Home secretary, before we discuss the detail of your compulsory, compulsory national service proposal, a couple of yes, no questions. What happened to someone who says, I don't want to do it? Do they go straight to jail?

No, there's going to be no criminal sanction for this. No one's going to jail over this. But what we have seen from the other countries that have got similar schemes to this, particularly the baltic and scandinavian countries, firstly, there is actually very, very wide scale take up acceptance and enthusiasm for this. So we want to make this compelling. We are going to compel people to it, but also we want to make sure that it fits with different people's aptitudes and aspirations. So the military bit, and I'm sure we come off.

I want to come off that, but let me ask you another, just very brisk question. Are people going to get paid for this if they do the volunteering or the civil option rather than the military option?

So the military option will come with a salary because it is longer and therefore, by extension, the other elements of it won't be. And that is very much. Well, that's very much in keeping. So I was in the reserve forces, as you know, the military reserve forces are paid. The, for example, special constabulary are not, St John's ambulance people are not. So. So that mix is actually quite in keeping with the structures that we already have.

Yeah, but honestly, that's your first problem, isn't it? Are you going to get it?

It's not been a problem so far.

Sign up for a weekend, a month for nothing.

Yeah, because actually, what we've seen, as I say, the military reserve forces are paid and their firefighting, policing counterparts are not. So that mixed portfolio, that mixed ticket is well established. And what we want, of course, is we want to make sure that everybody is involved, because this is about. This is about building a network across society.

All right, let's start with the military side, because you know who's going to hate this? Your colleagues. You're a soldier, your colleagues in the military. Your defense minister, Andrew Morrison said to Financial Times about an idea before this came up, a similar idea. There's a cost, and that is training people up, looking after them, managing them, and then they disappear as they're becoming vaguely useful. So the people who are going to operate this clearly aren't going to fancy it much, especially as armed forces are under strength. They've got lots of work to do. Do they need some people who are not that useful for them until they're about to leave?

Well, what we are, what we're looking to do. First and foremost, no one is going to be compelled to do the military element. So whilst it is compulsory.

But some. You're hoping that some will do, some will. My point is, like it.

No, of course, by nature, the people doing the military element will have volunteered to do the military version of it. So they will be motivated to join the military. They will have the opportunity to spend a year with the armed forces. And then, of course, we suspect that many of them will want to either go into the regular forces or, as I have done, have many, many.

You're telling me why they might want to do it. What I'm asking you about is a military which can't actually recruit actual soldiers who are going to make it a career. That's what they really need. And now you're telling them, oh, by the way, you've got to look after some kids for a year who aren't going to stay.

Well, what we are going to see is that people going to the military, bit of this, will have volunteered to do. So they will be motivated. They will.

You're telling me the same thing again.

Yeah, I know, because I'm going to finish. My point this time is that they will, of course, have had a period of military training. They will have utility to the military, and that is part of it, but not the whole point of it. The broader point about this national service is that we want to build a society where people mix with people outside their own communities, mix with people from different backgrounds, different religions, different income levels. And so some of it is about utility to the armed forces. That's part of it. But the bulk of this is about helping build a cohesive society where people mix outside their bubble, whether it through military service, other uniformed service or non uniformed.

Sir, look, I can hear the aspiration here, and we can have a discussion about whether what you're proposing is really serious. But let me put this to you. This is really about getting the attention of people who say they're going to vote reform, to whom this would appeal, isn't it?

What this is about is response politics. Well, I'm a politician, so you shouldn't be completely surprised that I'm involved in politics. But the point is, this is politicians.

Oh, good. I'm glad. A politician who says it's political, who's ready to admit.

But politics, politics is how we deal with really serious issues. And this is about dealing with what we know to be the case, which is social fragmentation. Too many young people live in kind of a bubble within their own communities. They don't mix with people of different religions. They don't mix with different viewpoints. More people are saying that they wouldn't go out with someone who didn't have the same political views. And what we're saying is to respond to that is a political imperative.

Okay, well, let me ask.

And to respond to that is about bringing people together in different military, medical, volunteering. I get all that flood defenses and environmental protection.

It's all perfectly reason. Let me ask you that as a politician, do you think that this will help you gain the attention of those reform voting electors in, for example, the red wall constituencies?

