the prime minister insisted that they appear separately. and you can see some of her logic. she used the opportunity to kick lumps out of her opponents when they couldn't retort. you have diane abbott who can't add up sitting around the cabinet table. john mcdonnell, who is a marxist. nicola sturgeon, who wants to break our country up. and tim farron who wants to bring us back into the eu, the direct opposite of what the british people want. the audience though gave her a pretty rough time. refusing to answer people's questions, refusing to talk tojeremy corbyn. a prime minister and potential future prime minister doesn't understand the difference between a learning disability and the mental health condition. i had called an election... for the good of the conservative party, you have called a general election for the good of the conservative party and it will backfire on you. including on brexit. do you really think you have any real leverage with brussels? an area where she has a rather well drilled response. i think we can negotiate a good deal, because a good deal in trade terms is notjust of benefit to the uk, it is of benefit to businesses in the remaining countries in the european union. social care was where mrs may had her weakest section. she pretended there hadn't been a u—turn involved in announcing a cap on social care costs. i heard the scaremongering that came out after our manifesto was published. and i set out one of the details, the aspects that would have been in the consultation, which is about having a cap on the absolute level. there is a flaw of £100,000, you can protect 100000 and we will consult on watch and by the cap. this killer question was one she could not give a meaningful answer. you can tell us what the floor is now. why can't you tell us the cap? applause. there was a run of concerns about austerity too, including mental health, schools bending and public sector pay. i've been working as a nurse for 26 years. do the tories expect our support in light of the 1% pay increase? that is where mr corbyn was most comfortable, making a clear defence of a bigger state. we are asking the very biggest corporations to pay a bit more. but i'll tell you what, i think it's worth it. it's worth it so that any young person can go to university and not leave with debt, to make sure that school head teachers do not have to collect at the school gate in order to pay the teachers' salaries. mr corbyn, who started out pretty relaxed, lost his ribbon after being pressed several times on whether he would use our nuclear deterrent if we were attacked. the reality is that we have to obviously try to protect ourselves. we would not use it as first use. and, if we did use it, millions are going to die. you have to think this thing through. applause would you use it as second use, or would you allow north korea or some idiot in iran to bomb us and then say, oh, we'd better start talking. you'd be too late! he was also pressed on his 1980s contact with irish republicans. there has to be a coming together at some point. you were talking to them, they were killing women and children and you were talking to them. there has to be... well, i was talking to representatives of the republican movement, yes. actually, so was the government at the same time. so this debate can tell us a lot we didn't know. these two politicians have vulnerabilities. but by now, that's hardly a surprise. that was chris cook. joining me now from york, foreign secretary boris johnson. foreign secretary, thank you forjoining us. we're used to hearing strong and stable from theresa may. she didn't mention it once. why? well, i think... she spoke for herself. she gave a commanding performance, and it came across very, very clearly that she's overwhelmingly the best candidate to be prime minister on friday of next week. strong and stable was how she wanted to be seen. she emanated both virtues. her answers were clear, they were concise. she got through a lot of them. yes, she had some tough questioning, but i think when you contrastjeremy corbyn‘s performance and his... the difficulty he had with some pretty elementary questions about the defence of this country, about the brexit negotiations... let's talk about her. the audience didn't see strong and stable tonight, did they? they said she wobbled and backtracked, her so will their words, not mine. 0n social care, she still hasn't been able to admit that it was a u—turn. she talks about wanting to be honest but you can't admit that the cap on social care was something she thinks has now got wrong and she changed her mind. that's not strong and stable at all. 0n the contrary, i think she gave a very full answer to the whole question of social care, and she spelt out once again this is to stop people having to go through the agony of selling their homes to pay the care whilst they are alive whilst raising the threshold to £100,000 so that you can pass on when you die. yes, we are going to consult on the cap. there are difficulties with the cap being regressive, as she explained very clearly. i think the audience got that, and it was actually a useful exchange. but when you came tojeremy corbyn on the defence of our country. i mean, we've invested £31 billion in the trident... we will be talking about labour, jeremy corbyn and trident, i assure you... but we are talking about the conservatives‘ message tonight, which is her message is about hard—working families, foreign secretary, that is something we have heard all the way through. she wants to talk to hard—working families. we heard tonight in the and say to her that she is earning the same money that she was in 2009. theresa may said, there no magic money tree. that's pretty condescending, isn't it, for somebody who has seen 14% less money in real terms, that's what she said tonight. no, what you pointed out, we have already spent half £1 trillion on the nhs. she