‘You’re lying!’: Tories, Reform and Labour clash in feisty Daily T debate

Tim, we're in very sunny Worthing, we're by the seaside because we're just about to record a Right Royal special on the Daily T. That's going out tomorrow, Friday, as a weekend episode.Today's episode... is the first day of the Roadshow that we recorded on Monday night in Westminster.

That's right.We had a Question Time -style debate and we were joined by James Murray for Labour, who works at the Treasury, by James Cleverley, who is shadow...Housing.Well done.For the Conservative Party and Zia Yousaf, who is shadow...

Home Affairs Spokesman.And Head of Policy.He was Head of Policy and Chairman, but I can't keep up.

Many hats, many hats for the Reform Party and an audience of thousands.

Indeed, cast of thousands and, let's be honest, quite a few ding -dongs on stage.

So which Zia Yousaf are we meant to believe?The one who spent ages slagging off Rob Jenrick, calling him a liar, calling him a disgrace, calling him someone who's trying to undermine your party from within?Or this version of Zia Yousaf, is so proud of what he's done and that kind of stuff.I just want to know which version of you has turned up tonight.

James, you are sitting there saying that you just told this audience, this one's for the English, do you?You just said that you are proud of your record as Home Secretary.When I'm putting to you, and tell me if I'm wrong on these points, a million people arrived legally, 23 ,000 arrived in this country legally, 70 % of whom were granted asylum.That all happened on your watch.Are you proud of that?

under a regime put in place by people in your party that I changed.That's believable.

That's believable.

Yeah, it was reformers.

Before we bring out our special guests, the Prime Minister has said that he intends to fight the next election.Assuming he means the local elections, he might just make it, but it's touch and go.

It's touch and go.And as we speak, the King and Queen have landed in America.

Yes.

And we were theorising, brackets,we were told, try and say something funny to warm the audience up.And we were theorizing what Donald Trump might make of whoever comes next to him.Yes.What might he make of the key leadership rivals to Keir Starmer?

Well, obviously, Ed Miliband wouldn't get within 50 yards of the White House because he looks like a single -person shooter.West Streeting would freak him out with those scary eyes and keep saying, I'm shocked, I'm shocked by everything he says.Andy Burnham would sow confusion because he is king of the north.

I already thought I met the king.Who is this one?

But as for Angela Rayner, we think they would get on really well.

Yes.

I can imagine he wouldn't know whether to shake her hand or crown her Miss Alabama.She looks the part.

And on that bombshell, Shall we bring out our special guests for this first of our Daily Tea live roadshows?So, let's introduce to the stage now James Murray, who is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, also known as Rachel Reeves's right -hand man.Welcome, James.And we have James Cleverley, who's the Shadow Housing Secretary.He's brought in some ringers, ladies and gentlemen.And we have Zia Yousaf, who is the Reform Home Affairs Spokesman.

We thought we'd have an icebreaker, didn't we Tim?

We did.First of all, a bit of housekeeping.No party political broadcast.If we feel people are starting to give a speech, we will interrupt.But we do want you all to speak to each other and speak over each other, because that makes for much better TV.We wanted to ask you, how would you describe the other two parties here tonight in a film title?

I'll start with James Cleverley.

In a film title?Yes.

uh 12 angry men it's not really a film but a long -standing tv program lost i think we need james murray to give us his comeback to that okay um laying down the gauntlet there james um i think for yourself james i'm gonna have to go with clueless as a movie.And what would I go for for Zia?I think it would have to be Groundhog Day because it is recycled conservative policies ending up in the Reform Party.

Zia Youssef.Lock and load.

All right, so let's get Labour out of the way.Dumb and Dumber.All right, there you go.Without question.And I think for the Tories, I'm going to go for a lesser known film.I'd be interested to know how many people in this room have watched it.

It was called Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

agreed at the weekend that the latest Prime Ministerial reset is going to be to reshuffle your boss, the Chancellor Rachel Reeves, out of the Cabinet.What's all that about?

Well, I think that's complete rubbish if you look at it, yeah.Kia and Rachel have been working hand in hand in terms of making sure we are stabilising the public finances, stabilising the economy and rebuilding our country.And look, I wonder what your audience would think about the state of the public finances and public services that we inherited from the previous Conservative administration, with public finances being in such a difficult state and public services collapsing.You know, again, we can have a political conversation about this, but we've taken decisions as a government, some of them very difficult, but I think the right ones, to support our public finances, to do so in a way that has responsible public finances, and that makes sure we can invest for the future.And if you look at the extra investment we are putting in to energy, housing, transport, that is, our judgment is the right thing for the future of the country.

We have a question from someone called Daniel who asks, if Labour is truly the party of the people, why are they raising taxes, targeting our savings and pensions, pushing businesses out of the UK and driving wealthy residents abroad?