So what we are, what we are motivated by is making sure that we have a cohesive society. Now, of course, this, no, look, trevor, this is an election, okay? So of course at an election, you come up with new ideas and you come up with ideas that we hope will attract votes to us. There's nothing illegitimate about, but it is fundamentally about addressing the concerns that we see about social fragmentation, which are pump prime a new generation of volunteers that I've spent a lifetime doing and I've loved every minute.

I understand. I want to talk to you about this election. Did the prime minister explain to you why chose to call an election when you haven't actually selected all your candidates?

Well, the reason we've called the election now is because we've seen inflation get back into normal levels. We can see the economic indicators heading in the right direction. We're in a position now where we can, where we can show that our plan is working and there isn't, there is going to be an explanation of what we are going to do next to keep ourselves on track. There is, there are always going to be pros and cons for any timing of an election, as we said in the green room. Frankly, I'd much prefer to be campaigning in the early spring than the late autumn. But we are ready to make what is a bold move. I get that because we are confident of our.

You've still got to select in 190 constituencies.

Well, the selection process has been going on. We are, there will be, there'll be lots of places where the selections were just on the verge of happening. I can name a whole load of them off my head already, which I'm not going to. So that will happen very, very quickly. But look, I've been chairman of the party. You always have to do selections right up until the last minute. There's nothing particularly unusual about that.

That's about, that's the sort of number that, you know, the 100 and 9200.

I'm not. I'm not in CCHQ. So I don't know the detail. I know we've got plenty that we still need to select. We've got a fantastic pool of candidates, incredibly diverse in terms of their life experience and what they bring to.

All right, let's get into the actual campaign itself. Let's start with Mister Sinek's announcement. Let's remember this.

The 21st century, by stealing a lead in technology and migration, is being weaponized by hostile states to threaten the integrity of our borders.

In this country, every couple that plans a wedding prepares for rain. Every village cricket captain prepares for rain. Yet you manage to make this the image that is going to haunt the prime minister for the next six weeks. What were you thinking?

So the bottom line is sometimes it rains in the UK. You're absolutely right. But also what we've seen is rain. Rain is not going to put us.

On the umbrella out. I mean, what this is, this is high level incompetence, isn't it?

I tell you, I tell you, whatever. Whatever way that we had responded to the rain, whether we'd moved the announcement, whether we had someone with an umbrella, you guys would have criticized us. You would have found a vector for criticism. The bottom line is the prime minister. The prime minister set out the case for why we are going to the country. We're very proud of the tough decisions that we have made to get inflation back down to normal levels. We've got a plan for the future and we're going to compare that with the Labour's complete.

I'm not asking if we moved it.

If we delayed it.

I was asking that question to be a smart alec. I know that people will do that. What's happened since then? You kicked off the campaign with this. Then you went to a brewery with a prime minister who doesn't drink. You followed it up with a trip to the Titanic. The jokes write themselves. And then you organize a huddle with reporters where he's standing under an exit sign. My point is, who would trust a team that does all of that to run the countryman? They can't even get the basics of a campaign right.

So. So when people are going to the ballot box, are they going to ask, was it raining when he made the announcement? Or are they going to remember?

Or are they going to actually do the detail?

Or are they going to ask who was the person that was instrumental in the furlough program that kept a roof over my head during COVID Who was the person that got a grip of inflation. So it went from over 11% down to normal bounds. Who was the person who started reducing the national insurance contributions? So me and my family have got money. Who is the person who's going to protect pension?

With respect.

So they may remember the image of the republic.

With respect.

Every month they will look at their pay slip and see that under the conservatives they're paying less tax than they would to win with respect.

You and I have both been knocking on doors. We talk to a lot of voters in our careers and actually I don't think you can dismiss it like that. This is the kind of thing that people remember. Let me ask you about something else that they.

I've been knocking on.

Let me ask you about something else that they will remember.

No one's brought it up.

Let me ask you about something else that they'll remember. There was vital legislation that you were trying to put through. Some of it has dropped. And one particular thing I suspect will come back, which is Figgs and Murray walked 200 miles from Manchester to London campaigning for Martin's law, which is about protection for those potential victims of terrorism. Mister Sunak looked her in the eye on Wednesday 7th anniversary of her son's death in the Manchester arena bombing and told her that that law would be passed when he must have known that was not going to happen. Has he apologized to her?

