treasury officials", labour's policies would result in a £2,000 tax rise for every working family. the conservatives say they stand by their figures. it has been confirmed — as expected — that narendra modi will becomes india's prime minister for a third time. the 73—year—old found himself unexpectedly reliant on a number of smaller parties to reach a parliamentary majority, after his own party fell short of the 272 needed to form the next government. it may mean that in power he will need to be more concialatory than he has previously. a boeing spacecraft carrying two nasa astronauts is on its maiden voyage after a successful launch from cape caneveral this morning. this is starliners first crewed mission after years of costly setbacks. the astronauts, butch wilmore and suni williams, will spend one day in orbit before docking with the international space station. the first of two days of events have been taking place to mark the 80th anniversary of the normandy landings. king charles, queen camilla, prince william and the prime minister rishi sunak were in portsmouth today. five years ago, there were 225 veterans travelled to normandy for the commemorations — but it is a dwindling number, this year there were just 23 who travelled. good evening. the first televised debate of this campaign was styled by the media in the manner of a title fight. if that is what it was then the prime minister needed more than just a points victory. this morning papers declared rishi sunak the winner, "starmer on the ropes over tax", said the telegraph. but by lunchtime maybe the judges were questioning whether that knock out punch was more resembling, of a low blow. the shadow front benchers called rishi sunak "a liar" over this claim which the labour leader, seemed slow to dismiss. inflation is back to normal, wages are growing. taxes are now being cut. keir starmerwould are growing. taxes are now being cut. keir starmer would put all that progress at risk. he would put up everyone�*s taxes by £2000. £2000 progress at risk. he would put up everyone�*s taxes by £2000. e2000 and higher taxes for every working family in our country. claire coutinho doubled down on the prime ministers earlier claim. i have worked in the treasury, and i can tell you these are brilliant independent civil servants, and they would not be putting anything dodgy in there. these are all the policies that have been set up by the labour party, and actually, if anything, they are underestimating the cost to families. they have been signed off by the parliamentary secretary of the treasury. the figure first appeared in a conservative document called labour's tax rises published three weeks ago along with the claim that almost every costing had been conducted by the treasury. but two days ago the most senior civil servant in the treasury, the permanent secretary, james bowler wrote to labour making clear the civil service had not been as involved as the conservatives had claimed. "civil servants were not involved in the production or presentation of the conservative party's document. "labour's tax rises" or in the calculation of the total figure used" he wrote. the £38bn figure includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service. "any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service." the conservatives have refused to back down on this figure. here's what andrew mitchell told the bbc�*s world at one programme on radio four. i think politicians calling each other liars in an election campaign. it just sort of the public just switch off and lose interest. it's important to say i don't believe that either side is lying actually on this. the position is as follows that we have costed through treasury validated figures, but in addition to that, through other independent sources, i non—conservative sources how much labor's tax rises would be over the period of a parliament and we've come to the figure of £2,094. clairsaid clair said the permanent secretary signed it off, he says in a letter he hasn't that it's wrong. so it's a lie, isn't it?— lie, isn't it? the reason it's generated _ lie, isn't it? the reason it's generated this _ lie, isn't it? the reason it's generated this discussion l lie, isn't it? the reason it's| generated this discussion is lie, isn't it? the reason it's - generated this discussion is there is some kernel of truth. but people are now asking whether it's 1000 or 3000 or are now asking whether it's1000 or 3000 or whatever it is, the factors that the conservatives have managed to the public to think about tax rises because ultimately government spending comes from somewhere. it's either coming from borrowing or through tax rises, and that's the key. they've managed to get people to think about it, for so long in this campaign, so far, labour have managed to get away with dressing to conservatives that they are rubbish. now they are going to have to explain how they are going to pay for these premises, and that is a win. the figure may not be completely accurate, but they are getting to a central point which is funding has to come from somewhere. whenever there's a tax cut we talk about underfunded tax cuts, we ask where it's coming from. we don't do the same when it to spending and in this campaign i think we will start doing that and obviously that will benefit the conservatives. willful dishonesty- _ benefit the conservatives. willful dishonesty. even _ benefit the conservatives. willful dishonesty. even if _ benefit the conservatives. willful dishonesty. even if you _ benefit the conservatives. willful dishonesty. even if you accept. benefit the conservatives. willful i dishonesty. even if you accept that these _ dishonesty. even if you accept that these figures are true, this is £2000 — these figures are true, this is £2000 over four years. it would be £500 _ £2000 over four years. it would be £500 a _ £2000 over four years. it would be £500 a year. this has been phrased in the extremely disingenuous way, but the _ in the extremely disingenuous way, but the fact is there are no manifestos will come of this is policy— manifestos will come of this is policy guessing games. and this has been presented to the public as being _ been presented to the public as being an — been presented to the public as being an independent figure. it is a conservative figure that has been disowned — conservative figure that has been disowned by the civil services. 0ver four years _ disowned by the civil services. 