Do you think there needs to be a kind of a sense of a real guiding principle that kind of everyone who sat on that new cabinet table understands?

Yes, absolutely.

And I think that does, to a degree, come with the plan, because the plan comes with an objective.

If the question was, well, what should that objective be, then certainly something like cost of living and getting those pressures down on people is a very important thing to strive for.

And we're doing exactly the same in terms of our thinking as our other parties.

But the key to moving on as an economy and a country is growth.

So central to any plan has to be an answer to the question, how do you step up growth from what we had the pre-global financial crisis trend up to 2008, getting at least back to that.

Do you feel like there's been a bit of a vote of confidence in you, you know, from Kemi?

But on day three, or no, day two, the evening of day two of a government, it is an appalling look that Streeting and Mahmood were laughing about the early release of prisoners, isn't it?

Well, I think, uh, those family and friends of PC Harper and others who have people who now may be being released, uh, early as a consequence of the, uh, decisions taken by, uh, this government will be deeply, deeply disappointed, uh, Jeremy.

Look, this whole, uh, approach is completely wrong.

You know, if you've got, um, serious offenders like rapists, people that have killed people, people that groomed children and so on being let out halfway through their sentence, and some who've committed lesser offenses a third of the way through their sentence, you can understand why people, uh, are really, really angry and, uh, are very, very disappointed about, uh, this situation.

There is a different way, uh, which is we have 10,000 foreign nationals in our prisons.

We should be, uh, removing them and sending them, uh, back to, uh, their countries of, uh, origin and making the space to make sure that those that commit these heinous crimes are locked up and serve an appropriate sentence.

Where the hell is the money coming from, man?"

That's exactly right.

... think he delivers on the things he's talking about while sticking to the fiscal walls?

Well, I, I'm worried about the things that he's talking about, and firstly, of course, we're only, uh, sort of half guessing what he's gonna actually mean by all these things because there is no plan, even though he's apparently been out there plotting his way to Number Ten for the last, uh, year.

And yet he said this morning that there won't be any, uh, plan until, uh, at least the autumn towards the end of, uh, this year.

Look, the, the, the big challenges we've got is we are highly over-borrowed as a country.

We're paying vast amounts in terms of interest on our, uh, national debt.

We've got a tax burden that is, uh, at a near all-time, uh, record, uh, and we've got a welfare bill that's ballooning out of control.

Now, what you need to do in those circumstances is get on top of public spending, particularly welfare, people off welfare and into work, and then do two important things.

So Mel Stride, if Andy Burnham said he was gonna in, in- increase the personal, uh, income tax allowance, would you support that?

Mindful that an arrest has been made and we're waiting for a police update in an hour, Sir Mel, can you just reflect on Ann's life and work for us?

Yes, of course, and good morning, uh, Camilla.

And Ann actually was, uh, one of my constituents.

It's a part of Devon that I, uh, represent.

Um, and can I just begin by, um, extending my heartfelt condolences to her family, to her friends, and the many people that, uh, she knew.

Uh, my reflections, uh, of Ann, Camilla, were of an extraordinary lady, uh, somebody who combined having that really strong sense of what she believed, not everybody agreed with her, but nobody could say she was anything other than a woman of great conviction.

Um, but she combined it with extraordinary energy, uh, great charm actually.

Do you think that Rachel Reeves should be going ahead with this Mansion House speech on Tuesday night when, let's be perfectly honest, even Chris Bryant earlier admitted she probably isn't gonna be chancellor by this time next week?

I suppose many people might ask, why does it always take a tragedy for that sense that, you know, we're all after the same thing to come through?

Well, I think it's just one of those facts of life, isn't it? And it's a very human thing that when something terribly tragic occurs, particularly the loss of somebody's life, that is always a moment for reflection.

And I think that's part of the human condition.

And that's probably quite a good thing in and of itself.

But I think in terms of the politics here, if we just... come out a bit and look at the Conservative Party and look at the Reform Party, there is an ocean of difference between us as political parties.

And I would argue that is around, on the economic front, fiscal responsibility.

We stand up for that.

You wouldn't therefore support the suggestions that are circulating in government that the big donations of this kind should be limited to £100,000? So look,

I

think the point that I was going to go on to make is that we now live in a world in which tactical voting is increasingly important.

And what matters in a tactical voting world is not just where you are in the polls in terms of popularity, but how many people are prepared to vote tactically against you when the opportunity arises.

And that is a problem that Reform has.

They are increasingly toxic amongst increasingly large proportion of voters.

of the population.

And I think in the first-past-the-post system across seats in this country at a general election, that will be a major problem for them.

You're still not trusted.

I mean, they basically ate your lunch in Bakerfield.

I think the point that I was going to go on to make is that we now live in a world in which tactical voting is increasingly important.

And what matters in a tactical voting world is not just where you are in the polls in terms of popularity, but how many people are prepared to vote tactically against you when the opportunity arises.

And that is a problem that Reform has.

They are increasingly toxic amongst increasingly large proportion voters.

of the population.

And I think in the first-past-the-post system across seats in this country at a general election, that will be a major problem for them.

that's your problem,

Mm

... are going, uh, to comment.

I think the big takeaway though, Jeremy, from all of this, is the approach to policing and where we've ended up in a situation where, uh, the, uh, leaning into issues of, uh, not being discriminatory has led to the wrong actions being taken in some circumstances by the police.

