on labor. Are you concerned that no one's actually listening anymore.

First of all, I will pass on the comments about punctuation because I think this morning has to be about substance. The big point you're making is that families have been really battered by the global shocks we've seen with the pandemic and the energy crisis, inflation at 11%. This has made life very difficult for families. Of course, In that situation, governments who take difficult decisions are not going to be popular. I am not surprised by some of the numbers we read about in the polls. When you look at the challenges that we faced and the difficulty of the decisions that we've been having to implement. But what I would say is that in an election, people don't just ask themselves how they feel. They ask themselves what is going to be the best going forward. I think you can see from the record, not just of myself and Rishi Sunak, but of conservative government since 2014, that even if you add to the two shocks we've had this Parliament, picking up the pieces from the financial crisis which was the thing that we had to do in 2010, a succession of conservative governments have left the UK as a country that has created more jobs, more foreign investment, a bigger technology sector than anywhere else or any other major European country.

And that is something that demonstrates that however choppy the economic weather, conservative governments can be trusted to take the right decisions. Thank you very much indeed.

For us on the problem.

Tax hikes to fund their spending pledges, hence the words behind him in that room saying labour's tax rises. Listening in with me is our political correspondent, Rob Powell. Rob, What do you make of it?

I find it a bit strange, to be honest, Hannah. For a start, it feels like that was a speech that would be given if there was a general election coming up in mid-June, in the same way that Kirstar's speech yesterday felt like it could be coming a month before a general election. I don't know if they'd booked the venue and then couldn't get the deposit back, so they decided to go with it anyway. Secondly, the choreography of it, the labour's tax rises branding all over the podium in the spots where you usually have some slogan laying out your own policies, They were clearly wanting to zero in on what they think Labor will do rather than what Labor has said they would do. Also, you had this strange spectacle as well of having Jeremy Hunt stood next to a sign saying labour's tax rises, saying the words, I had to put up taxes by £20 billion a year. So it was a piece of campaigning choreography. I'm not sure whether it works because I think people might just find it a little bit confusing.

Well, yeah, and he did say the reason that we've had to put up some taxes is because of the pandemic and because of supporting people with the energy price rises, didn't he? And he also said that the Tories would promise further tax cuts. But what about what he said about labor? He's saying that they were plotting tax hikes. Is that true?

What Jeremy Hunter and the Conservatives are doing, and we should say this is a political speech, so this was organized by the party. This is not a treasury-led Chancellor speech. They've commissioned 15 costing documents payments, which is something the government can do. They basically get civil servants to analyze figures for the opposition party's costings. They've done that for a number of labor policies, and they say that that shows that there is a big black hole in spending there, which they They can only be paid for in a small number of ways, one of which is tax rises. As a result of that, they say, Look, we think labor are going to put taxes up. Now, as it stands, labor haven't announced any tax rises outside of the more the limited ones of putting VAT on private school fees, expanding the energy windfall tax, and also scrapping non-DOM status as well. Tax rises that might prove fairly popular actually across the country. They are making a supposition based on an interpretation of some of the policies that Labor have laid out. Interestingly, as Jeremy Hunt got up there, a Labor press release dropped into our inbox, doing exactly the same thing, but for the Conservatives' promise or long-term aspiration to get rid of national insurance.

Labor have said they've used the same method that the government uses for opposition costings and done that to that pledge and have come up with, lo and behold, quite a similar result that it would mean taxes going up income tax, which would mean that pensioners pay more, which is why you had that quite uncharacteristically fierce and strident accusation from Jeremy Hunt that those accusations were fake news, were disgusting, and and were a lie as well. I think this really just feels like dress rehearsals on both sides of the political spectrum for the coming general election, and both sides sharpening their attack lines and their battle lines. Clearly, tax for the Conservatives is going to be one. Maybe the deeper question, though, is where the public are on tax rises. The tax cuts they've announced to national insurance don't seem to have shifted the dial. In a climate where public services seem to be in a difficult place, is pitching yourself as the tax-cutting party going to work, or actually, is the picture a little bit more nuanced, and would people be able to cope with taxes potentially going up or not coming down if it meant them getting a GP appointment or having more teachers in the schools?

Yeah, the detail polling on that would be really interesting, wouldn't it? We are going to hear a lot more about it before the election whenever that may be. Okay, Rob. Yes, exactly, Rob. Thanks very much indeed. Thank you. Let's take a quick look now at what the weather's up Well, the next few days will bring the risk of showers.