We've taken decisions at two budgets now where we've had to take some decisions on taxation that have been at many turns difficult.But we have taken decisions that we think are fair and right in order to restore the public finances and to support public services.Now we had a choice when coming into office about moving away from the collapsing public services that we inherited.We knew that that would mean we'd have to take some tough decisionstax.But we have taken decisions that we believe are right and fair to support our public services.

And you can see now NHS waiting lists now falling.They've come down the lowest.They're coming down for the first time in three years.

Hang on, let's clarify that.Waiting lists have come down.12 -hour waits on trolleys have gone up under Labour.I did put this to Wes Streeting directly, and he agreed with that, Mr. Murray.But, just hold that thought for a minute.James Cleverley, let's be honest, if you had been better in opposition... the Prime Minister still wouldn't be in post, would he?

The last Labour opposition managed to finish off, or helped to finish off, four Conservative Prime Ministers in eight years.So if you had really truly opposed and you'd been stronger, if you consider the government to be woeful, if you think that the Prime Minister and indeed the Chancellor aren't doing a good enough job, why didn't you move more quickly last week, table that confidence motion, have confidence in your own confidence motion, and force him out.Labour are better at opposition than the Conservatives.

No, Camilla, that is...Oh, yeah, no, Labour are better at opposition because it's their natural comfort zone and they should get there as soon as possible.And, you know, the bottom line is...Because of the mistakes we made in particularly the last couple of years that we were in government, we don't have that many MPs, and that is a painful lesson that we have learned.

But the bottom line is, the parliamentary maths means that we can't force Keir Starmer out.I had a conversation about a year ago...

Well, Keir Starmer didn't help to force Boris Johnson out, and he had a stonking majority.But the...Didn't he, too?

No, Keir Starmer didn't force Boris out.out.Boris made mistakes and it was the Conservative Party.It was the Conservative Party.This is the big difference between our parties.When we decide that a prime minister isn't working for the country, we get rid of the prime minister.

And you do it quite a lot.There is an argument to say that we do that a little bit too often.I was at an event with a senior Labour MP who was saying, oh, it's all right for you Conservatives.You've got a process to get rid of prime ministers.We haven't got the process.And I said, we never used our process.

If you want to get rid of Keir Starmer, you can do so, but you guys just haven't got the balls.Now, the point is, the point is that... this Labour government has been an absolute disaster.Businesses are going under.Business rates are going up.Youth unemployment is going up.The cost of borrowing is going up.

Inflation is higher than when they took office.All the key indicators.And the flight of talent from this country is absolutely petrifying.So when James talks about making difficult choices, the word you're looking for is bad choices.The government is making bad choices.And we are all going to suffer accordingly.

Now, we know that we have got a job to do.We have got to hold the government to account.even with the reduced numbers that we have got, and we've got to make sure we're ready to step into the next generation as general election to do the job that conservatives always have to do after a Labour government, which is clear up the mess and get the country back on its feet.

I want to bring Zia in, but I want to very quickly ask a very short answer from James Murray.Of these two fine gentlemen, who do you regard as the real opposition to Labour?

Well, His Majesty's opposition, opposite us in the House of Commons, is obviously the Conservatives.

I know technically in the House it is, but who is the real threat to Labour at the next election?

Yeah, well, I think the way it's going, it feels like the next election is going to be a battle between Labour and reform.And it's about the different visions of the country that we have.And I think that is going to be, that feels like to me, that is going to be the big question at the next election.

Zia, you must be happy to hear that.

Well, look, number one, I think it's a weird line of thought.attack and defence here that, you know, who's better at unseating an appalling Prime Minister who should have never been Prime Minister in the first place, right?Like, that is an odd place for British politics to be, and I think it's a sad place for British politics to be.Look, number one, I just want to make the point with regards to James's comments earlier.Look, since Labour came to power, they borrowed than they claimed that they would.They've taken unemployment in this country to five year highs, youth unemployment to 10 year highs, higher than the European Union.

That's the first time that has ever happened in our history.So the idea that all of that happening... small businesses being crushed, sole traders being crushed, farmers in some cases being driven to suicide.The idea that all of that would happen under a Labour government, taking control from a Tory government who had left the country in an appalling state.Look, we need serious people in government again.We need to be a country that has an average tenure of prime minister of more than a few months.That is just a fact.

We need ministers who are not reshuffled every single year.And that's why what reform is saying is we need a whole new approach to government.And the majority of Nigel's cabinet, if we win the next general election, the majority of Nigel's cabinet will be people, number one, it will be a much smaller cabinet.So, you know, no one, I defy anyone to tell me they've sat in a meeting of 25 people and it being a useful consensus during the election.ideas‑driven meeting that just doesn't happen.And number two, not only will it be smaller, the majority of those people, the people in that cabinet, will be from outside of politics.

