But he didn't rule out the first half. Either way, the starting gun on the long campaign has well and truly been fired. On Thursday, Keir Starmer outlined why he thinks he deserves the top job. We got plenty of rhetoric, but not much clear policy. Is he playing it too safe? Stateside, three years on from an uprising that rocked the free world, the fallout could block Donald Trump's bid to return to the White House. The ball's now in the Supreme Court. On the show this morning, he wants the keys to Downing Street and is determined not to put a foot wrong in this election year to get them. Sir Kier Starmer is live and exclusive, imminently. Mike Pence was the US Vice President, forced to choose between his President and his Constitution during the capital riots. He joins us for an exclusive interview exactly three years on, and we'll have immediate reaction from the former British ambassador to the US, Sir Nigel Shinewell. And while the election date is unknown, the budget is set for March. Could a tax giveaway help the Tories recover in the polls? Well, Laura Chott, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, will join us, too.

Plus, with us throughout the morning, a stellar panel. We've got broadcaster, columnist and stand-up comedian Matt Chauly, writer and podcaster, Rachel Johnson, and a true titan of broadcast journalism, Christiane Amampur. A very good morning to you. Happy New Year, and welcome to the first Sunday morning with Trevor Phillips. I'm Wilfred Frost in for Trevor this week. 2024 promises to be a huge year for democracy Obviously, both here and abroad. Will it shine or come under strain? What is clear, whoever ends the year occupying number 10, Downing Street, here faces huge challenges, a stagnant economy, creaking public services, and abroad, two major wars. That said, our votes should end up being counted. Our election should go off peacefully, and our next leader should want to keep NATO together. Can we say the same confidently about the US? Well, we'll explore that with our second guest, Mike Pence, coming up. But first, let's go to our first guest of the Year here on Sunday morning with Trevor Phillips, the man who wants to be your next Prime Minister, the Labor Leader, Sarkier Starmer. A very good morning to you, Sarkier. Thanks for joining us. Good morning.

I'm very pleased to be your first guest of the year.

Well, it's going to be a big year. A big year all around the world with lots of elections going off from Russia to the US and further afield. I am interested that with all the challenges that we face here, we are lucky still to be born here and to have a vote here.

We're very lucky. This year, we see that in action because it is It's going to be election year. It's 2024. We've been waiting and working for this for a long time. The first time since 2015 here, we've known it's going to be an election year, and the power goes to the voters. If people want change, and I think they do, I can make that case. But in the end, it's voters who will, on whatever day it is, be able to go and put that cross on the ballot and determine the future of their country. The power of the vote is incredible, and it's a reminder that this year, voters have the power to vote for hope and change. I hope they do, but it is important to remember that that power is with them. My message is, If you want change, vote for change.

The working assumption is the second half of the year. When do you think the election will be?

I want the election to be as soon as possible. We're ready for it. I think the country is ready for it. Most people say nothing's really working. Public services are on their knees. I don't feel any better off now than I did 14 years ago when this government started. People want that election, and the sooner it happens, the better. Now we're ready for it. I have to say the Prime Minister is almost taking himself out of this. The working assumption is as if it's somebody else's working assumption. If he had a plan, he would set the date, and he He should set the date because at the moment, it's very hard to see how him continuing government improves the lives of anybody in the country, so there's this drift. I can't help feeling that All he really wants to do is to get two years clocked up of his own premiership, and that means he's putting vanity before country. My challenge to him would be, if you've got a plan, set the date. If you haven't got a plan, just get on with it as quickly as possible.

You mentioned there your challenge to him. One thing we wanted to get out of the way at the start of this interview. On Thursday, you were asked about live TV debates. You said, Happy to debate at any time. I wasn't sure if that was just a yes to the idea of open debate or more specifically, a live TV debate. Will you commit now to a live TV debate on Sky News head-to-head against Rishi Sunak?

Look, I'm very happy to do live debates. We will inevitably We have to redo them in the election. I think almost every election recently has had them. As to committing to particular ones, that's to be negotiated. But look, in principle, the more exposure, the more the arguments are out there. We've got a very positive case to tell, and I want every opportunity to make that case. I've been leaving the Labor Party now for four years. We've been going at pace to pick our party up from a terrible general election result. Most people thought we couldn't turn it around. We turned it around. We've turned it around. I knew we had to change the party, expose the government that's not fit to govern, and then answer the question, why Labor? That's the part of the journey we're on. I'm very happy to go and make that positive case for change.

Let's get into some of the details then. Start with the economy. You've committed to wanting to lower the overall tax burden. You've committed to doing so when the fiscal headroom allows it. When When we're in that moment, when the headroom allows it, what's the first tax that you've got your eyes on that you want to cut?

Well, the burden on working people is too high when it comes to tax, so that's where we would be looking to reduce that burden. Frankly, the sooner we can do that, the better. But we do have to recognize that we now have the highest tax burden since the Second World War under this government. We've got very, very high tax.

Which one do you want to cut, first and foremost?

Well, tax is on working people. But just hear me out because we need to assess why is it that we've got such high tax? Now, I think it's because we've got a low growth economy, because we've had stagnation effectively in the economy for for 15 years now. Therefore, we've got to do more than have a discussion about tax. We've got to have a discussion about how we grow the economy. That's primarily why I've set out the idea of mission-driven government, purpose-driven government, made the number one mission for an incoming labor government, if we are privileged enough to come in to serve, to grow the economy, sustainable growth in the economy, and to make sure that living standards across the whole of the country are going up. That's where we've put our energy into those central missions and setting out the first steps of those missions already. 1.5 million houses to be built under an incoming labor government, 2 million appointments for the NHS to get the backlog.

Those are goals, not specific policies. Is there one tax over the course of five years when the fiscal headroom is there, that will definitely be lower at the end of five years?

Well, I want to reduce the burden on working people. The only way to do that in the long term is to grow the economy. What you're seeing at the moment from the Prime Minister is he's floating tax cuts, but he's doing that in his own self-interest. He's run out of ideas. They're desperately thrashing around and trying to find dividing lines to go into the election. It's not part of a strategy for growing the economy. It's simply picking tax cuts that the Prime Minister thinks might create a dividing line going into the election. That is the wrong way to govern. Whichever party you're in, it doesn't matter whether you're conservative or whether you're labor, to simply go down the road of desperately picking anything that creates a divide rather than having a strategy for the country is characteristic of what's gone wrong over the last 14 years.

Let's dive into an individual thing that you spoke about on Thursday, the £28 billion pounds green investment plan. On Thursday, you said that if the fiscal rules don't allow it, we'll borrow less. You have pushed on LBC on Friday, and you said it was now a confident ambition watered down from previously an outright pledge. In that, are you saying that the economy, in the short term, at least, is more important than the environment?

They're both important, but obviously, the two have to go together. What I am saying is that we are determined to achieve our mission. We've got five missions, five central things that I want an incoming labor government to achieve, and they will be our priorities. Growing the economy is the number one. The number one. Without that, we won't be able to do what we need to do on climate change, on public services. That has to be number one. But very important as a second mission is Clean Power by 2030, which will reduce our bills.

Which costs 28 billion.

