gravel, building, nigel farage. first, we will talk about labour. simon i notice a real rachel reeves vibe to the start of the week. she seems to be everywhere. it's no secret that labour have gone from, you know, the corbyn era to speed dating business to having a world wind at romance with business and that took a new chapter today when she met some of her british infrastructure counsel, which included the chief executives of lloyds banking group, mng, lots of top executives from international investors and what have you. and it is quite interesting that she did that during an election. because the sitting government cannot do that, but they were saying they were there in an advisory capacity. nevertheless, quite an interesting thing. and i think that what strikes me is their whirlwind romance with business is actually upsetting some of their traditional in their bid to woo the board room, they are upsetting some people on the shop floor, for example, the unite union did not endorse their manifesto. so i think there is some tension at the heart of the labour party right there, which is an intriguing preview of the tensions that could exist in the labour government if there is one. so this infrastructure, is it true that rachel reeves tried to do it last year but the government phoned around the companies and said don't you dare? i don't know whether one way or another that is true or not, what i do think it is that businesses were much more reticent about engaging with one political party or another and obviously wanted to foster good relations with the sitting government. but businesses, like us, are looking at the polls and are thinking we need to be dealing with rachel reeves and keir starmer. so she had her british info structure council meeting this morning and i don't know where... do you know where we are going to go next, brexit. can i pat myself on the back, i don't know if you are listening to saturday's episode but when we were talking about keir starmer�*s interview with nick robinson for panorama, i picked up on the fact that when keir starmer was talking about brexit, he talked about reducing barriers to trade overall. and i thought, even though that was just one word, that was like widening the scope of what to labour might do to change the brexit trade deal with the eu, because previously they talked about very narrow things like a veterinary agreement, more cooperation on security, stuff on recognising each other�*s qualifications and something to make it easier for musicians and artists to go touring. i thought to soon as keir starmer said barriers in general, that sounded like they were up for talking about more stuff. it's fascinating, yeah, i think the whole thing is interesting because, of course, as we know, there lots of people to think that labour in particular, notjust labour, but labour in particular have been trying to avoid talking about the b word, brexit, too much during the course of this campaign and in the months preceding it. there are some that seed up as the vulnerability for a party because the minute you talk about them as you mentioned what keir starmer said but also what was heard from rachel reeves and this was an interview she gave to the ft in which she talked about revisiting some parts of that brexit deal to do exactly as keir starmer was saying, which is remove some of those trading barriers. the minute labour starts doing that, the fear from some within the party is they would leave themselves open to the accusation, not least from the conservatives that, you know, labour's long—term plan is to take us back into the eu, that would've been the claim that was levelled against them. so it is interesting that both keir starmer and rachel reeves now do appear to be at least flashing a bit of ankle in terms of this and saying they would be prepared to look again at parts of the brexit deal if it eased trade and help the economy and helped in their pursuit of what is one of their key ambitions, which is, of course, economic growth. the party is very keen to say this isn't a shift in position, we are not changing what we are saying here at all, we want to make brexit work, we are not reopening the door and shutdown any kind that might be levelled against them on that front, but it's interesting at this part of the campaign is comfortable addressing that, because there are some people that think this should be talked about, that brexit should be a bit more of this campaign particularly if you think about 2019 when it was such a central issue. and rachel reeves said something quite interesting when she said that when people voted for brexit they were considering things like immigration, they weren't thinking, "do we have the same regulations on chemicals across the board?" that wasn't the issue, and saying if there are veterinary chemical regulation recognition of qualifications those were into the dividing lines when it came to brexit, so if we can make business easier, and one of the big things they are going to do when public finances are tight, they are going to look to business to do some of the heavy lifting on investment and that is why a lot of the parties are trying to lay out here is why business should invest, it will give you more stability, the labour's line is stability is change, not the catchiest line of all time, doesn't initially make sense. but it does if you think about it. what they would say is we have had four prime ministers and six chancellor since 2010, and that has been an impediment to both international and domestic investment, so you want to get business to invest, just quieting out all down can help. let's stick to the brexit point for a bit because we've got to do some tea leaf reading here if people still read tea leaves if it's even possible. rachel reeves talking about chemicals regulation because that is the sort of thing that has just got harder as a result of the borisjohnson brexit deal, or is that because she's got her eyes on actually, this is a little side deal we could do with the eu to make chemicals regulation a bit more similar. we don't really know at this stage. let's see how keir starmer was talking about brexit today. he was visiting a port in southampton. we took a decision to leave the eu, so we will not go back and. but we think the deal we have got is botched. it's not good enough. i think many businesses would say we need something that works better for us because if you make it more difficult to trade, guess what, it is not so successful from our point of view. so we do think there is a better deal to be had. obviously that will