They won't be from the Tory party, they won't be from the Labour party or any other party.We need a whole new approach.And they will not be reshuffled every 12 months.So we're not in this insane situation of doing education for five minutes and health for 10 minutes and then defence for 15 minutes.We need a wholesale change to how we govern this country.We need serious people.

And with regards to how we think about this broader point of Britain's economy.You know we still think I'm in politics and I genuinely wouldn't be in politics if I did not believe this.I still think there is a potential for an amazing outcome for us and our children and their children.There is going to be a massive change in the world order I think over the next decade and two decades.But what's clear is this.It is crystal clear.

The era of soft power is over.It's an era of hard power now.President Trump whatever you think of him is discharging not just hard power but raw power.And it's time we woke up.Britain needs to rebuild rearm and compete on the world stage.

OK.OK.But before we get there.Sorry, I will bring you in, James, but I just want—I will bring you in, James, but I just want to nail this one point.Before we get there, you have to get elected.And people in this audience come from constituencies where it might be that the Tory is more likely to beat Labour.

And if the economy is—close your ears, James—if the economy is so bad, and the country is such a mess, and we're all trying to figure out how we should vote, isn't it time to put aside this rivalry?I can see very little difference between you.And just unite to beat Labour.

This is a question that a number of people asked us to ask you this evening, including Charles and George, who put it very, very simply.If reform and the Conservatives truly care for their country, will they reach an agreement?to protect it from a left -wing coalition?

We're talking about, you gave James the question, it's obviously in his interest to try and damage the official opposition who've actually got the job of holding him to account.So of course he's going to say reform, but he and I both know that he's talking nonsense when he says that.But the point is, look at revealed preference.Look at revealed preference.Whenever we have got Labour on the ropes, Reform attack the Conservatives.Reform are not trying to hold this government to account.

They're not trying to kick this government out.They're trying to damage the Conservatives, which goes on to, I think in large part, answer the question about deals and coalitions or whatever.Nigel Farage and others have made it clear over and over again that their main priority is to destroy the Conservative Party.That does not sound like the prelude to a successful partnership.Now our job as the Conservative Party, the official opposition, is to hold this government to account, get our policies in the right place to replace Labour at the next general election and set the country back on the road to recovery.We are being hampered by reform, which doesn't lend, which doesn't say to me..

.

No, you're being hampered by the voters, James, who keep giving reform enormous leads over both Labour and the Tories.

But the point is, it's not about opinion polls or whatever, it's about actual functions in Parliament.Reform always take the opportunity to attack us rather than the government, but it's the government that is doing the damage to the country.We're doing our job.What they want to do is up to them.

Look, Kemi Badenoch has also been critical of reform in the past, and I think a lot of people here don't like to see the blue on blue, and we'll come to James...It's not blue on blue.They're not blue.Well, it's right on right.They're not blue.It's turquoise on blue.

They're voting for more welfare payments.It's light blue on dark blue.They're voting to nationalise industry.They are not a Conservative party.It's still a form of...There is only one Conservative party, and that's my party.

James, it's still a form of friendly fire on the right.It's not friendly.We'll get on to James and whether he wants to cosy up to...It's not ready.We'll get on to James Murray and whether he wants to cosy up to the Keir Starmer's bestie in the commons, Ed Davey.But just a moment.

Zia Youssef, you have to clear this up, because may I say that you have been inconsistent with me on this subject, as has Nigel Farage.So you publicly give all of this rhetoric around, we hate the Tories, the Tories are dead, we want to destroy the Tories.And a couple of times I've asked you on my GB News show, listen, if push came to shove, If really the country were facing four more years of labour or a so -called progressive alliance, would you have conversations with the so -called opposition, the Conservatives?And you've basically indicated you probably would.So why are you saying one thing publicly and another thing on occasion?

Both publicly, so just to be crystal clear.

Well, be honest.

OK, so let's go through that.I am going to answer that question directly, but I want to start by addressing a couple of things that were just said there.Mr Cleverley just said that all reform do is attack the Conservative Party.Our literal campaign slogan, it's my Twitter image as a background image, is simple.vote reform, get Starmer out, right?That is our campaign slogan.

Couldn't do better than that, number one.Number two, James talked, he used a couple of phrases there which stood out to me.Number one, he talked about revealed preferences.I'm a big fan of revealed preferences.I think they're allimportant.

And here's the interesting revealed preference.Let's look at ballot box results recently.Ron Cornyn and Helsby, the Conservative Party, the natural party of government, the most successful democratic party in the democratic lands on planet Earth, 7%.Caerphilly, by election, the Conservative Party, 2%.Gorton and Denton, The Conservative Party, 2%, lost their deposits both times.Long, long time since that happened.