Well, will reduce our bills, will give us energy security so that Putin can't put his boot on our throat, and give us the next generation of jobs. Now, that will require investment. In answer to your question, not just investment, by the way, because when we've looked with those we hope to partner with, how we achieve clean power by 2030, they say to me, Keir, you've got to look at the planning. We can't get infrastructure up quickly enough. You've got to look at planning. You've got to look at the national grid because that's much, much too slow. We want a proper partnership with government. There are things we can do that aren't investment, but yes, we need investment, and we will put in investment, investment for the future. That's where the 28 billion figure comes from. That's subject to the fiscal rules because economic stability is very, very important.

Can I just go on a moment on this? Because you made it a pledge, and back in the middle of last year, when the government relaxed some of net zero targets. You said the Prime Minister was being irresponsible with our future. Just last month at COP, you said the current government is shrinking from its obligation. Labor will act differently and take a lead on this. You're saying there is a trade-off between the economy and the environment. The question here, which I get there's a trade-off, is do you at least withdraw the accusation of irresponsability to the government and acknowledge that if not, you're being irresponsible, too?

No, I don't, because the government is trying to pretend that the data on which an incoming labor government signs a particular check is what matters. What matters is clean power by 2030, keeping to those targets. I'm not prepared to move that date. People keep saying to me, are you-If it costs 28 billion, you'll still spend 28 billion. Are you moving back on your goal? No, we're not. Clean power by 2030. But look, it's absolutely clear to me that the Tories are trying to weaponise this issue, the 28 billion, etc. This is a fight I want to have. If we can have a fight going into the election between an incoming labor government that wants to invest in the future long-term strategy that will lower our bills and give us energy independence versus stagnation, more of the same under this government. If they want that fight on borrow to invest, I'm absolutely up for that fight because I want to go to the British public and say, We've had 14 years of sticking plaster politics where they haven't done any long-term thinking and you're paying the price. I would do the hard yards of the long-term thinking, I'll borrow to invest and your bills will go down.

If they want that fight, bring it on.

Let's move on to foreign policy, Sakeer. Defense Secretary Grant Schapp said at the start of this week that the UK was, quote, willing to take direct action in the Middle East. He was talking about repelling Houthi rebels in the Red Sea. Do you agree with that?

I agree with the government on this. I'm treading carefully Because this is a sensitive issue, and we are talking to the government on this. I had a cobra briefing from the government on Friday about it. That's indicative of the approach I take. When Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister. He and I had a private phone call that evening, and I said to him, We will robustly challenge each other, uphill and down Dale, on most things, but on national security, on terrorism, on Ukraine, because that was dominant issue then. We will stand as one. Same applies here. When the government has already made a statement, as you know, in relation to what's happening in the red state, we support that. We'll wait to see what next action needs to be taken. National security is the first concern of any government. It will be the first concern of an incoming labor government, of course. Where action is needed, we're prepared to take it. What I don't want to do is to sit here getting ahead of the government in an area where I've said, because it's so important, we will, wherever we can, work together. So there's one voice coming out of the UK.

In the Middle East, obviously, huge conflict at the moment, and it will not help the situation in the Red Sea to have political divides here that aren't necessary.

Let's explore a bit more the situation in Israel, Hamas, and how it's manifested back here in the UK. Do you think the protests that we've seen are just free speech in action that we should almost be proud of? Or has it bubbled over at times and revealed a darker side of certain small groups of British society?

A bit of both. I'm proud that we have the right to protest and that on any issue, including issues where I may or may not agree with those protesting, people can take to the streets and protest. That is good, and we should cherish that. That having been said, within some of these protests, there have been pretty obviously criminal offenses committed that the police have had to follow up on, quite right, too. And beyond the formal protests, there have been a number of threats and abuse to individuals, particularly some MPs, which I'm very concerned about the level of threats that are being made to a number of MPs, including some within my own party, but not just within my own party. I fiercely defend the right to protest, including on this issue, of course, but I don't think we can escape the fact that there are these threats, not necessarily in the protest, but in and around, which we must be very, very careful about. We've lost parliamentary colleagues in the past, and so this isn't just some idle discussion. It is a very serious issue.

You said in your speech on Thursday that you want to find, a politics that treads a little a little lighter on all of our lives. Whether it's because of the Middle East issue or broadly, has it been... Politics been a bit overwhelming for you and your family of late?

I think it's been overwhelming for many people across Britain. If you go down the road of nationalism or populism, you've always got something. You've got to find an enemy. You've got to hate, and you've got to constantly be in a fight and conflict. That's exhausting for many people. That's That's why I said we should tread more likely. Try and find the points of unity. Stop the division. I think that reflects the British public, by the way. I think by and large, people, they have opinions, but they're pretty tolerant. They'd rather work together than not work together. I also have one eye on the future. I'm absolutely determined to have a mission-driven government. I've argued for a decade of national renewal versus the decline we've seen for the last 14 years. Decade shows it will take time. Renewal that it's not just to fix the country, but to take it forward, to make it a better place. The national bit in the middle is really important. What I'm indicating there is for this to work, I know that people who aren't tribly labor, who wouldn't normally necessarily vote labor, but want to see their country improve, can be part of a wider project.

So yes, I think it reflects the politics of our country. I think we've had too much division, too much of this, ramming everything down your throat the whole time, finding enemies all the time, divide, divide, divide, wedge, wedge, wedge. We're very much in this place with this government. Want to lift that to a better place, but to do it with a purpose, which is to say there can be a national project here that you can be part of, even if you're not tribly labor.

Clearly, we know about all of your front bench and the people that support you there. Lots of people behind the scenes within the Labor Party that support you, too, that I've been speaking to at times this week. What about behind the scenes at home? If you were to make it to the top, to being Prime Minister, how much would you owe to your family for the support they give you to your wife?

Oh, everything. Absolutely everything. Vik, my wife, is fantastic. She is my complete support and partner in this. She doesn't do anything publicly. She wants to get on with her job. She works for the NHS. We've got two relatively children, a boy was 15, a boy who's 13, but it impacts them all of the time, every single day. All of that I do, I talk through with Vik. All the big decisions are the ones which we sit and talk through at home. That is a good thing. I'm not sure she signed up for this. When I finished as chief prosecutor, director of public prosecutions, and was thinking about going into politics, she was ringing out a job advert to go and carry on doing something in the law. She didn't necessarily sign up to it, but she's absolutely centrally part of it. We've waited a long time for 2024. I'm really glad this year is here. I want this fight. The only thing The only thing that keeps me up at night, the only thing that worries me is our children because they're 13 and 15. That's difficult ages. It will impact them. We don't name them in public.

We don't do photographs with them. They go to the local school and just I'm desperately trying to protect them in that way, but I know it's going to be harder, and I do worry about that.

Well, your wife, particularly, sounds like an amazing lady. To all your family, we thank them for sharing you with us on a weekend day, and I hope you have a fun rest of weekend lined up. Presumably, a bit of watching Arsenal this afternoon.

I'm going to Arsenal this afternoon to watch them play Liverpool, and we desperately need a win.

Well, I have to be impartial for most of the job, but I can agree with you on that. I very much hope Arsenal deliver victory this afternoon. To wrap things up, Suki, you've said very clearly, bring it on. You've also said in your speech earlier this week that the biggest challenge we face, bar none, Is apathy. I think it's fair to say at the top of this interview, you wouldn't give me a tax that you're definitely going to cut. We've seen your party usher in the government's changes to immigration without a vote against it last month. Do you think that if there is apathy and there is low turnout, that it's actually on you playing it a bit safe?

