With the Shadow, her business, energy, and industrial strategy secretary, Jonathan Reynolds. Is turnout the only thing that could lose this election for you now?

Oh, come on, Les. No vote has been cast, really, or any degree in this election. You're smiling with confidence. I've never known an election where people start talking about the outcome as if it's pre-demand. It generally isn't the case. I mean, look, there's a lot at stake at this election. It's a really important moment. Does the country continue on the same path or have changed? Anyone from whatever outlook who thinks somehow this result is there or it's finished or any site is going to get a particular element of it. There's a lot to play for. It's a long way to go. I would simply ask if anybody wants change in this country, vote Labor, give Labor a mandate, but no one should think there's any outcome predetermined.

Let's talk a little bit about migration, if we can. We've been talking about it a lot on the show today with some amazing reporting from Stuart Ramsey. It's clearly a massive global problem. Do you think in In five years, it would be possible for labor to stop the boats, or is that an impossible task?

I think we can make a difference. I think you're right to say this is an incredibly significant issue. You see it manifested all around the world. But the question should be, do you want real measures to try and improve that situation, or are you for gimmicks? Now, there is simply no way any robust analysis of the Rwanda scheme from this government stacks up as a serious way to do it. Look at the number of places, even if they did everything they believe is possible. It wouldn't even touch the scale of the problem in terms of people coming to the UK. We think it needs a proper serious response. If you're going to spend money, it's a lot of resources gone into the Rwanda scheme already. You've got to do it on the things that would make a difference. That's real action against the criminal gangs behind that. It's not pretending to the British people. There's some magic solution that's at huge cost and simply won't deliver anything like has been promised.

Switching from illegal migration to legal immigration, we had some analysis from Ed Conway earlier as well, breaking down what made up the numbers in recent years. Clearly, the vast majority of it is people coming in to fill jobs, often in healthcare and social care. Is immigration wrongly become a dirty word? Is it not only a positive but necessary?

No, I don't think you can look at it in that binary way. I am really proud of people coming to the UK to make a contribution to our economy. I think you can recognize that and say immigration is really high. I mean, it's at record high levels. I think it's reasonable to still welcome and say that will always be a part of how we fill labor and skills shortages, but should it be the only way we do it? I think that's what the British people want to know. They'll welcome people coming to the UK, but they also want to know that we're doing proper things on skills and training. There are jobs that are on what we call the shortage occupation list, which have a preferential access for visas that have been on for decades. That isn't an emergency response to a problem in the labor market. We will always welcome people coming, but we think it's going to come down from these record highs. We've got a number of policies about linking the to the immigration system to the skills system, how we will change the apprenticeship levy that will do it. It's all about an economy that works better for all parts of the UK.

I think that's the right way to look at the particular issues around legal immigration.

Today, you wanted to talk about getting more banks physically back on the high street, bricks and mortars, stores, as it were. Why?

Well, look, how people feel about their high street and their town center, I think, is still a really important way in terms of how they relate to the way they live and the pride they have in that place. We've seen a lot of town centers in the UK be under a lot of pressure in the last few years. It's not about nostalgia for the past. Of course, people are shopping in different ways. But we do think access to cash deposits, particularly for smaller businesses, are important. That's why we're going to drive the roll out of what are called banking hubs. That's where all the banks come together to provide a physical premise on the high street. But it's just one element of a set of policies from labor, which is about growing the economy, an alternative to the chaos and stagnation of the last 14 years, which makes sure all parts of the country are benefiting from it, and people feel the benefits of that stronger economy.

It's funny. You mentioned a gimmick earlier as a word. It feels a little bit like a gimmick, but it also feels like a backward-looking attempt to prop up an analog part of the economy, not a forward-looking investment in digital future. I mean, very few people still need a high street presence for their banking.

Well, it plays a role. Actually, if you look at where there is still physical high street presence of financial services of bank branches, it does relate to the health of the wider economy. We're not looking to the past and saying people aren't going to use online banking or telephone banking. We recognize that's part of it. But if you're, for instance, a smaller business and you need access to cash deposits, for instance, that's still a really important service that you need. I think driving banking hubs, this is where banks come together. They collectively provide a premise you can access whichever bank you're a customer of, you're part of that network, services at that premise. It's the right balance between, not, as you say, looking to the past, but making sure we're not having these. You can have towns now of 10,000, 15,000 people with no high street banking presence whatsoever. That is a problem.

Let's talk about Rachel Reeves' interview in the FT yesterday, saying she wanted closer trade ties with Europe. Clearly, the renegotiation is going to be a big project, and there'll be all sorts of moving parts in it. But my question to you, specifically on trade, is do you think there are some immediate easy wins that don't involve trade offs in other areas, whether it's on security or immigration and things like that? Have there been some areas where the EU has treated the UK tough because of annoyance at the government and the party that delivered Brexit, that literally just changing to labor and a new government will fix? Or is there going to be a trade-off? If you get gains, you have to give up something elsewhere.

Look, there are a set of things that we put in our manifesto which are mutually beneficial to either side. I wouldn't say they're necessarily easy because no negotiation at this issue, at this at that level is easy. But things like, for instance, mutually recognizing each other's professional qualifications, having what is called an SPS or a veterinary agreement.

Why don't we have those yet?

Well, partly because the conservative Party has a very ideological approach to this. They didn't really want to, I think in that negotiation, recognize there are areas where coordinating and working together, recognizing each other's systems is beneficial. To be honest, let's be clear, most of Brexit and the trading relationship has been driven not by the best interests of the UK, but by the internal politics of the conservative Party. We are not encumbered by that. Therefore, whether it's professional qualifications, touring rights for the creative industries would be part of that as well. Particularly, as I say, this SPS or Veteranry Agreement that's on the checks that exist on each other's food and agricultural products. No negotiation is easy, but these are practical, tangible things that improve it. And by the way, a country like New Zealand has one of those veterinary agreements with the European Union. So if a country like New Zealand can have that, there's no argument the UK couldn't.

No, I'm sure. The question is, I guess, why it hasn't have been reached without some trade-off already. Is it fair to say that something closer to Theresa May's deal is the type of thing labor will seek or even something that gave access to the market?

No, I wouldn't cite the Theresa May deal because I think there were It was essentially a de facto customs union without acknowledging that. That, I think, is the wrong stage. If you want to be part of those arrangements, I think you've got to go for full membership and be part of that. We don't want to relive that argument, not just because there was a result in that referendum, but also because the uncertainty of perpetually... I know some of the other political parties have got liberal Democrats back in the single market. That argument could never end. No one's going to invest in the UK unless this issue is resolved and the practical deliverable changes, improving the relationship, maximizing those trading relationships around the world. They can be delivered, they would make a difference, and they look to the future. I think that's what we've got to do.

Well, we'll see if you are able to deliver some free improvements or not if you win the election. Thanks so much for joining us today. Thank.