So I don't know whether the prime minister spoken to Feagon and her family. I was in the meeting with the prime minister and the commitment that we made and we said, and I remember going through the detail that we said there is an election coming. We said that we could not necessarily guarantee the law would have completed its entire passage before the general election.

She walked out and she believed that she had been told it would happen.

We said, no, I was in the meeting, please, this is really important. This is really important. I was in the meeting and I said to her that I have no doubt that even if it is delayed by a general election, I explicitly made the point it might be that there is cross party support on this and that we are determined to make sure this does get statute.

She has been saying for the last 48 hours she believed it would be passed whatever the, whatever rights and wrongs of it. Would you like just to apologize to her now? This is a matter of character, trust and a position of politicians. You can simply say, look, I'm really sorry it didn't happen.

So of course we're sorry that not all the legislation was passed.

No this specific one.

And I am particularly sorry that we weren't able to get Martin's law on the statute books before the general election. But I discussed with the family and the campaign group that it might straddle a general election, that if we re entered government, we would prioritize this to get it on because it has taken longer than we would have wanted. And I said there as cross party support, and I said, I cannot envisage a world where this does not get enacted, even if it is delayed because of general elections.

Let me take you on to. You're responsible for the biggest flagship policy for this government until the national service one, which is the Rwanda boat. Yesterday, we broke through the 10,000 barrier for the number of individuals crossing the channel in small boats in the first 150 days a year, highest the day has ever been. You call this election at this point because actually you know that you're not going to be able to stop these small boats and that the summer, a summer of this is going to. Would have killed your chances.

Well, of course, dealing with illegal migration is difficult. It's difficult in the UK, it's difficult across Europe. When I speak to my colleagues in America, Australia and other countries, they're finding it difficult as well. But we have a plan which is part about the Rwanda scheme, which is an important part of it. It is about making sure that we have that international cooperation and we are committed to do so, which is.

Forgive me for interrupting you, but. Forgive me for interrupting, but I, and viewers have heard minister after minister say, we got a plan. It's working. It's working. It's not working. You're at 10,000, the highest number ever.

Well, what we are seeing is the people smugglers changing their tactics. They're forcing more people onto the boats.

Now, that's fundamentally, they're getting more people across the channel. They are winning.

You're not, because they are responding to the tactics which are putting pressure on their supply chains. Now, the point we've made is that, is that we have got the Rwanda scheme, which is part of our arsenal, and these figures are not where we would want them to be, but they would be considerably worse if the labor party started unpicking things like the Rwanda scheme, which they have promised to do. The Labour's position on this is that they would do less than we are currently doing, less than we plan to do, and somehow, magically, they think that would reduce the boat numbers and that is just fundamentally dishonest with the voters.

Well, the point is it hasn't but let me just. Very fine. Ask you a question, not just about illegal migration, but legal migration. Net migration fell by 10% this week. And I'm sure you will claim that as a success. But the problem is the number of people entering the country is pretty much the same as it was last year. 1.2 million there, thereabouts. The reason that migration numbers have fallen is because more people are leaving the country. Is that part of the plan to make living in Britain so unbearable for some people that they leave? And that's how you achieve your objective.

So part of the reason why more people are leaving is because the students and student numbers count on our overall migration figures and they dropped during the COVID years. A number of international students have come to the UK, they're now completing their courses and they are leaving. We are getting. We are getting a grip of the areas where there have been more people coming on visas, like the health and social care visas, bringing dependents. So we are dealing with that, which is one of the reasons why.

So your plan is basically to get rid of health workers, social care workers, doctors, nurses, all the IT professionals we need.

No, our plan is to make sure that we get back to the kind of levels which we had just before COVID Covid distorted a huge number of things. And the point is, I just want to touch on this, and very briefly, if you wouldn't mind, on immigration. The Labor party are trying to persuade the british people that despite the fact they have voted against border control measures over 130 times, they suddenly have got a plan and their flagship policy. Flagship policy? No trip. This is about integrity. Their flagship policy is to announce the creation of something that already exists.

Yeah.

Commanded by General Duncan Capps with 700 multi agency people.

Forgive me.

And that's what they're claiming at that.

Point to labor spokespeople. So we don't. Please, do viewers know this already?

So they either don't know what they're talking about or they're being dishonest. And ignorance and stupidity are not a sales point. And dishonesty is not a sales point either.