No, I don't think that. I think it's a reflection of the last 14 years of government. We've got Very strong. I want to go make the argument 1.5 million houses will be built under an incoming labor government. If you are struggling to buy a house, that's worth fighting for. I want to fight for 2 million extra NHS appointments for those who are on the waiting list. If you're on the waiting list, that is worth fighting for. I want 700,000 appointments for dentistry, urgent appointments. If you're waiting for an appointment in NHS dentistry, that's worth fighting for. I want to half We love violence against women and girls, and that is worth fighting for. These are big differences between us and the government. They're all worth fighting for, and that's why this is a year of hope and change.

They are, definitely. I'd argue that their goal is not policies. Then just a final question on this note, because if you win, you really will have the weight of a nation on your shoulders. I just wonder whether you're feeling the pressure behind the scenes. Do you feel the burden of that?

There's obviously been a burden on me in particular since I took over as leader of the Labor Party, a burden to turn our party around and get it to a credible position to win an election. Yes, I felt that because there's a responsibility to the Labor Party and to the country to put before the country a credible party that can act on behalf of working people. Actually, as we get to 2024, I'm in really good spirits because this is the chance, this is the year I know we'll get to be able to make our case. I've turned into the year in really good spirits, really wanting to make the argument, and knowing that in 2024, I get the chance to do so. Positive case for change, no longer having to say, We'll have to wait, et cetera. This is it.

Sakeer Starmer, as ever, we thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Sakeer Starmer, the Labor Leader. Lots still to come on the show this morning. In a moment, We'll be speaking to our panel, and later in the show, we'll hear from Jeremy Hunt, right and woman at the Treasury, Laura Trott. Very shortly at the top of the hour, we'll hear from the former Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence, three years on, almost to the today from the uprising that rocked the free world.

Three years ago, I kept the oath that I made to the American people and to Almighty God to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. But traveling across the country over the last three years, I've simply have lost count of the number of people that took a moment to thank me from literally every walk of life, from every political background, for the stand that we took. I think the American people cherish our Constitution, and they cherish the liberties enshrined there. I'm confident that the American people will rally around that Constitution once again. I look forward to playing some part in that decision in the days ahead.

Well, with us throughout the show on our panel, I'm delighted to be joined by the Times radio presenter and satirist, Matt Chauley, journalist and broadcaster at LBC, Rachel Johnson. A particular treat to have with us, the 14th EME Award-winning Chief International Anchor at CNN, Christian Amampur. Very good morning to you all. Great to be with you. Christian, I'm going to start with you. You have interviewed pretty much every major world leader over the last 30, 40.

Except for Sakea Starmer. Well, except for Sakea.

I know. I hope you did some booking whilst you were here for the next one. But what did you think of that? Was that a Prime Minister in waiting? You know what?

I thought it was an incredibly good conversation. I thought it was actually very persuasive. If you start a new year, as he said, Hope and Change. Isn't that the Obama slogan? Hope and Change. It's very powerful. If you can actually stick to that and invigorate people and let them get, if you like, infected by your own optimism, that's what it's all about, isn't it? Politics and the idea of moving society along. You have to engage people. I thought that was really interesting that he had those particular words and those particular formulas. I think the climate is massively important, and everybody's We need to be watching what the next Prime Minister does, because as you see, the government has peddled back and now labor has to deliver because people want that, voters want that, and it's actually good for the economy. Investing in green is good for the economy by all metrics. Then for me, given that I really focus a lot on international affairs, I think that our world is in a very, very difficult position right now, and it's going to depend also on who wins all these elections that are happening in this The upcoming year.

Billions of people are going to the polls in more than 60 countries. Some of them are fake elections, like in Russia. Some of them will make a real difference, like in the UK, like in the United States of America, India, South Africa. They have huge, huge issues to deal with. The idea of two hot wars that right now nobody quite knows how to deal with. Ukraine is being forgotten. That is where democracy is at stake.

We are definitely going to be diving into lots of that as well after Mike Pence joins us. Rachel, coming to this interview, one of the criticisms, particularly since Thursday's speech, but in general, is a lack of clear policy. Did we get some there or did we not?

Yeah, well, I feel I should be reacting to Christian's speech before I should react to Keir Starmer's, because obviously, what you saw there was real communication. I mean, Keir, that was a nice conversation, and I had a few things jumped out when he said, Bring it on. He also pointed out that unlike all these other elections we're going to face this year, the timing of our election is in the lap of the Prime Minister. I think he rightly said, We should have a date. I agreed with him on that. He talked about house building. He talked about dental appointments. I mean, that isn't going to set the world on fire. But yeah, the keywords were hope and change. But then, of course, Sarah Palin used to tease Obama a lot and say, How's the hope he changey stuff working for you? Of course, and she lost.

Obama won twice. It does work.

The hopey changey stuff works. It does work, but you need a bit more ballast behind the hopey changey stuff.

Matt, in terms of the personality side of things, is this critical in this election? Or in fact, do you think playing at safe works for either candidate, actually?

There's a big argument about this, and it's an argument that I have often with people of the Labor Party. The argument that Keir Starmer is boring and he isn't connecting. Actually, he uses the word hope, but then in the speech last week, he was all caveated. Not a big hope, Frank hope, a small hope.

Flickering hope.

Yeah, a flickering hope. It's all a bit caveated and careful.

I think there's a bit more today of...

He was a bit more on the front foot. The attacking Richie Sunak for not sending a date. It's vanity. He's putting his own vanity for the country. Because Labor basically want to keep up this idea, essentially rerunning what happened in '97, to get to the point where the country is sick of the government. The longer it's drawn out, the harder it will be for the Tories to hang on. I think there is a difference between being serious and professional and having integrity, which is definitely things people want from a new Prime Minister. I think being boring to the point that people don't listen to your message, aren't enthusiastic about going out to campaign for you, aren't enthusiastic about going out to vote for you, could become a problem in an election campaign because the Tories are not going to give this up without a fight.

Rachel, does the Prime Minister have similar personal connection issues with the people as well?

Is that why it's okay to both place it? Matt is nodding at me as if to go, yes, he does. The answer is yes. I think Rushi is pretty slick on TV, but he has a plaintiff, Why aren't you loving me more? Quality that I think comes across as, I can't say babyish because he's a grown man and he's our Prime Minister. But there's a slight neediness that comes across with him. Can I just say one last thing on the green crap, as David, previous Prime Minister, called it? Don't worry, we're allowed to say that. Are we allowed to say that word? We are allowed to say that.

I don't usually do this.

I don't have the rules. I think that if I were here, I would be doubling down on that because the Tories think that the 28 billion spending that amount of money by the second half of the first Parliament is a mistake. I think it's a great thing that labour's got in its locker. It's actually dividing the Tories, not labor, because Chris Skidmore resigned just a couple of days ago over the Ireland gas drilling licenses that they're voting on in the House of Commons tomorrow.

Christian, before we move on to the next interview, we You asked Sakeer there about potentially committing troops to the Middle East, and he stood with the government there. I mean, the UK is quite an important country at the moment for both of these wars, given lack of funding or political division on different sides of the aisle towards them in foreign countries?