So look, anything can happen in the future.But I think it's crystal clear what the revealed preferences of voters are.And they're nothing like the Lord Ashcroft polls that keep coming out claiming that the Tories are at 20%.So that's a really important point.And look, We're really clear about this.Frankly, I would not even be in politics, and nor would most people in the leadership team at Reform, were it not for the catastrophic and repeated betrayals of the Conservative Party, who claimed in four consecutive manifestos they were going to cut immigration, in three of those down to the tens of thousands, and then unleashed the most unholy invasion of the United Kingdom.

The Boris wave alone, north of 4 .5 million visas issued, 17 % of which came in on work visas.Hundreds of thousands came in illegally.So look, here's the key point.I'll make this point.This is the final point for me. I actually want to answer your direct question.I want to answer your direct question, all right?

So I want to answer your direct question.I want to answer your direct question.Because I was on your show, and I remember you asking me that question.If the general election happens, and reform failed to win a majority, then sure, there were discussions that need to be had, right?Of course.But, if such a thing happens, I don't think there is a path back to prosperity and power for Britain.

That's my honest view.If you want that, I'll give it to you.reform majority.

If we're looking at the polls right now and Labour are tanking and the Greens seem to be gaining momentum, pardon the pun, and indeed Ed Davey seems to be quite intent on sucking up to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Questions, you'll be jumping into bed with progressives, fellow progressives, won't you?You'll be wanting to form an alliance on the left just as the Conservatives and Reform might on the right.

No, look, we'll be campaigning for a majority Labour government at the next general election.But you'll do a deal, won't you?No, we'll be campaigning to win across the country.But if you don't...But what we want to do is win across the country, Camilla.If you don't...

If you do not win outright, you will be racing over to Ed Davies and indeed Zak Polanski's if he manages to get a seat before you can say Rainbow Coalition, won't you, James?

No, look, we are absolutely focused.You and I were just talking, Camilla, before about me going out and knocking on doors.I'm knocking on doors now, campaigning for these elections next week, and we will keep doing that until the next general election to win a majority Labour government in the second term.

But the Greens can't be here tonight because they had a drum circle to attend.But how do you explain the fact that you're losing votes to the Greens.And it is suggested that when the voting age lowers to 16, having gifted children the vote, they're going to vote for the Pied Piper, Zak Polanski, and disappear into the mountain of madness.How do you explain why you, a progressive party, are being eclipsed by the Greens?

I think when you listen to some of what the Greens say and the way that they describe problems, they are sometimes talking about issuesthat chime with people.Some people, not everyone, but some people.The way they describe frustrations, the way they describe what's going on in the country, they can describe problems in a way that can get people to acknowledge what they're saying.I think that when it goes to the question of what are their solutions, that's where it falls apart, because their approach to economics is fantasy economics.They haven't got programs that would work.

They haven't got any policies that would actually survive contact with reality.And I think that is the big difference or one of the big differences between them and us in that we are a party that is in government to deliver change.And we can have a political debate about whether you like what we're doing or not in this audience.I appreciate the different political views of some people in this audience.But we're determined to actually make that happen.And that's why for us, the focus is on practical policies that make a difference and move us towards where we want to get to.

Whereas the Greens just don't have any policies that, in my opinion, survive contact with reality.

OK, let's move on to more economic matters.Zia, isn't the truth of the matter that you had to get a former Tory to be your economic spokesperson because you were worried that a reformer might spook the markets?

So, number one, I think Whether we like it or not, I mean, I understand the threat to your question, but we do as a party, assuming that we win the next general election, which is obviously our goal, whether we like it or not, this country is closing on three trillion of debt.We do have to care what international markets think.So that's the first point.I talked to bond market participants, as does Robert, and they are gravely concerned about these labor policies.And don't forget, it was the Tory party, of course, that near tripled that national debt.And by the way, I don't think I'm gonna get out of my head of all of the disgust

economic policies.I mean, the word disgusting is the right word to use to describe them.The idea of Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves doing all of this, quote, hand in hand, just takes that to a whole new different level.But look, we are serious about the business of governance.This party has not been around for a very long time.We'd be the first to admit that.

You know, we're talking about party that has been around in the grand scheme of British democratic history.It's been around for the blink of an eye.And so you know if you're going to put to me that we want to go out of our way to ensure that the people who lend the firms and the funds that lend this country money to keep the lights on.Yeah, like, we do care what they think about it, we really do.

So you're admitting that in appointing Jenrick as the economic spokesperson, you need to incorporate some continuity conservatism into reform, which is astonishing.No, that's not what I said.Because James Cleverley's party's record on the economy, it's all very well criticising James Murray.You know, you left us with Sky, how taxes.You left us with Liz Truss.People in here have got mortgages that they're paying far more for monthly because of the disastrous mini -budgets.