have to be negotiated. it doesn't mean not going back in, but it does mean an improvement of what we've got for businesses. i think the scope for improvement in other areas as well. there we go. keir starmer repeating the scope for improvement in other areas. to go back to this point about growth. now, i remember not so long ago when liz truss was the prime minister and she said we've got to go for growth at all costs. that is what will solve all of the nation's problems. how different is what rachel reeves and keir starmer saying about bashing for growth at all costs, they don't say —— at all costs come they are betting the house on all the same things that liz truss did. for example, if you look at the tax and spend stuff around the labour proposal, the labour manifesto, it's actually quite a modest document in terms of commitment. they are talking about a national wealth fund of £7.3 billion and they use that, when public investment increases, and by the way the uk has horrible record and over the last 20 years, so it spans multiple administrations, they've got the house—building target 1.5 million per year, sorry, 1.5 million over the parliament, not dissimilar to the conservatives. i would be a lot of houses. but on that point, planning is seen by business as one of the big issues, and they are saying it is just harder generally to build big stuff in the uk that it isn't some of the other rich nations like the us, part of it is to do with geography, we are small, crowded islands, and the labour party have said that they are going to have a crackdown on that overrule councils who routinely reject planning applications. that is something that will resonate with the business community because they say they would like to do this, and as i say, we have had 32 changes, i think, to the corporation tax regime in the last 11; years. a lot of people saying if you just give us a bit of a road map, labour talking about that as well, then we would have a bit more confidence something that is putting up some sectors as labour's b confidence something that is putting up some sectors as labour's veto on new oil and gas licenses which the snp could cost 100,000 jobs in scotland. the conservative party say it would cost 200,000 jobs across the entire industry for the whole uk. that is, actually, you know, pretty clear dividing line between the two parties. rishi sunak i'm of the prime minister, was on an oil rig or a gas platform in the north sea today, i cannot... i saw him in a jumpsuits. no, not a jumpsuit. overalls! i've taken those helicopters. what is it like? it's fantastic. they basically dump you in a swimming pool in broad daylight with no waves to see whether you can cope with being turned upside down. in case your helicopter crashes. but being in us calm swimming pool in broad daylight i don't think is very good preparation for our stormy north sea. but, the oil and gas thing is quite an interesting one. i'm told it was a gas rig not an oil rig. alex, have you ever been on one? no, but i have been in one of those boiler suits herjumpsuits when i went out over the north sea with the royal navy in my days as a reporter at the portsmouth news. that was fascinating. had to do the same thing, had to learn how to be checked out of a helicopter. i would say i didn't love it, if i'm honest. i really thrive in that environment. i have not been in many helicopters but one time was when i went across the country with paula radcliffe visiting schools doing sports days for news around. that was fun! you thought paula radcliffe could make it on her own tv. we did cover a few hundred miles. even paula would be challenged to do that. ultra, ultra marathon. alex, talking about the running race of more pure politics rather than policy, the thing that has got people's attention on the tray campaign today is yet again grant shapps, the defence secretary going on the radio saying that they are going to lose. he got a bit of a hard time within tory circles, albeit largely privately when he said before about this possibility of we've got to stop a labour super majority in planting that seed, and he did, he followed the same sort of path again and i guess you might argue that there goes a kind of political... train of thought which says if you focused minds on the potential outcome of the election being between labour and the conservatives, then that helps the conservative campaign because of course we have heard time and time again the conservative saying it is going to be only one of two people who are standing at the podium and number 10 at the end of this whole race, but i think i'm you know, we have had others coming out, including the prime minister, basically trying to say that we have not given up, there is still a way to go and we haven't given up yet. i also just wonder what this does for labour because, of course, labour have been really careful through this campaign to avoid the c—word, not the b—word, and that is complacency, and to avoid this assumed thought that they are definitely going to win. and we have heard it from time and time again saying not a single vote has been cast, of course, once the polls go, that's a slightly different thing, but they don't want it to be an assumption that they are just in—line, taken for granted either. an interesting choice for grant shapps who of course is known as one of the solid communicators in the conservative party, wheeled out of the tricky moments to hold the line. he went there again today. and just in terms of the polls, there was another poll today, and of course the polls are just snapshots and they do rely on judgment by the posters as well that put reform and the conservatives neck and neck, but then since then there have been other polls showing that there is still quite a big gap with the conservatives, so that this kind of the polling background to that. what is interesting, alex, a by—product of these consistent polling for labour means all the other parties have been quite honest about what they can achieve, so we talked before about the green party in england saying we are only fighting for seats it davey, the lib dem leader says i'm taking the fight to the tories. i want to take seats from them in the south. labour can do what they want everyone else and today nigel farage was watching the reform uk contract with the british people and he was being really explicit he said, oh, this is about me becoming a minister in 2029, thank you very much. he went even further than that. he launched those contracts and the building behind me, which is why i'm sat in the car in the car park. but