Yeah, I always used to say, this is pre-Brexit, that Britain used to punch way above its weight because it was so important in NATO, it was so important in the transatlantic relationship relationship between the US and Europe, and it was so important in its military and its intelligence capacity. I think for sure, the United States is the big heavyweight now. Right now, it's US, and in fact, the head of the EU foreign policy, who are trying to prevent a spillover into a wider war. But Britain has a major role to play for sure.

This is a topic we are going to dive into in much more detail as we go through the show. Now, few will ever forget January the sixth, the day US democracy was shaken to its core. As supporters of then President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol building in an effort to overturn his election defeat. The ramifications reverberate three years on and could thwart his bid to return to the White House. At the heart of it all was the then Vice President Mike Pence, who pressed ahead with certifying the election results while rioters chanted for him to be hanged. He's currently on a visit to Israel. Yesterday, on the third anniversary of that uprising, he spoke to this program from Jerusalem. I began by asking for his take on how the US has responded to the war in Gaza.

Wilf, I'm here not just as a former vice President of the United States, but really just as an average American, just to make sure the people of Israel know in this dark hour that I believe with all my heart that the vast majority of the American people stand with Israel as they do what needs to be done in the wake of that horrific terrorist attack of October the seventh. I must tell you that I've been grateful for President Biden's response from early on, expressing unconditional support for Israel. But of late, I've been troubled to hear of back channel pressure that the Biden administration is placing on Israel, whether it be to have another ceasefire or to slow down military operations. I I believe that this is a moment where the United States of America needs to send a clear and unambiguous message that America will stand with Israel today. We will stand with Israel tomorrow and every day Until the threat of Hamas is destroyed once and for all, and peace and security can be reestablished for the people of Israel.

I think a lot of people, obviously, raise the numbers of casualties that we've seen on each side. I don't think so much what matters is Israeli casualties versus Palestinian casualties. But in your eyes, is the number of civilian casualties that we're seeing per Hamas casualty getting a little bit too high? Is that a trade-off that does have a limit in your eyes?

Well, let me begin by saying I grieve the loss of any innocent human life. But I believe the victims of this war in Gaza are also victims of Hamas. To walk as I did just a few days ago in the kibbutz known as Kafaraza, where the most horrific and unspeakable acts of violence were perpetrated against innocent civilians by some 3,000 terrorists who came across the border, not just with the intention of attacking nearby communities, but as I learned in my briefings, that terrorist army intended and brought sufficient armaments to march all the way to Jerusalem, to march all the way to Tel Aviv, and essentially cut Israel in half. But for the courage of local police forces and ultimately Israeli defense forces, they were stopped. But I think when you literally walk the streets of the kibbutz and you look in to these homes and the blood stains and bullet riddled walls, you understand that Israel is doing what needs to be done. I applaud their efforts to create humanitarian corridors, both for aid and for civilians to have been able to evacuate from Northern Gaza. But ultimately, I believe that the innocent loss of life that has occurred in Gaza is ultimately, ultimately, should be laid at the feet of Hamas.

That's why I believe Israel must continue to fight until the threat of Hamas is destroyed once and for all.

I wanted to touch on the situation in Ukraine as well, Mr. Vice President. When you look at the situation on Capitol Hill about whether to send more military aid to Ukraine or not, what are some of your Republican colleagues missing when it comes to not wanting to give that additional support?

Well, I believe America is the leader of the free world. In my recent campaign for the Republican nomination, I tried to provide a very clear voice for the need for America to stand up in that role and give Ukraine the resources they need not only to fight, but to ultimately expel the Russian invasion. We simply cannot tolerate authoritarian regimes redrawing international lines by force. I have no doubt in my mind, as I've told many of my Republican colleagues, that if Vladimir Putin were able to overrun Ukraine, it would not be long before he would cross a border of a NATO country where our men and women in uniform would be required under Article 5, to go and fight. I really believe that it's in the interests of the United States. It's fulfilling our role as leader of the free world for us to continue to support Ukraine in their fight against Russia, and I'll continue to be a voice for that.

The US, the UK, the EU, of course, they are the central parts of NATO. How critical is the long-term survival of NATO?

Nato is one of the great success stories of the last century, the post-World War II world. That being said, I'm proud of the fact that our administration called on our European allies to live up to their own commitment to spend 2% of their gross domestic product on their national defense. Before we left office, I think there was more than $100 billion more being committed by our European allies to our common defense. I think, inarguably, it put our allies in a better position to support Ukraine's efforts to repel the Russian invasion. There's more work to be done, but I think the way forward is to strengthen the alliance by ensuring that everyone in our NATO alliance does their part for our common defense. And I'll continue to be a voice for that, even as I believe this is a treaty and it's an alliance that's contributed to the peace and security of the world for decades.

One person, of course, whose commitment to NATO is questioned, is that of President Trump? You've made your views, both on NATO and President Trump, quite clear of late. Despite those views, does former President Trump deserve to be on the ballot in every single state?

I think the question of who's on the ballot But in every state, it should be left to the people of the United States of America. I have every confidence that the Supreme Court of the United States will resolve those questions. They've made it clear that they're going to take up the Colorado case. But ultimately, I hope our party will give the American people an opportunity for new leadership and give America an opportunity for fresh leadership in the White House. But I believe those decisions should be with the American people in the democratic process, and I'm confident they will.

You mentioned the Supreme Court. They said this weekend they're going to hear that case as soon as next month. Will you, and do you think all Republicans will respect their decision, whichever way it goes?

I'm a great believer in the Constitution of the United States, a great believer in the framework of government established therein, and I'm confident that we'll be able to see broad-based support for whatever decision. But at the end of the day, I also just have great confidence that the Supreme Court will see their way clear on this matter and ultimately leave this question to the American people where it belongs.

When you look at the challenges ahead of this US election, whether it's this debate about being on the ballot, whether it's people questioning the vote last time round, AI impersonations, Russia, China potentially trying to interfere. Do you ever pause and think that democracy is at risk, even in peril?

I have great confidence that the people of America are going to come together and fulfill our obligations to choose our national leadership in the next year. It's my hope, and frankly, it's my prayer that we, as Republicans, will give the American people better choices to offer a new leadership. As I said many times back when I was a candidate for President, I think different times call for different leadership. While I know many of the pundits have already decided how things are going to work out, the American people have a funny way of making up their own mind. With our Iowa caucuses in New Hampshire and other states just around the corner, I'm looking forward to seeing that judgment of the American people. But I'm confident we'll see our way through. At a time that the world seems to become more dangerous by the day, I'm confident that the American people are going to step up and ultimately give us leadership that will meet this moment.

I'm interested, Mr. Vice, because you pause quite significantly at the start of that answer. Everyone wants to get to the other side of the election. I just wonder what might happen between now and then if certain decisions or results go against certain groups of people. I mean, you were On this day, three years ago, the man... You said you're a believer in the Constitution. You're the man that stood up for the Constitution when things bubbled over. Do you fear things bubbling over again in a similar vein in the year ahead?

I must tell you, I know that three years ago, I kept the oath that I made to the American people and to Almighty God to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. But traveling across the country over the last three years, I've simply have lost count of the number of people that took a moment to thank me from literally every walk of life, from every political background, for the stand that we took. I think the American people cherish our Constitution, and they cherish the liberties enshrined there. I'm confident that the American people will rally around that Constitution once again. I look forward to playing some part in that decision in the days ahead.