It's just interesting that you two are continuing...And how do we respond?And this is an important thing.So firstly, we did have a European war and an energy price spike and Covid to pay for.And pretending away, those once -in -a -generation, once -in -a -lifetime events is, I think, inappropriate.But the point is, we also recognize, we absolutely also recognize that when you're kicked out of government, you have to do things differently.

And Kemi has been absolutely clear about the mistakes we made and the difference that we will make next time.And the point, I mean this is one of these things about credibility and honesty and that kind of thing in government.I mean Zia's been incredibly personally critical.about Rob Jenrick, who now apparently is the person who's going to calm the markets.And he tweeted that, was it failed conservatives trying to bring down reform from within, which is obviously a failed attack on Rob and Suella and the other people that have defected, which is quite an interesting kind of welcome present to those people that have gone across.But the fact is that, you know, We see from reform exactly what we see from the Greens, which is very emotive language, very good at getting people's attention, and Nigel Farage is one of the best political communicators in the country, and I think it would be churlish to pretend otherwise.

But actually, if you look at what they deliver, so Zia's meant to be UK doge, and was meant to, was it, save, Billions of pounds getting rid of diversity and inclusion officers.How many have you fired since taking control of councils across the country?Order of magnitude.None, none, none.In Leicestershire, they commissioned a report on how to cut waste and that report identified a million pounds worth of savings.The report cost 1 .4 million pounds.

Warwickshire, the highest council tax in the country.In Kent, tax going up.In Lincolnshire, tax going up.In Durham, promises.cap council tax, but a whole load of stealth taxes.The bottom line is, reform have no credibility on economic issues.

Because they are lying to the British people and hoping they won't get caught out and the problem is The problem is the British people problem for them.The British people are not that credulous They're not that daft and they won't be fooled twice That is why their arguments on the economy have got no credibility Whatsoever to be fair to reform with one notable exception where the council was nearly bankrupt They've raised taxes below the threshold of where they were having said they were gonna cut taxes You defend that Zia Yousaf because I've constantly heard the line from Nigel Farage be careful we never promised to cut council tax although that does beg the question what's the point of you then?

So number one, it was really interesting to hear James there say the British public, quote, won't be fooled twice, which appears to be admitting that they were fooled once.And I would actually disagree with even that, because they were clearly fooled manifold times, at least on five occasions.So that's number one.Number two, so there's a few points to make here.Let's look at the, there has never been more scrutiny in this country from the media on local councils than scrutiny that has been placed on reform councils.And that's totally fine.

People can scrutinise reform councils.But if Tory leaders and Labour leaders were asked about their records in local governments.I mean, let's not even start on Labour and things like the bins piling up in Birmingham.Let's talk about Tory councils.Let's talk about Thurrock.Tories took control of Thurrock, bankrupted it.

You've taken control of north of 50 councils, raised capitaltax in excess of 5 % each time.You've bankrupted Woking in exactly the same way.And actually, at Thurrock, you left that council with half a billion pounds in debt.And people point to us and ask, what's going on with reformed council tax?Well, yes, reformed councils have needed to increase council tax, in the large part, broadly in line with inflation, because everybody knows, and voters understand this, as a result of Tory and Labour policies, the vast majority, north of 70%, and I know this because I've spent a lot of time in town halls and at local councils, north of 70 % of local council budgets are mandated at state level, are social care, are care of children, about which not a single elected councillor can make any decisions about, who gets that care, how much it should increase, etc.

And by the way, let me finish my point, and then you can put something to me.You can put something to me.As Tim just pointed out, as Tim just pointed out, to the degree council tax has increased, Reform councils on average reform control councils and we increase council tax less than any other Particular political party and by some margin.Okay, so actually we're talking about fiscal prudence and being responsible people People's money.

Nobody has a better record record than reform a quick retort because Let's not talk about lying with confidence my friend let's not talk about lying with confidence, okay I don't want to let you off the hook, James Murray, because I tell you what, there's nothing you lot at the Treasury like more than taxing us to thepipsqueak.We've got the tax burden.God help us.The tax burden is forecast to reach 38 .5 % in 2030 -31.How on earth does that help to bring up growth?