he went even further than that and he said, "we are not under any illusion we are under this general election and form the government." his pitch was they wanted to be seen as the main party of opposition during the course of the next parliament. because the question you put when he launched this contract, 24 pages long, various policies in there, i said to him i put to him, is this a wish list rather than a serious plan? and his answer was, well, look, we are not saying we are going to form the next government. we saying we are going to campaign on these issues over the next five years. and i think that is right. because labour have had such a consistent lead in the polls for such a long time with all the caveats around the polling, that has done something to the dynamics of this campaign whereas exactly what you say, what you have had are the other party positioning themselves against the labour where they might sit in a future parliament, where it labour to win that majority. so there's always going to be caveats and some careful reporting of polls and where they are apt, the polls themselves can change the dynamics and the nature of campaigns and change the way people perceive campaigns and change the way parties act in them. i think we are really seeing that during the course of this campaign for that exact reason. just so many polls and such ease of access to them if you are on social media. simon, did you go through the reform contract? he actually did. there is my... have you really got a copy with you? he has printed it off. i think reform uk are trying to position themselves at what they would like, we are the ambition of the tory party, which we think has let people down and have pitched themselves against that didn't have said... there is some pretty ambitious stuff, ambitious pledges in here, big tax cuts for small businesses, quite big tax rises for big business, which is probably an unexpected attack from the right on big business. all i would say is that small business owners, smes can vote, the owners of them big multinational corporations cannot. so you've got lots more small businesses then you have big multinational ones. a couple of very eye—catching pledges, they say they are going to cancel net zero targets, that would save, they think i'm a £30 billion a year. a massive tax rates on big banks of £35 billion a year by stopping paying interest on some of the bonds that the banks hold, the bank of england, and as i say, that targeting a big business perhaps an unusual one for a party on the right, a lot of people saying, look, these numbers don't add up, the 35 billion a year tax rate on banks will probably raise about 10 billion or half of 35, somewhere between ten and 20 and the 30 billion on net zero targets, very hard thing to calculate. but what they are saying is they are going to try to appeal to the smaller business at the expense of big business and that i think is an interesting line to take. another big number is 50 billion, which is the amount that nigel farage reckons you could say from government spending by cracking down on waste, but alex asked him whether that really was trimming a little bit here and there and spending list on staplers and posted notes or whether it means deeper cuts to public spending and this is how that conversation went. what we are arguing here is a very modest cut. £5 and 100 and that is the job of the whitehall bosses. and everybody who ever worked in the private sector will tell you, when times are tough to cut things. in times are tough. you know, we are massively indexed, we have to become more efficient. so there would be cuts to public services? we have no desire for any cuts at all with the concept of things being free of the point of delivery. you can take £50 billion at a public spending with no cuts? the french have the exact same amount of money being put in and get better returns on all health industries. i will come to you in a second, alex, to expand on what they are saying about immigration, but simon, there is another area of savings you want to highlight. massive cuts to the welfare bill, they are saying that, you know, there are some people out there who genuinely need help but just think that they are too many people on either incapacity benefits for either physical or mental health problems and they would take an axe to that kind of spending. and it's very interesting, as you say, the largest spending increase that reform is suggesting is an extra £17 billion a year for the nhs to try to cut or eliminate waiting lists within two years. very few people i've spoken to think that is possible. a little bit out of my wheelhouse, but that is one of the things. alex, immigration and reform. yeah, obviously absolutely no surprise that this was page one of their contract, not manifesto as they like to call it, contract with the people. it's one of the centres of their whole policies and has been for some time, what they are effectively saying is they would really limit the number of people who could come to the uk to live and work illegally, so they would freeze what they call nonessential immigration, so exceptions for health and care workers, but other workers, so people that come in to fill other gaps in the labour market from overseas, they will want to freeze that so they acknowledge there will be some immigration but they would like to see it vastly reduced and again, it was interesting, picking up on the point that simon made, but the potential impact that might have on some businesses and he again said, look, these businesses should not be replying on this overseas labour, and i said what about the small businesses? because there is this idea and it's interesting that reform seem more willing to be seen on the side of small business and not anti—big business but prepared to kind of take up stick to big business and that is exactly what nigel farage saidf on that point. a second arm of their immigration pitch is about small boats, so they have set out what is called a four—point plan, they say the reforms would have to be enacted within100 days and that would stop the small boat crossings and there are various bits in that, but the potentially most eye—catching one is the parties say they would withdraw from the european convention of human rights. the reason this is interesting is because this has been a point of contention within the conservative party with some on the right of the political party arguing for some time that rishi sunak should've committed to pulling the uk out of the european convention of human rights if that court did blo