If we look at both parties, you mentioned looking ahead to the choice American people will make. Do you think, oddly, they're potentially both about to choose their least electable candidate?

It's fairly remarkable when you think about where we find ourselves with the front runners in either party today. But for me, I continue to be hopeful that when the votes start to be counted, you're going to see what I perceived when I was campaigning as a candidate for the Republican nomination. And that is that, number one, I think there's great appreciation for what we accomplished during our administration. And there's great frustration with the way the Biden administration has weakened America at home and abroad. But my second sense was also that the American people are open to new leadership. While I'm not a candidate myself, I stepped aside from the race to make room for others might have a greater opportunity to do that. I continue to be hopeful that our party will give the American people an opportunity for a new beginning, because as I saw traveling around Israel this week, and as we all have witnessed around the world, from the widening security threats here in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, potentially in the Asia Pacific, to the struggles in our economy, the crisis at the American border. We need new leadership, and we need leadership that can bring our country and move our country forward.

Mr. Vice President, just finally, to wrap things up, you've made clear your views on President Trump in this interview, but over many months beforehand. If he's the Republican nominee, will you still be voting Republican in this next election?

Well, I simply can't support Joe Biden's re-election as President of the United States. I really believe that the policies of this administration, whether it be the disasters withdrawal from Afghanistan that it's emboldened the enemies of freedom around the world, whether it be the runaway spending that launched the worst inflation in 50 years, whether it be the policies at our border that are on track to see 12 million people come into our country illegally over this four-year period of time. I think we need new leadership, but I'm going to look for ways that I can do my part to see that the Republican Party gives the American people a better choice, a fresh choice, and a new beginning. I'll keep you posted on my position in the days ahead.

Mr. Vice President, we thank you for your time. Plenty. Plenty to get into there. Listening to that interview was the former UK ambassador to the United States, Sir Nigel Shinewood. Sir Nigel, good morning. Good morning. Thanks for joining us. We're talking a little bit about how democracy might be tested to the core. If President Trump returns to the to the White House, presumably your old job, diplomacy, will be tested to the court. Will we have seen anything like that in terms of the job that diplomats will have to try and keep the special relationship positive?

I don't think we will. I think that's partly because a second term of President Trump is going to be even more difficult than the first. The first was bad enough for the alliance for the UK. He humiliated the UK, the importance of NATO, and so on. But I think that the intervening years mean that this is going to be a sequel, and sequels are very often worse than the original film. I think that he will be an unfettered second term President. There'll be a lot of vengeful activity in the United States, and I think we have to take seriously his threats in relation to Ukraine, defunding Ukraine, in relation to NATO, maybe not leaving NATO, but not putting the money in that's necessary to keep it going. The fundamental problem for any country trying to deal with the United States under Trump, whether it's an ally or whether it's an opponent, is the unpredictable ability and the huge personal vanity that goes into every decision. This is a new type of president. It was in 2017, and it will be a supercharged Trump coming in if he gets the second wind of a re-election.

You were ambassador 2007 to 2012, at the time we all think of as pretty positive UK-US relations. Were there, you don't have to go into the details, I'm sure you won't, but you're not one of these diplomats that now writes a book that tells all. But Were there moments where the two leaders were furious with each other and you had to help put out the fires?

No, I don't think furious, but there were always differences and always have been in UK-US relations. Differences is normal, but the relationship which Trump had with his key allies was fundamentally different from, I think, any American president since the Second World War when the structure of international relations was formed. No one found a successful coping strategy. Theresa May briefly held his hand. That didn't work. Macron tried the bromance, tried to woo Trump and be very friendly with him. That didn't work. The only one that worked, ultimately, was Angela Merkel's distancing from Trump and not getting her hands caught in the mangle of trying to appease him and not succeeding. I think as the rest of the world looks on, what we're agaced at is that Trump is the favorite to win the nomination, is at the moment the favorite to win the presidency, despite everything that happened. I think that as Western powers and international countries look at this, I think they don't have an obvious way of preparing for what will There are things you can do. You can try and game what might happen on NATO. There are things you can do to limit the damage to some degree.

But let's not be in any doubt, this will be a huge weakening of the alliance and of the international system at a time when it needs that, least of all when it's under such threat and is in such a fragile state.

The other question I had for you related to the interview we just listened to, and obviously, you were advising Tony Blair as a key national security adviser in and around two of the Middle East Wars before you were US ambassador. Then the debate was, should we put boots on the ground? During Cameron's premiership, it was, should we do airstrikes? Today, the debate is, should we send money? What do you make of that? Are we quite weak today as a military nation, or is it sensible that that is the pinnacle of our debate?

I think it's inevitable. I think there's been retrenchment both in America and in Britain and in most of the Western world as a result of the failure in Iraq and Afghanistan. They were failures for different reasons, and they've had a profound effect on public opinion. I think that's unavoidable. I don't discount the validity of our military options still. I think we still have first-class intelligence, first-class military, but it's a shrunken capacity. What's lacking above all is the political will to use that if we need to. I'm not encouraging the use of it. I thought that Kierstam was saying that he was going to act in a consensual way with the government and not get in the way of these tactical military decisions is absolutely the right one. But no, I think that those capacités Capacities are still there. I think the fact that we are reluctant to get into military adventures in far away places is actually at the moment quite sensible. But I think what's lacking is what Christian was we talked about a little bit earlier is whether Britain continues to pack that punch internationally. I fear that we don't as a result of a number of factors, but one of them actually is America.

The country that's affected most when America's in trouble, when America is less potent is the United Kingdom, because we spent so much of our history aligned with America, listening to their view of the world, supporting them when we can, that I think when America is unable to project its influence in the way that it wants to, it affects us, and we get caught in the cold blast of that. That's what's happened in the last few years, and it's been reinforced by the weakening aspect of Brexit.

Nigel, as ever, a pleasure to catch up. Thank you for joining us.Pleasure. We're going to take a very quick break here and much more to discuss on potentially a Donald Trump return to the White House with our expert panel just a moment.

Morning, everybody. It is eight o'clock. You're very welcome to join us on the Sky News wherever you're watching us. Our Chancellor will be joining us in just a few moments' time. We What evidence of the cost of living crisis.

We'll start with breaking news. Is there any one place to start this morning against the dollar ever.

It was like night fell.

It's five o'clock. This is the news hour. I'm Mark Austin coming up in the next 60 minutes.

Welcome to the politics hub. On the UK tonight throughout the course of the week.

Still to come.

I'm Alex Crawford, and I'm Sky's special correspondent, based in Istanbul. We aim to be the best and the most trusted place for news.

Well, welcome back. Let's get the reaction from our panel to the Mike Pence interview, to the Sir Nigel Scheinwold interview. I guess, Christian, if I come to you first again on this, do you think Pence was a bit optimistic about things holding together in the US this year, or could it bubble over?