Well, when we won the general election, we said we were going to make sure we protected public services, but at the same time, it's protecting public finances.Now, as I was saying earlier, that means we've had to take decisions on tax, and some of which have been difficult and they're tough decisions, but I think they've been the right decision.And actually, one of the crucial things for me, and forgive me if I go into the fiscal rules a bit here, but because we have a system now under the fiscal rules where day -to -day spending is paid for through tax receipts.So this is not using borrowing to pay for day -to -day spending.Day -to -day spending is now fully paid for through tax receipts over the course of the school card, the period that we do the forecasts for.That means that we are now living within our means.

and it means we are able to invest more in the future of the country.Now, that is our argument, that actually making that investment in the future of the country is the right thing to do, because how many times have I spoken to people when I've been out campaigning, and people complain not just about the health service and about other public services that they can see having fallen to pieces under the Conservatives, but also about the lack of investment in our energy security, in our railways, in our public buildings, our hospitals, and so on.All of that matters to people across the country.And because of the approach we've taken, where we pay for day -to -day spending through tax receipts, so not borrowing to pay for day -to -day spending, but then investing in the future of the country whilst getting debt falling as a proportion of GDP, that is the way to make sure we can invest in the future in a responsible way.

But for all that, there's a little bit of growth, but it's not nearly enough.enough yet.And a question from Peter How are you going to get us get us out of this mess.And don't answer rejoin the EU or I will scream.That's not me.That's Peter though.

I don't join the EU.

Well if you look at the economic data most recent growth data from February it was point five percentage points growth.So actually good news from February.And if you put alongside that the figures on unemployment coming down and on borrowing coming down we had some really good economic data.Now look that is from the period before the the inflation spikes on Iran.So I think we need we need to we need to be clear here that you know the if you look at the data around growth unemployment and borrowing you know they show that we have the right plan.But I think we need to be conscious of the fact that what's happened in Iran it may not be a war.

We may have said we didn't want to get involved in it but it will still impact us all of us.here in this country, that will have an impact, that will put pressure on the economic situation in the UK.

James, The Telegraph is the newspaper of people who work really hard and save and invest in open businesses.They do things like run pubs and they might be landlords, etc.And one thing that really frustrates them is the sense that the government keeps placing greater and greater burdens in terms of regulation upon the middle class.For instance, we have the renter's rights bill come in.And I know of people who are selling off properties right now because they're worried about what that's going to do to them.Or you could talk about the taxes on farms, or you could talk about the many taxes that are hitting pubs really hard, such that they don't really make a profit anymore.

Whatever your good ambitions might be, why do you keep piling these new regulations and costs upon people who, they're not trying to exploit anyone, they're just trying to make a bit of money and contribute to their community by running a good business?

And to be fair, pay people's benefits.Yeah.I mean, just to add to Tim's point, our audience and our readers are constantly saying, you've got working people increasingly propping up the welfare bill, and they're at breaking point.And you must be concerned about that as a Treasury Minister.Working people are the backbone of this country, and you are really piling pressure after pressure on them.

And I want to make sure that anyone who's on benefits, who can work, is working.Anyone who should be working is right.That is our.Can I just.There's quite a few different questions there and what you just raised.Can I just pick up Tim on the point you raised around the renters rights.

I think this speaks to a bigger question about housing as well which is a huge issue in many parts of the country right across the country.The Renters Rights Act which comes into force on the 1st of May.It will be a big change in terms of what it means for the rights that individual renters have.And for us it is about rebalancing the system because a few decades ago if you were renting privately you might have been doing it short term maybe when you were young maybe as a student or someone who had recently left school or university.It would be a temporary tenure.whilst you saved up and then bought a home.

Because of the housing reality in lots of parts of the country now, people are renting more long term, people with children, people with children in local schools.And so having a situation where you don't have security when you're renting privately is something that needs to change a bit.And this is about rebalancing the system to make sure that those people who rent, including families with children, have more security in their homes when they're renting privately.Now, the other half, though, of the housing question is about building more housing.And when we came into office, one of the very first things that we did was about getting those planning changes underway to make it much easier to get planning permission to build new homes, to make it much easier to get on with building new homes.And that is something which was not universally popular.

It's not something which everyone agreed with us on because it was changing things in a way that hadn't been changed for many years.Under the previous government we heard time and again how they were going to reform planning to build more housing.It never happened because it always fell over on their back benches.But we've grasped that nettle.and change your planning system to make it easier to get planning permission to build new housing.Now, that won't be universally popular.

I understand that.But it is the right thing to do.And we owe it to the next generation to build those homes.Because actually, it's the next generation, many of those who are renting privately and actually want to own their own home.

The thing with James's answers is it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how business works, how the economy works.So I talk to businesses in my constituency and further afield who keep being told that their business rates are going down, but they're presenting me with documents showing their business rates are going up.And that creates a huge amount of anger.The workers' rights legislation that's come through, very, very well -intentioned, basically making it almost impossible for businesses to credibly employ young people.So youth unemployment, going through the roof.The Renters' Rights Act.

I, for a short period of time, was a landlord.And trust me, when you get a good tenant, they are gold dust.You want to keep that tenant.I had, Susie and I, had a tenant in a property.for about three years.We didn't put their rent up once because they were such a good tenant.