was talking to a nurse who hasn't seen her salary go up in real terms since 2009. i understand, nobody minimises the difficulties that are facing. as theresa may is just said, we have to be prudent public expenditure. it is because of that that we can put £8 billion into the nhs to continue to improve that great service. you can only do that if you have a strong economy. i know you don't want me to talk about the policies of the labour party... ifican... to condescend to a guy who was running a small business and want to whack up his taxes with no understanding of the damage that does to the productivity of the uk economy, the ability of our economy to generate the tax revenue that we need to pay for the nhs and other public services. you can confirm what michael fallon told the telegraph, there will be no increase in income tax under this conservative parliament if you win. is that correct? we have already taken four million of the lowest paid out of tax. no increase in income tax, is that what you will pledge? we will bear down on taxation, we have no plans to raise income tax. no signs for the high earners, you have just talk to me about being prudent and having to make choices and not paying in nurse more than 1%, so there will be no increase in income tax, even for high earners, write? our plans are to cut taxes. labour's plans are to put them up. and to keep putting them up. funding unnecessary things such as renationalising the utilities on the railways. and necessary things like a nurse's wagers. a colossal expense. it's by having a strong economy, by believing in this country and getting the right brexit deal above all that we will have the revenues, we will have the tax revenues we need to pay for great public services. let's get onto foreign affairs. it's lovely to have the foreign secretary here. in the last 2a hours, donald trump has walked away from the most significant global deal to save the planet. and the best we have heard from theresa may is that it is disappointing. that sounds like what you'd say when a souffle doesn't make it! everyone remembers that bill clinton, who was much loved by the liberal left and all the rest of it, did not ratify the kyoto protocol, and yet america has met its obligations there. let's see what donald trump does before we waive our finger at him and accused him of things. i think it would be better, as i said to rex tillerson and all our counterparts across government in america, that it would have been much better to go with the original thing. but it didn't work. he made a clear commitment to his electorate before the american election that he would do just this. and the best special relationship can say is disappointing. we can work to reduce c02. huge steps have been accomplished at on both sides of the atlantic to do this. we have reduced it and so have the americans. tag along? so we are tagging along now, is it? she was talking to the americans in a way that those other leaders won't. she made her view clear. we are going to work with the americans nonetheless mildew-awe; after the election, and when you talk about tagging along with foreign leaders, itjust demeans your office. i simply fail to understand what you're saying. it is completely right of the prime minister to ring up the american president to express the position of the british our job, unlike jeremy corbyn, the most anti—american leader of the labour party i can remember, we have considerable ability to help the americans. do you think people who criticise donald trump are just whingeing? i will give some examples, if i may. one of them is obviously over the air run deal, whichjeremy corbyn alluded to several times. britain has worked with the americans so they haven't scrapped the iran nuclear deal, which had been a risk. we are working with them on their policy for the middle east peace process, where donald trump has shown great interest. if you look at the actions of america in syria, their treatment of russia, they are far more proactive now and that is very much, i believe, thanks to the intercessions of the uk government and a powerful relationship that has been developed between us. theresa may did not back you at the time. we haven't had any such requests, and all i can say is that on the two occasions when the americans have taken action, i think they had a material impact on the calculations of the russians and of the assad regime. do you think you will be in a job next week? that is something that the 0bama administration absolutely failed to do, and i think part of that success is thanks to uk diplomacy. as for your questions about the job that i may have. i want, if at all possible, to be the mp for uxbridge and south ruislip. equally important is that we get the right person leading our brexit negotiations, and tonight, it was absolutely clear to me that there is only one person who can conceivably do this, the division and firmness of purpose, and that is theresa may. thank you very much. i don't disagree with the analysis that this was a heavy victory for her tonight. thanks for your time. following theresa may came jeremy corbyn. he faced questions from the audience, from the host, david dimbleby. we arejoined by ian lavery, labour's national elections and campaign coordinator. he can miraculouslyjoin us where you might have seen borisjohnson a few seconds ago. a lot of this, as you heard from the foreign secretary and the audience tonight, came down to that one question — security. everything tojeremy corbyn tonight centred on whether the public i thinkjeremy answered very sincerely and honestly tonight, as always. i thought it was a tremendous performance. he stood there, took the questions, answered every single one, unlike theresa may, who has had a disastrous campaign. and what you have just seen there before is a job interview by boris johnson, very intriguing stuff. jeremy corbyn performed exceptionally well tonight. the trouble is, though, the same questions have plagued him right the way through this campaign, and it wasn't from journalists tonight, from the bbc and the media, but from members of the public, and it suggests that there is baggage that surrounds him, questions about his relationship to terrorism, to the ira, to nuclear weapons. e? 321? é'i’; 35795; ii??? ‘i’; "'i:: . .. ........ ... at times, it's not very favourable. at times, you might have to speak to people who you really don't want to. and jeremy explained that. with regard to the ira, he explained that he spoke to people from across the piece, nationalists and unionists. look at the solution we've got, we got the good friday agreement, peace, and that is because jeremy and his like think it is right to consult with people across the piece. w ifs-emir what he would do with the nuclear button and a second response. he didn't. what he did say was that at the time when he was discussing with all parts of the community in northern ireland, that the government were doing that at the same time, margaret thatcher's government, which was interesting. they were right at the time, because what we want to see what we have now is a peaceful solution to the situation in northern ireland. surely, that is what we all want. would you accept that untiljeremy corbyn can make those sorts of questions go away from members of the public that were facing tonight, from people watching at home and thinking the same thing is, that he cannot be trusted with the nation's security? jeremy corbyn can be trusted with national security. that isn't in any doubt, and he explained that tonight, very clearly, that he takes the national security of this country extremely seriously. one of the differences between jeremy and the conservatives is that jeremy believes in preventing further conflict, in discussion and negotiation with countries across the globe. he doesn't want to wait until the final seconds to run and press a button that perhaps could incinerate millions of human beings. i think that's sensible and i think that's what people want — dialogue, discussion, honesty, sincerity, agreement that this will never, ever happen. we don't want people running towards the button and trying to get there before each other to kill off the human race. it's absurd. ian lavery, thank you very much indeed. probably felt like a long meanwhile, at the end of what has probably felt like a long week for theresa may, we heard that a conservative the crown prosecution service says it's charged mr mackinlay, who defeated nigel farage in south thanet in one of the constituency battles of the night, with offences under the representation of the people act. david grossman has been to south thanet, and brings us this. is this battlebus full of conservative activists visiting south thanet in the 2015 general election part of national or local campaigning? it might seem like a dull question, but the two are treated differently, and have different spending limits. knowingly failing to declare election spending correctly is a criminal offence. the then—victorious candidate, craig mackinlay, has been charged with two offences relating to election spending between december 2014 and may 2015. also charged are his election agent, nathan gray, and a party organiser, marion little. back in 2015, this was the front line of the conservatives‘ battle with ukip. it was such a ukip—supporting area that nigel farage had chosen it to stand in the election. the tories thought if they could beat him here, well, they could hold back the tide of ukip nationally. the defeated ukip candidate in 2015 was out campaigning in clacton today, chatting to journalists, when an aide starts trying to get his attention. you're joking! oh, my good lord! right, that's big news, 0k, thank you. craig mackinlay‘s just been charged. what does it mean? well, effectively what it means in that constituency is that, whilst his name will stay on the ballot paper, i think the chances of people voting for him are now very slim, so i think that constituency will be a straight fight now between ukip and the labour party, and i will be there tomorrow afternoon giving a speech at 5pm to support our candidate. and what do you think it means more broadly in the context of seven days to go until the general election? well, once again it's bad judgment from theresa may. but why on earth would you allow someone to go ahead as a general election candidate when this cloud was clearly hanging over him? and i think it will, you know... there will be questions. in a statement today, mr mackinlay said... when who should i bump into, also staying here, but a very senior party worker from conservative central office. what are you doing here, i asked? just keeping an eye on things, was the casual reply. it turned out that a whole team of conservative party workers had been staying here and at another hotel off and on throughout the 2015 campaign. they racked up hotel bills of thousands of pounds, paid for by the national party. last month, the cps decided against charging more than a dozen other candidates over similar allegations. in a statement today, the conservative party said they were confident that mr mackinlay would be cleared, meanwhile criticising what they called fragmented, unclear and confused election law. well, the conservative party continues to believe that these allegations are unfounded. craig mackinlay is innocent until proven guilty, and he remains our candidate. mr mackinlay, along with nathan gray and marion little, will appear in court next month. we return to the issue- w- w. - of climate change. so, in the absence of america, it was china and europe who came together and pledged to unite to save the planet — a sight few would have predicted five years ago. president trump announced his withdrawal on thursday, saying he believed that