Look, Mike Pence is a diet in the wall, conservative Republican. For him to come out and even, not quite, but definitely say that he does not want Trump again is a big deal. He has put himself in the firing line three years ago on January sixth, and he did, and he's right. People do thank him for holding onto his office and being brave when people were calling to hang Mike Pence, and he got no help from his President who was watching from the White House. So this is a big deal. The other, though, companion piece to it is that Trump, as you heard Nigel Scheinwell and you've heard as many others say, is, and he has declared that this will be Trump untrammled. He went as far as say, I will be a dictator for the first day. He said, I will use my justice department to go after all my enemies. I am your retribution. What does that even mean? About immigrants, he said, they infect the blood of Americans. This is Nazi talk. This is really dangerous. He has declared what he will do. Now, some say your fears are just the fears of demented liberals.

Others They say that actually he is a genuine, real, and proven threat to not only US, but also global democracy. The 14th Amendment actually says that any state or federal official who's taken part in an insurrection is barred from taking office and holding office in the future.

Not helpful that two democratic states are the ones that have brought this issue up, though, for the whole debate around it. Matt, talk to me about the way prime ministers love to deal with the United States. I mean, is this something that could see Sunak or Starmer step up to the plate? It's a pinnacle of the foreign policy role.

Yeah, I mean, it's interesting. Almost 20 years now, I've been covering politics.

For the early part of that, Blair, Brown, Cameron, they knew in the White House called, they took the call.

They wanted that photo. David Cameron was desperate to get the photos with Obama even before he became Prime Minister. Clearly, Donald Trump was a big turning point in that. As Nigel was talking about, Theresa May holding his hand and that didn't work brilliantly well.

Boris Johnson managed to get through that period, largely, I think, domestically because we had COVID and all of that.

It wasn't there. Now, we're talking about two world wars, two big elections coming up this year. I think it's interesting. David Cameron now back as Foreign Secretary. Be interested to know how he's adjusting to the fact that Washington is a very different place. Yes, there's a Democrat he can do business with in the White House, but what is going on with the Republican Party in support for Ukraine is really difficult. The Labor Party, Kier Starmer and his team, it's been a long time trying to get to know the Democrats, but this Parliament has dragged on for so long that by the time they get into government, they might find it's the Republicans, which is a very... Lots of them took the barricades about Donald Trump.

It's interesting you mentioned the camera thing. I didn't get to this in the interview with Starmer, but, Rachel, Starmer could bring back Tony Blair. Leave the foreign policy aspect.

I think that would be quite risky because there are still lots of people who go around saying, Tony Blair should come back as Prime Minister. We know David Cameron doesn't want to be Prime Minister again. One, he's in the Lord. I'm sure they both would want to be. Two, he didn't even want to do a third term. Donald Trump could actually decide he wants to be President for life, and the Constitution may not stand in his way. I think on that front, the Supreme Court-It does stand as we talk. I know it does, The Supreme Court will find a way to allow Donald Trump to stand for election again. I don't think this-This time around? Yes, I think in February, they'll have to find some technicality. Otherwise, it will look as if the courts are deciding who the next President is, not the people, and that's not a good look. Like they did in 2000, and that's the risk.

Rachel, the thing I was going to just touch on as well. Clearly, the special relationship would be supremely tested if this happened. At the moment, the last couple of years, do you think it's actually been that strong, the special relationship?

Not especially. No. I don't think Biden's particularly anglophile. He loves his Irish roots. We saw that. I don't think he's particularly bothered with us. Donald Trump, as we know, had a massive massive crush on the Queen, and that was what he wanted, really. He really wanted to be President so he could go and have tea at Winsor, let's face it.

That was a silly...

True, but silly thing to say, nonetheless.

No, I think I was covering it at the time. I mean, he Absolutely adored that moment. There's no doubt about it. Christian, I'm interested in terms of what we heard from pence on Ukraine. Are the Republicans going to approve this funding?

It's really difficult to tell. It's, as you know, caught up in a domestic political battle over the border. Immigration is a big deal, and neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have fixed it over the years because it just keeps descending, much like in this country, descending into the weeds of politics rather than sensible, real, proven ways to actually fix a situation that's only going to get worse with the climate and all the migration from south to north. But I think what people need to understand is that when Donald Trump was President, just in terms of the world, he was actually a chaos agent. It's not just we We think he likes dictators. He does. He likes Vladimir Putin. If Vladimir Putin wins in Ukraine, the whole of our, as Nigel Scheinwell said, post-World War II world order will be destroyed. It is the most important battlefront in the world right now. For the Republicans and the Europeans to go back on what they said, which is, We will support you for as long as it takes, and we must not allow Putin to win. That seems to have gone out the window. Then, Of course, he pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal that caused more instability, not less.

He pulled out of Afghanistan. It was him who started it. Biden didn't need to continue it. But here in also the Middle East, Americans and Europeans have to decide what is not just best for Israel, but best for the whole region. They cannot just allow this to continue. As we see, the US and the Europeans are trying to figure out a way forward that will come to some political solution to fix this once and for all. Otherwise, it will repeat itself over and again.

We are going to come back to domestic policy after a very quick break, and we'll be talking to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Laura Trott.

Welcome back. This week, we had not one but two set pieces from the leaders of the main party, setting out their stalls for the next election. Rishi Sunak is on his up in the polls, but he's still got a budget in hand. The budget date has been set. Let's discuss all of this with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Laura Trott, who joins me in studio. Very good morning to you, Laura. Good morning. Thanks so much for joining. We just There's a question there that the budget date has been set, March the sixth. Yes. Was there much debate in Treasury about where that was going to be? Were you influencing it with the Chancellor?

I think it's a pretty standard date, to be honest. It has been set. I think this is something that obviously the Chancellor decides, but it's pretty normal if you look back over a number of years of budget dates.

I ask because much debate now about when the election date will be, which is your other Prime Minister has now answered. Well, not really. It's your other boss's realm. But is there discussion in the cabinet about this, or is it really he's the only one that knows?

No, that is the Prime Minister's decision. It's his prerogative.

You guys are in as much of a gray area exactly what he meant by saying probably the second half, but didn't rule out the first half as we were.

Well, I think we all now understand that the working assumption is that the election is going to be in the autumn.

There we go. Working assumption is all we can get on it. Let's talk now about taxes. Clearly, you found the headroom to deliver a national insurance cut that's coming into force this weekend, as well as some business relief, both of those announced in the autumn statement. Do you hope that that is just the start, the tip of the iceberg, and quite a lot of tax cuts to come?

Yes, we hope this is the start of a process. Obviously, it will depend on the fiscal situation of the time. We will only cut taxes where it is financially responsible to do so. But we've had a really tough time as a country in the last few years. We've had the recovery from COVID, the war in Ukraine, which has pushed up energy prices. We've had to pay back our COVID debts, £400 billion of spend during COVID, and then £100 billion last year. But because we have managed the economy responsibly, because we brought inflation down, we are starting to see things turn a corner. Because of that, we are able now to cut taxes like national insurance, which is a tax cut for 27 million people across the country, which is very good news.

I wonder what the scale of the ambition on tax cut is. The tax burden overall will hit 37% this year. It's the highest since the 1950s. It's up 4% just on this Parliament. The Chancellor said something interesting yesterday is, I can't get it back to where it was in 2019, four percentage points lower immediately, which I hadn't heard him even reference that number yet. Is the ambition over the next Parliament to get it back down to where was in 2019? Is that the target?