We desperately didn't want to lose them.And when ultimately we needed to sell, we gave them first refusal to buy the house, which is what they did.And they were happy.We were happy.So much of this legislation is predicated on the prejudice idea that somehow all business people are fundamentally evil.All landlords are trying to screw over their tenants.

All businesses are trying to do the wrong thing.And the point is, the point is, all this legislation is hurting the very people that it's meant to help.And that is absolutely unacceptable.

Zia Yusuf, just a very quick point on this, because Ian has asked, do we need another Thatcherite revolution?And I don't know whether he's directing that at you or indeed James Cleverley, but just on house building, I mean, are you a Thatcherite, first of all?And second of all, would you rather people owned or rented?

Yeah, so I think Margaret Thatcher was an incredible Prime Minister, but we're living in the year 2026.The world has moved on.And I think if Margaret Thatcher was alive today, she would be implementing somewhat different things.I'll make a couple of points.Unlike James, who was crushing business with the Tory government over their 14 years, I was building a business.I started a company in a lower ground floor flat, ended up hiring hundreds of people, paying tens of millions of pounds in tax that business.

And here's what the Tories did.supposedly the party that were going to protect businesses, small, medium, and large.And here's what they did.They took the tax burden to the highest level since World War II.They created IR35 and went to war with independent contractors trying to earn a simple and useful living.They relentlessly targeted corporations who were trying to create jobs here.

They increased corporation tax.and so to hear the Conservatives now talk about how they want to be about a small state when they did all of those things I think is is absolutely for the birds what we need what we need is reform We've been crystal clear about this.We need wealth creators in this country, right and we're crystal clear that If Britain wants to be prosperous and powerful again, we need lots of wealthy people here.We need all of these expats who have been fleeing, and it started again under the Conservatives, to come back to Britain and create jobs in this country.Nigel has been campaigning about these issues.Everything I just talked about, Nigel was countering and relentlessly campaigning against as an independent person, in most cases outside of politics.

So that's what reform will bring.We're on the side of people who build businesses.We want Britain to be.crystal clear about this as someone who, as I said, built a reasonably successful business in this country and sold it.We want Britain to be the best country to start a business, scale a business, and run a business.

Okay.

Okay.James Cleverley, immigration ran so high under the Tories that it's got a name, the Boris wave.Net migration of 2 .6 million people.That's extraordinary.Now, since Labour came to power, In their defence, 60 ,000 people have been deported or have left the UK, a rise of 30 % compared to the previous 19 months.Why was Labour able to do something you weren't?

I deported loads of people when I was Home Secretary.Now, the figures have gone up largely because of the framework that I put in place when I was Home Secretary.You're talking about peak immigration, and you're right, that did happen under Conservatives.

Who was that?Who was that?

Oh yeah, Suella Ravelman and Rob Jenrick who are currently in reform.The changes to the visa ruleswhich lots of people have talked about, but I actually negotiated through the right round process to actually get on the statute books meant that we have seen the largest fall in net migration ever from, yes, a high because of the decisions that I made when I was Home Secretary.In the heart of my constituency, I've got the Robert Jenrick Memorial Asylum Accommodation Center in Wethersfield that he flew in in a helicopter to open in my constituency.So the bottom line, I did my bit as Home Secretary bringing down net migration, tightening up our processes, making sure that the system was able to get people out of the country who had no right to be in the country.So on this one, I am more than happy to stand toe -to -toe with my personal record on getting a grip on immigration, unlike my predecessors in that party and my successors in that party.

All right, we'll let Zia Yousaf come back in just a minute.Hang on a second, I want to just ask James a question because it will play into your answer.Why, when reform wants to make changes to things like indefinite leave to remain, or crack down on immigration, or stop the boats and have deportations, Labour points at them and says you're racists and bigots, but when Shabana Mahmood does it, it's fine.

Well, let me tell you about what Shabana Mahmood is setting out, because I think, you know, she's a fantastic Home Secretary and the way that she is setting out her vision, our vision, of what the immigration system should be like in Britain is one that is fair, That is controlled and that is and it gives the right outcomes for our country now That is the right thing to do and I think if you look at what Siobhan is saying She's saying we inherited a broken system We need to make sure that people have trust in it and that it works again.We need to process that backlog of assignmentsseekers who are in hotels.We need to close those hotels so that people aren't in hotels costing taxpayers a huge amount of money to put them up there every day of the week.We need to make sure we've got that fair system.We need to make changes to indefinite leave to remain.

so that it's rather than five years, 10 years would be the standard time period, a system based on contribution.These are all values that I think Shabana in particular has spoken very powerfully about in the House of Commons.And I remember when she was setting out the policies in the Commons, you know, and she said, look, having a broken immigration system actually makes it harder for her.As someone, a British Pakistani, it makes it harder for her because people then shout racist abuse at her.because they think the immigration system is broken and it opens people up to saying comments like that.