And that's why I think Kemi, in a very, uh, level-headed, mature, and sensible way, is calling for a rapid review now into exactly what has happened so that we can learn those lessons and change the guidance that the police, uh, are operating under because it is not right, I think, that you have guidance that says that ba- based on a person's ethnicity, they should be treated differently, which in some cases leads to the kind of terrible events that happened in the way in which the police appear to have handled the, uh, terrible death of, uh, of Henry Novak.

Um, is it true that Madame Reeves might be off to the IMF soon with her cap in hand begging because we're skint?

I think it's certainly true, and this is comments made by Ken Rogoff, uh, and Charlie Bean, uh, formerly of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee and the OBR, uh, that sometime this decade there is a chance that we end up with a debt crisis.

And this is something that my party has been saying for some considerable time.

Because if you run an economy in the way that this government has, which is that you tax the living daylights out of businesses, which of course destroys growth.

I asked Mel Stride.

So that's why we are reaching out and putting plans together for a much more inclusive economy.

Look, the economy since about two thousand and eight and the global financial crisis has been characterized by low productivity growth, lower real wage growth, uh, higher asset prices, particularly property, and that's left younger people, and I say younger, not young, because really if, if you're in your roughly mid-forties and younger, you didn't benefit from the economy in the way that older people that are older than that did.

And that's why we're talking about reducing taxes for younger people on their first job.

That's why we're talking about student loans, reducing the pressure of that on younger people.

That's why we're talking about getting rid of duff courses at, uh, universities and increasing, uh, investment into, uh, skills and apprenticeships in particular.

It's why we're talking about getting younger people on the, uh, housing ladder and scrapping stamp duty.

What the Conservatives are really banking on is that support for Reform is soft, more of a protest vote than an expression of loyalty.

Has anything changed in your thinking about that?

Well, in the sense that in the very, very, very long term, some of these things, of course, if you don't get growth in an economy, do become unsustainable.

That, uh, is the case.

But the key to this and protecting the triple lock is to get the economy growing, and if you do that, then you can certainly afford the triple lock.

And it's important that we do, I think, Shaun, because we too readily forget the fact that under the last Labour government, we had the fourth highest level of pensioner poverty in Europe.

And if you cast your mind back sort of 15 years or so, it was very common to read on front pages of our newspapers of, uh, uh, pensioners, you know, suffering in, uh, in deep, uh, poverty.

The triple lock has been part of the reason why we've seen, uh, pensioner poverty, uh, reduce.

What, what's the key issue there with regards to get- having the jobs available for people with artificial intelligence? Are you worried that j- those jobs might not be there?

I do get that, but-

Well, I, I think the thing is here th- that whatever else happens after this conference, I think, uh, this idea that the Conservative Party doesn't know what it stands for and doesn't have any policies, uh, is now concluded because this conference has been rich in both.

On borders we've been saying a lot of things, and on the economy we've been saying a number of things.

And really I had two key messages.

One is, we've got to live within our means and that means getting on top of government spending, and I set out savings of £47 billion there.

But I also said that to get the economy growing, amongst other things, we've got to get taxes down.

Okay? So to your first question, my speech is all about reducing taxes not putting them up.

Do you think you've got to get them to listen before that? Or do you just accept that you're gonna go up to the local elections next year, they're going to be a disaster, and that'll be ground zero, and you move on from there?

What would you have said yesterday differently if you'd been up there as the chancellor giving that speech to business?

Well, I think given the lack of planning that this government has sort of characterized itself by, it doesn't surprise me that there weren't sort of lots of new things in what she had to say.

And I think she presented it as a kind of big bang moment.

But as Michael says, I think it's a lot of stuff that either the regulators were working on anyway or were already in the pipeline, or indeed we had pushed along, uh, back in the day.

The fundamental thing, to get to your question, that I would have done is to manage the economy rather differently, because the biggest thing that will drive share, uh, ownership and other things is we've got a booming, growing economy with lots of investable propositions.

So, that would mean a very different approach to taxation, not loading tax up on businesses.

A different approach to productivity, so not just dishing out pay rises left, right, and center with no strings attached.

Mm-hmm.

Um, take me back to the discussions with your colleagues and advisors before you made that speech as to what... how far people were urging you to go, because I... my impression was that you- you went so far but didn't quite go as far as a lot of people might have liked you to go and actually used the word "sorry."

So, what I said was that we had clearly made mistakes.

Uh, I said that, you know, it was a damaging time and gave an assurance that that will never happen within our party again.

And I think it was important-... to do that because the way forward, uh, and I think this is gonna become increasingly evident as our economy comes under ever greater stress and strain, will be, uh, fiscal responsibility, making sure that the numbers add up, not coming up with promises that you can't fund.

And I think the Labor Party are demonstrating, this is what I argued, uh, that they're making a right mess of the economy.

They are economically illiterate in many ways, and that the Reform Party is dealing in fantasy economics where the numbers most certainly don't add up.

And to give you one example, uh, of that, Ian, um, Reform are saying they will take everybody earning up to £20,000 out of income tax altogether.

Well, no, no, I'm, I'm afraid you may not because we've got to go to the news in a minute, and otherwise we won't have any time for Mel to answer that question.