I think when you talk about the tax burden, it's really important that people at home know this isn't an individual's tax burden. This is the overall tax burden. It includes businesses as well. Part of the reason it's gone up is because we've had to pay back the COVID debt. If you look at what we've done within that, we've increased corporation tax, we've brought down the rate at which you pay the additional rate of tax. We've really tried to put it on the highest earners and people that can bear the burden. If you look at the average earner, for example, since 2010, they're paying £1,000 less in tax a year because we've increased the thresholds and because of the changes to Nix. The distributional impact within that is very, very different. But absolutely, what we are trying to do is to manage public finances effectively so we can get that tax burden down for individuals. It is the opposite of what the Labor Party are trying to do. They have got this £28 billion of spend, which they are saying they're not going to do via borrowing, so therefore it has to come via taxes, which is a huge economic danger for country.

I want to move on and talk about the Rwanda policy. Some documents leaked this weekend raised the question of whether the Prime Minister really believed in the policy when he was Chancellor and the policy was first introduced. In particular, the question that was raised This is where the Rishi Sunak thought the policy was value for money. Does your boss, the current Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, think the Rwanda policy is value for money?

Yes, absolutely. I should also say, I do this job now. I'm Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I scrutinize every single piece of government spend. It's our job in the Treasury to look at every single item of government spending and making sure it's value for money. Rishi, when he was Chancellor, and indeed, when he was CST, was doing that. That's what I'm doing now. That is what the Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, is doing now as well. But if you judge people by their actions, what we have done is we've introduced a piece of legislation to the House of Commons, which is the toughest piece of legislation on an legal migration ever. It's something that has been spearheaded by the Prime Minister.

I'm amazed that you said Yes, absolutely. It's value for money to that extent, because the Home Office admitted in December that thus far, the Ruranda policy has cost £290 million for quite literally nothing in return. That is not value for money.

But as you know, we're spending millions of pounds on the costs of illegal migration at the moment in terms of housing people.

£290 million for nothing is value for money.

But the policy hasn't come to effect yet. We're setting up the policy right now. The legislation hasn't gone through the house of communes.

To the point, it's not been an effective policy.

Yeah, but it cost money to set policies up. It's not in place yet. We are spending millions and millions of pounds on housing and legal migration people coming over here, which is just wrong. It's not fair. It's not right. I'm a Kent MP. I see the impact this has had on children's services in terms of accommodation. We've got to do something about this. In order to do that, we do have to set up the Rwanda scheme. Yes, that does cost money, but when it is operational, it will have a real deterrent effect. We've seen the deterrent effect that the Albania scheme has had. We've introduced a new deterrent scheme for people who aren't aware at home for Albanians, which means we can return them when they come back over here because Albania is a safe country. That's reduced the number of Albanians coming over here by 90%. We know this works, and that is why we are spending the money to put the Rwanda scheme up and to get it up and running.

I get that these things can take time to come into action, but this was announced three prime ministers ago, five home office ministers ago, if I get it right, about a year and a half ago. It's cost £290 million. You say that the job now is to analyze what's valued for money. On other policies, is that acceptable going forward? I get it was announced by Boris Johnson or by Richie Sunet, although he was Chancellor, but £300 million to not get anything for 18 months Is that value for money?

Well, like I said, it's not operational yet.

I know, but new policies that come across your desk now. It's your job, as you said, Chief Secretary of Treasury, to weigh these things up. Would you say £300 million on this new policy, whatever it is, completely different sector of the economy, is value for money if it's going to cost £300 million to get nothing for 18 months?

But it's not up and working yet. When it is up and working yet, the National Crime Agency is clear that deterrence works. We know deterrence and returns agreements work because of the Albania deal. When the Rwanda scheme is up and running, if it has a deterrence effect, it will be absolutely value for money. But it is not up and running yet. I hope it will be. I hope it passes the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and we can get interaction as quickly as possible because it is important. Behind this, it's just a fundamental issue of fairness, which is that you shouldn't allow people to come over here and jump the queue. We need to have an organized migration system where the government is in control of who comes into this country.

I wanted to touch on the post office scandal. I guess my question on this is whether it is a failure of government that it's taken an ITV TV drama to get the government, the country, acting to potentially try and right the wrongs of the past.

This has been a very long... I mean, awful, by the way. Absolutely appalling. What you've seen, actually, over the last number of years is a number of very dedicated, by the way, MPs who have worked on all sides of the house to bring this to justice. We've had an inquiry which has been set up a number of years ago, and also now a number of compensation schemes which are in place. But it's right, and it's an example of public service broadcasting, that this has got even more attention because of the program that has taken place.

Just to wrap things up, we're interested to know that clearly you want to win this election. Clearly, you guys believe that you will. I wonder whether the one positive to you, if you lost, would be the fact that we'd see the first female Chancellor of the Exchequer in Rachel Reeves. Would that be something that you would celebrate either way?

I don't think that is... Whilst I very much like Rachel, I'm very keen on women in public positions, I think we'll be fighting every single day to ensure that doesn't happen.

But that's a very good answer, to be honest. I'm not sure where I can take that. I guess if you win the next election and you hope there's many more years to come, it's a job that you perhaps could fill one day.

I think we've got a very good chance for the exchequer.

Very diplomatic on both of these. You should take Sir Nigel Shinewell's position in future.

Laura Trott, thanks so much.

It's been a real pleasure. Thanks for coming in. Well, in just a moment, we'll hear once again from our panel on the biggest election year ahead around the world.

We'll be ready. Well, unfortunately, We're in a time period where carrying weapons, getting involved in drugs, county lines, seems to be a culture now. And once it becomes a culture, it's very difficult to just say to a young person, Don't carry a knife, because it's actually part of their being. Now, how do we get to that? Many reasons. You can start at school exclusions. We have so many young people being excluded from school. When you look at the stats, especially amongst young black kids, mixed-race kids, there's a high population of them being excluded from school. You go up north, you've got many poor white kids being excluded from school. So you have to look at the skills of the teachers that are excluding these kids. Can they relate to these kids? Can they understand these kids? So we have to look at cultural training amongst teachers because the school exclusions, everyone's agreed, is a pipeline to the prison or a pipeline to criminality because they fall through the crack. They got nothing to do. And of course, where gang members are concerned or young people involved in drug dealing, it's easy to get them groomed into that lifestyle.

I wouldn't say it's just gang culture anymore. I say there's a lot of complex issues. One of them is social media. We have right now many young people who use social media to send messages, and some young people feel violated by these messages, and they react to these messages. Social media actually plays a real serious part into how it how it promoting this lifestyle, how it promotes gang violence, how it promotes violence in general, and how it promotes grooming, exploitation indirectly. Nothing in life will tell you to be violent. Nothing. We are growing up, We know what is right and what is wrong. But unfortunately, we are dealing with social media that impacts young people's mindsets around how they think and how they behave. Now, it may not seem like that to us that that should impact them. But unfortunately, when your brain hasn't been fully developed, and everybody agrees that your brain doesn't fully develop until you're about 25, so you're easily misled, misguided, and you are easily groom into a life because you're not fully developed in your thinking and how you come across and your character and your personality.

Welcome back. Let's get a reaction from that interview with Laura Trott, with the panel. Rachael, I want to come to you first because have we, over the course of the last week, weekend, started to see a successful articulation of a policy difference from the Conservatives on this issue of tax cutting?