0ver four years not over a single year. this_ four years not over a single year. this is_ four years not over a single year. this is desperate stuff for the conservatives and it's also incredibly disappointing that keir starmer— incredibly disappointing that keir starmer wasn't more able to rebut it in the _ starmer wasn't more able to rebut it in the moment. it took four spinners after the _ in the moment. it took four spinners after the debate to make the point that this _ after the debate to make the point that this was not true. the other thing _ that this was not true. the other thing is, — that this was not true. the other thing is, you say that the papers said that — thing is, you say that the papers said that this was a win for rishi sunak— said that this was a win for rishi sunak over— said that this was a win for rishi sunak over this particular point. there _ sunak over this particular point. there are — sunak over this particular point. there are five conservative papers right—leaning papers in the uk and they were — right—leaning papers in the uk and they were the ones who splashed on this, who _ they were the ones who splashed on this, who grabbed hold of this and because _ this, who grabbed hold of this and because this one issue has been allowed — because this one issue has been allowed to— because this one issue has been allowed to run overnight, it's now dominating — allowed to run overnight, it's now dominating the agenda today, but this is— dominating the agenda today, but this is completely untrue and i think— this is completely untrue and i think it — this is completely untrue and i think it should be beneath rishi sunak— think it should be beneath rishi sunak to — think it should be beneath rishi sunak to be using this as an attack iihe _ sunak to be using this as an attack line it _ sunak to be using this as an attack line. it shows desperation. were you surrised line. it shows desperation. were you surprised given _ line. it shows desperation. were you surprised given that _ line. it shows desperation. were you surprised given that labour- line. it shows desperation. were you surprised given that labour had - line. it shows desperation. were you surprised given that labour had had| surprised given that labour had had this document for some weeks and had this document for some weeks and had this letterfrom the this document for some weeks and had this letter from the permanent secretary two days ago that rishi sunak was able to talk about this figure 11 or 12 times before the labour leader really pushed back on it? �* ., , labour leader really pushed back on it? ., i, , , it? and from the very surprising, actuall . it? and from the very surprising, actually. clearly _ it? and from the very surprising, actually. clearly rishi _ it? and from the very surprising, actually. clearly rishi sunak- it? and from the very surprising, l actually. clearly rishi sunak knows he's going to lose the election so basically what is decided to do is just to come out fighting and no holes barred. i think that to expect the leader of opposition to be in a position where he can rebut that very quickly and very instantly that not for the first time, actually, i think we saw a keir starmer in doing so, either he hadn't been properly briefed her he hadn't taken on whatever briefings he'd been given because if you didn't realise, rishi sunak making something up, you would think as somebody who is an observer of how is said that he came across better than keir starmer. that doesn't really work during an election campaign. you need to be able to have the instant rebuttal. much more nimble. there's a kernel of truth to this, it is said postop rachel reeves weather asked whether she will rule out tax rises, vat, she will rule out tax rises, vat, she said there's nothing in our plans and requires further tax rises. how are they going to find the money. i rises. how are they going to find the money-— the money. i think there are two se arate the money. i think there are two separate issues _ the money. i think there are two separate issues at _ the money. i think there are two separate issues at play - separate issues at play here, christian, the numbers which are all a bit back of a package, there is the separate issue of honesty in politics and we don't think it's acceptable for any political leader to pass off their own analysis as the work of independent civil servants because it calls the civil service into question. we've asked the prime ministerfor a correction. i'm not holding my breath that's going to happen but there is a broader issue and that is that neither of the main parties are really talking about the choices that will face any incoming government. and if you sum of those choices into words are those options, it's probably not great. i leave got to cut public services, many of which are already on their knees or you've got to borrow a lot more money, which will increase debt repayment and puts off problems and make problems bigger in the future. 0r you've got to raise taxes. being honest with the public and having a proper debate, of course, doesn't help when you have a debate when your answers have to be 45 seconds long for some of these complex issues, but neither of the main parties i think are being particularly honest with the british. . ,., particularly honest with the british. . ., , . british. labour governments have done this in _ british. labour governments have done this in the _ british. labour governments have done this in the past, _ british. labour governments have done this in the past, when - british. labour governments have done this in the past, when it - british. labour governments have i done this in the past, when it comes to costing commitments in manifestos, do we need an independent body who does it for us, the voters? ~ , ,., , independent body who does it for us, thevoters? ~ , , , the voters? absolutely because it means the government, - the voters? absolutely because it means the government, the - the voters? absolutely because it| means the government, the party the voters? absolutely because it - means the government, the party that is in government has access to the civil service — is in government has access to the civil service figures which the opposition doesn't have. so that's not fair _ opposition doesn't have. so that's not fair we — opposition doesn't have. so that's not fair. we do need independent assessments, we also need the manifestos to be published, the idea we are _ manifestos to be published, the idea we are having this conversation are coming _ we are having this conversation are coming up — we are having this conversation are coming up in — we are having this conversation are coming up in the debates happening before _ coming up in the debates happening before we _ coming up in the debates happening before we know what is written in the manifestos is quite absurd. it's silly and _ the manifestos is quite absurd. it's silly and i_ the manifestos is quite absurd. it's silly and i think it turns off voters _ silly and i think it turns off voters i— silly and i think it turns off voters. i think it was unedifying from _ voters. i think it was unedifying from iroth— voters. i think it was unedifying from both of them yesterday and it means— from both of them yesterday and it means that all numbers become ridiculous— means that all numbers become ridiculous and as chris mason was think— ridiculous and as chris mason was think of— ridiculous and as chris mason was think of is— ridiculous and as chris mason was think of is 350 million on the side of the _ think of is 350 million on the side of the bus, — think of is 350 million on the side of the bus, you know, we have become incredibly— of the bus, you know, we have become incredibly sceptical about numbers incredibly sceptical about numbers ih politics— incredibly sceptical about numbers in politics and it's a shame because we do _ in politics and it's a shame because we do need — in politics and it's a shame because we do need to know how much we are going _ we do need to know how much we are going to _ we do need to know how much we are going to he _ we do need to know how much we are going to be paying. we do need to know how much we are going to be paying-— going to be paying. another part of the debate. — going to be paying. another part of the debate, discussions _ going to be paying. another part of the debate, discussions over- the debate, discussions over hospital waiting lists. we are now making progress, the waiting lists are coming down, but what keir starmer did not mention to you, which you did, julie... hang on. waiting lists were 7.2 million, they are now 7.5 million, and he says they are coming down. and this is a guy who says he's good at maths. yeah, they are now coming down. they are now coming down. 7.2, when you said would get them down, 7.2 million, they are now 7.5 million. i'd like you to explain how they are coming down. because they are coming down from where they were when they were higher. and they are now on their way down. laughter so who is right on that. here's verify�*s ben chu who has been looking at the numbers. in effect, the prime minister and keir starmer were both right. we've got a verified chart to walk you through it. this is nhs waiting times in england, which is the target they are talking about. you can see here, it did peak last september at about 2.8 million, and it has come down... sorry, 7.8 million down to 7.5 million now. so, the prime minister is right that waiting lists have come down, but this is what keir starmer was talking about. he was talking about when rishi sunak made his pledge to get waiting lists down, which was in january 2023. and waiting lists then were around 7.3 million. so, relative to them, they have gone up. so, they are both right. it depends on which period you are talking about. what are voters meant to think when the two parties are picking different time frames to make their case? �* , different time frames to make their case? �*, ., _ , different time frames to make their case? ., _ y'. case? it's obviously very difficult to make a _ case? it's obviously very difficult to make a proper— case? it's obviously very difficult to make a proper comparison. i case? it's obviously very difficult i to make a proper comparison. one to make a proper comparison. 0ne further— to make a proper comparison. 0ne further point — to make a proper comparison. 0ne further point i _ to make a proper comparison. 0ne further point i would _ to make a proper comparison. 0ne further point i would make - to make a proper comparison. 0ne further point i would make a - to make a proper comparison. 0ne further point i would make a really| further point i would make a really is the _ further point i would make a really is the situation _ further point i would make a really is the situation in _ further point i would make a really is the situation in wales _ further point i would make a really is the situation in wales wasn't - is the situation in wales wasn't brought— is the situation in wales wasn't brought in _ is the situation in wales wasn't brought in if— is the situation in wales wasn't brought in. if you _ is the situation in wales wasn't brought in. if you look- is the situation in wales wasn't brought in. if you look at - is the situation in wales wasn't brought in. if you look at the l brought in. if you look at the waiting — brought in. if you look at the waiting lists _ brought in. if you look at the waiting lists and _ brought in. if you look at the waiting lists and waiting - brought in. if you look at the i waiting lists and waiting times brought in. if you look at the - waiting lists and waiting times in wales, _ waiting lists and waiting times in wales, they— waiting lists and waiting times in wales, they are _ waiting lists and waiting times in wales, they are demonstrably i waiting lists and waiting times in - wales, they are demonstrably worse than in _ wales, they are demonstrably worse than in england _ wales, they are demonstrably worse than in england. we've _ wales, they are demonstrably worse than in england. we've been- than in england. we've been expecting. _ than in england. we've been expecting, really, _ than in england. we've been expecting, really, the - than in england. we've been expecting, really, the tory. than in england. we've been- expecting, really, the tory party to make _ expecting, really, the tory party to make hav— expecting, really, the tory party to make hav of— expecting, really, the tory party to make hay of that _ expecting, really, the tory party to make hay of that actually - expecting, really, the tory party to make hay of that actually because i make hay of that actually because they've _ make hay of that actually because they've done _ make hay of that actually because they've done it _ make hay of that actually because they've done it in— make hay of that actually because they've done it in the _ make hay of that actually because they've done it in the past- make hay of that actually because they've done it in the past i'm - make hay of that actually because they've done it in the past i'm a l they've d