to participate in the pact would be to undermine the us economy, wipe outjobs, and put his country at a permanent disadvantage. joining me now is todd stern, former advisor on climate change to president 0bama, who was the united state's chief negotiator on the 2015 paris climate agreement. very nice to speak to you, todd. how damaged is america by this? thanks very much, emily, it's a pleasure to be here. look, i think this is a terrible decision. it's bad for the united states in all sorts of ways. it's bad for the world and for climate change. in diplomacy, a country's reputation and standing and credibility matter above all. what the rest of the world is going to see here is that the united states has given them a slap in the face. the trump administration, president trump. it took years of work to get this deal gone. it is a balanced, fair and universal agreement, the first time a real, durable, effective climate agreement has been established after all these years of trying. i see no legitimate case for having pulled out. it's going to be quite damaging for the us. borisjohnson a moment ago said that bill clinton never ratified kyoto. is that an equitable arrangement? i did hear that, and there is no legitimate comparison there. there is not a question of whether bill clinton, the agreement had a structure and a formation that had in reality no chance of getting ratified in the us senate, that was too bad, we wanted it to happen but itjust wasn't going to happen and it wasn't because president clinton didn't try. do you think china is taking the place of america? is it emerging as the saviour of the planet? well, i don't think china is the saviour of the planet but i will say that i'm glad that china is making clear that they intend to stay in the agreement and to continue with their pledges. that's important. obviously the us and china together, the work that we did together, the diplomacy was enormously important to getting the agreement done. and it's a good thing that china wants to stay in. it's going to be also i think enormously important that europe, including the uk, step up and play a leadership role. and many other countries around the world. so i wouldn't at all look at china as a saviour, that would be a real mistake. but china is an important player. there are many other important players. china, as the world's largest emitter at this point by far, obviously has a responsibility, and i'm glad to hear that president xi jinping seems to be saying that they intend todd stern, thank you very much forjoining us. back to the election now, and our regular friday panel. joining me here — lbc‘s iain dale. paul mason — corbyn supporter and journalist. and polly mackenzie — former advisor to nick clegg. very nice to see you all. a quick run through, who do you think won that debate? were their winners and losers for you, paul? i'm going to say this, you have been very good at not being too tribal up to this point! i have great hopes for honesty... i think what was wrong with that debate is that at this stage in the game we need expert people quizzing both sides. who won was the politicians because they were not expertly quizzed. neither of them was pushed to the limits of where their positions are because the audience... i think they were coming from an emotional position, which is where many voters come from. 0n things like nuclear, tonight this is the issue that labour spin doctors want to avoid, i want to hit it head—on. the position is clear. no first use is incredibly new and innovative for the british nuclear military establishment, and yet nobody in the audience seemed to pick it up. i'm concerned that the quality of democracy we are going to get at the end of this election is one where, you know, two completely different politicians have really failed to be quizzed expertly in the way that... that is very brave, saying the audience asked the wrong questions. when they are quizzed expertly, corbyn supporters go on twitter and troll them and call them zionists asking hard questions. 0bviously that is wrong. but the point i'm trying to make is that we need to know now, what is the cap? it was said again and again, what is the cap on how much savings you lose from the dementia tax? we don't know. polly, let me come to you. what did you feel? this was about the warmth an audience has for whoever is on the stage, who won that? i think theresa may was better than she has been. she has had a wobble for the last ten days, but it feels like she's back on track, as good as she could be. you do have to have different phases. andrew neil taking people to pieces, but also people who can relate to human beings. both of them were better than you would have expected on that. politicians get found out when they are asked questions by real people, i see that every day on my radio show. it is the real voters, when they ask questions, politicians are sometimes like goldfish. we saw that tonight withjeremy corbyn. this was an important event, it had the highest audience of any interview programme so far, and i'm afraid, paul, that jeremy corbyn was found out tonight. his remarks on terrorism, he could not bring himself to condemn the ira. he condemned them. no, he didn't. 0n nuclear defence... this man is not fit... i don't want to rerun the debate. what i do want to say is, at the end of the week when we have seen an extraordinary diversity of polls in the way that we have not for two years or whatever, where would you put your number is now? if i come to you for maths, and i know you do this anyway as a hobby, you are going for a tory majority... yes, lam. theresa may has had a bad week, let nobody denies that. tonight she came out fighting. any floating voter who watched that will have been more impressed by theresa may than they thought they would be. in terms of numbers, at the start of this campaign i predicted a tory majority of 74.