Well, no, not particularly, because even though Jeremy Hunt announced the reduction in national insurance contributions from 12 P in the pound to 10, the IFS at the same time pointed out that you will pay more tax in 2024 than you did in 2023. I thought that the message is being slightly blurred.

Are we also seeing, Matt, more reasons why the government is more likely to wait as long as possible to call this election?

I think so. The weird thing, I think, about this tax cut argument is it's clearly something that Tauy MPs like, Taury members like. And yet the big argument going to the election is going to be about the state of public services, about the fact that there's massive waiting lists, about the fact that schools are crumbling around children's ears. If you look at the polls, the public split pretty evenly down the middle between people who think we tax too much and spend too much, and people who think we don't spend enough.

If the argument is about restoring the public services, most people know, well, that doesn't mean...

You can't have, although Boris Johnson did manage to successfully basically promise this in 2019, high spending and low taxes.

That just doesn't work.

Christian, to what extent should Labor be careful? Because the polls can be wrong. I'm reminded of 2016. It's a similar vibe that nobody thought Donald Trump was going to win.

Yeah. Well, look, I always say the Beltway is a bubble that is not really often connected to actual people's reality, because 2016, 2020, plus the intervening midterm elections, all were were called wrong. I think, as Pence said, the American people have a habit of actually surprising the pollsters, which is why I think we shouldn't right now go into doomscrolling about who's going to win and who's not going to win. I will say about the economy, I had Cristalina Gordieva, the head of the IMF on my program, for the New Year predictions, and she said, I mean, in a word, cheer up people, it's a new year. Inflation is down, unemployment is down, prices are coming down. I'm talking about the US, but also somewhat in the global economy, big big world shocks might intervene, but she was surprised that no major economy slipped into recession in '23.

Just whilst we finish on the UK stuff, I mean, Matt, the surprise aspect, is this lead too big to lead to a complete surprise?

As in for the-The UK. For the Labor Party? I think that everyone looks to polls and looks like Kierstein is going to become Prime Minister. Conservatives are not going to go, Oh, right, fine. Okay, carry on then. That's what the polls say. They're not going to go down without a fight. If that means promising tax cuts that they will try to work out how to deliver if they happen to win, they will fight dirty. They're spending a lot of money on Facebook already in terms of building up. On Richie's Facebook page, not on the Tories. I personally think a narrowing of the polls, it doesn't take much for a 20-point lead to become a 10-point lead. I think at the moment, I think a hung pilot where Labor, the biggest party, is underpriced. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I think it's underpriced. The other thing I think, is everyone looks at polls through their own perspective.

People who didn't want Donald Trump to win believe the polls.

Ultimately, if it's too close to call, don't call it. In following the trends, quite often the clues are there. People just don't want to see them.

Rachel, even the last election here didn't really go to plan because of the scale of the victory that was delivered. The polls were on there.

You're talking about the last general election, 2019. We've had two leadership elections, I think, since then. It's been very confusing. It has been. There's been a lot of churn. The polls weren't banned on for the leadership. On 2019, I don't think it was ever expected that there would be an 80-seat Tori majority. I think that was a surprise to everybody, as was, of course, the vote, leave, winning the EU referendum if you left our equivalent of the Beltway.

Do you believe the polls this time, where they are at the moment?

I do, actually. I do. I think that it is pretty nailed on. But then, of course, Hillary Clinton, as Christian was saying, was nailed on in 2016 then. But this is, as you say, 14 years of one party. Can I just ask Christian one thing? If Hillary was nailed on in 2016 and we got Trump, and Trump is nailed on in 2023. Who are we going to get? Well, Trump was nailed on in 2020 as well, and we didn't get him.

Was he, though?

It was close to that time. Everybody said Biden, old man. Listen, the same narrative, old man in the bunker, COVID doesn't let him go out, blah, blah, blah. And he won. He's the only one who's beaten Trump.

I want to broaden this out because we've got a map of, I think, some 70 countries this year where some form of elections are taking place. Christian, I want to come back to a question I raised at the top of the show. Do you think democracy will flourish this year?

I tell you what, it's really in question, I'm afraid to say, because many of the analysts who are watching this say, right now, there are potentially more illiberal democracies and dictatorship's authoritarian regimes than there are actual liberal democracies. This is a huge, huge indicator of where the world is going to be going. As I said, the biggest ones are in the... Look at the United States. Look, Russia is a fake Putin will win and be there until he dies. We've got India claiming to be a democracy. It's pretty illiberal. You've got South Africa, a huge amount at stake in South Africa, all of Europe up there. Look at it, just about. I might mention also Taiwan next week.Yes.If that goes wrong.This year, right now. If that goes wrong and China moves in on Taiwan, we've got a war on three fronts.

Do you think there's a risk, Rachel, by delaying the election too close just after, just before the US election?

Or does that not matter? I've asked about this, and that's not That's a big issue. My thought is, I think we're going to have our election on November 13th after the US election has concluded.

Matt, do you think global stage, whoever is our next Prime Minister, gets the respect that British Prime Minister as used to have? It's an interesting question.

I think Brexit has played a part in that for no other reason, the White House used to phone the UK as the gateway to the rest of Europe. I think in terms of democracy, we think The problems with democracy are things that happen elsewhere. I think the big question is what happens after an election? Do the losers accept the result? Do the smaller parties, your Nigel Farage, your reforms, I don't know, Lee Anderson, does everyone accept the result and move on? We've seen what's happened in America. It boasts of being the home of democracy. Accepting the result and moving on is a really important part of that.

That's become a thing since Trump. It's become a thing around the world. It's been mainstreamed We need to be careful with that.

We have just over a minute left. So a final year ahead prediction from each of you, Matt. What's your key call for the year? Well, I'm going on tour again.

I'm doing my stand-up tour. The first time I did it, they called... Theresa May called an election. The second time, war broke out. I'm going on tour again, March the first, so anything could happen.

I'm glad you plugged that in on your show because your show's on the same time as mine. People should buy tickets to your tour rather than tune in today. Mattschaulish. Com, that's all you need.

I'm going to plug. I'm relaunching my Difficult Women podcast. I I wish this was going to be the year of more women leaders. Laura Trock, I don't think she will be the first female Chancellor, but I do think we'll get one. Rachel Reeves, and of course, they'll all be doing my podcast, as you will be, Christian. I wish I was going on tour like mad. It would be really fun. But I think I think. I'm coming to Taunton. But I do think that I think everybody needs to watch the United States because where the United States goes, democracy will follow, and the world order will follow. Sorry to say, but that's the way it's built in. Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, Middle East, Middle East, Middle East, both have to have full attention. Right now, there's a problem with potential spilling over.

Well, Christian, since you didn't plug your show, I will 6:00 PM on The International. You guys all did it for you. A real pleasure to have you all here.Thank you.Thank you so much.Thank you. Happy New Year to you. Joining us. That's it for this week's Sunday morning with Trevor Phillips. Trevor will be back next Sunday. You can catch me 10:00 AM Monday to Friday. It's been my pleasure to be with you this Sunday at the top of the morning.

Good

This is Sky News Today. It's 10:00, the headlines. Kirstammer tells Sky News he'd cut taxes on working people, but refuses to say which one, and says he's up for a fight with the Tories on his green.