Your leader keeps saying anyone who says such things is a racist and a fascist mate.That's probably why.

I think that's why it's really important to fix it to make sure it's fair, that it's controlled and that it works and people have trust in it.

Hang on a minute.Doesn't Zia Yousaf have a point there?And this is something that really irks Telegraph readers, who have perfectly rational concerns about decades of open borders, and people on the left, including members of your party, point and say you're a racist and a bigot for wanting to install some controls.You've created that environment.Weirdly, it was Liam Byrne as immigration minister who created the term hostile environment for illegal immigrants.In the next breath, Labour disowned it and suggested there was something immoral about that statement.

Why should we have anything other than a hostile environment for illegal immigrants, James Murray?You have created this rhetoric.

Let me answer the question directly about reform, because you asked me about reforms policies.Let me give you an example.of one of their policies, which is about retrospectively removing indefinite leave to remain from people who are here, who may have been here for many, many years, have families here, have set up businesses here, be pillars of the community, and yet their indefinite leave to remain would be at risk under reform.Now, that goes to far.The proposals that we are putting forward about extending the eligibility period from five years to 10 years, about making it much more based on contribution, about changes to English language proficiency, these are all sensible solutions to restore trust and have a controlled system.Going as far as they're going, as they're proposing to go, goes too far.

Zia, someone has escaped war, they've come to this country, they've applied for asylum, they've been granted it.Why are you going to reopen their case?

Because they broke into the country illegally.Simple as that.And the notion...Look, I'm sorry.Reformers are not going to sit there and just accept that just because Tories for 14 years and Labour for however many years it's going to end up being just refused to uphold our laws, it means that we should allow people who broke into the country illegally to get to stay.The idea that, look, In my home, I would want it to be a reasonably unwelcoming environment for hostile intruders.

And that's exactly what I think the British public, and although the polling shows this, expect of political leadership.And we're putting this to the British people, right?So either we get an electoral mandate for it, or we don't.But we could not be clearer.And this is a different policy to the Tories, too.Yes, we need to deport everyone who's in the country illegally.

But We're talking about probably north of 400 ,000 people in the preceding five years, by the time of the next general election, who had been granted asylum, having come to the country illegally or come under false pretenders, come under a student visa.One in eight of our asylum backlog came on a student visa, for example.Unacceptable.And I want to go back to the point about James Cleverly being proud of his record.Let's talk about that record as Home Secretary, because you were not Home Secretary for that long, and yet you still managed to import a million people legally, managed to allow 23 ,000 people to enter this country illegally, seven in ten of which were granted asylum, got immediate access to the welfare state and are still here to this day.Knife crime in London went up 20 % in that time.

So I'm sorry, you are as culpable as anybody in the Conservative Party.What about Robin Swiller?

You were as culpable as anybody.What about Robin Swiller?

Well, look, they're not going to be running Home Affairs.They're not going to be part of the Home Office.That's right.They're not going to be part of the Home Office.And people like you, people like you, people like you, what they are not doing is standing on stage saying that they are super proud of the record of the Conservative Party, and that's what you are doing right now.I was clearing up their mess.

I was clearing up their mess.You just gave a sermon about how you were proud of your record when you imported a million people in the blink of an eye.

Let James Cleverley respond to that.I was clearing up Rob and Suella's mess.That's a simple fact.

So you're not responsible for anything that happened.I do want to say because they're not here.Rob and Suella are not here.They're at a drum circle too.They did both resign.in protest at your government's policy.

No, they didn't.So which version?

Are you claiming that Robert Jenrick didn't resign, James?Because you talked about lying with confidence here.You just claimed that Robert Jenrick didn't resign.Do you want to repeat that claim?James, do you want to repeat that claim?That's not what I said.

You know that.You just said it.

Tim Stanley just put to you that Robert Jenrick resigned and you said no, he didn't.Robert Jenrick resigned because he felt your government wouldn't do what was necessary to make the Rwanda plan work.

And yet, somehow, I got the legislation through the House.I got the visa changes through, and legal migration fell dramatically.So Rob's saying, oh, he wasn't allowed to do it, yet somehow I was allowed to do it.Maybe, just maybe.

So what I'm curious, and we're talking about honesty.

But James, you've got to answer for your record.OK, one at a time.

You can't keep claiming things that aren't true.A million people arrived legally on Tuesday.watch at the same second.

Are you proud of that?So which Zia Yousaf are we meant to believe?The one who spent ages slagging off Rob Jenrick, calling him a liar, calling him a disgrace, calling him someone who's trying to undermine your party from within, or this version of Zia Youssef, who is so proud of what he's done and that kind of stuff.I just want to know which version of you has turned up tonight.

James, you are sitting there saying that you just told this audience, this is why I'm putting this to you, you just said that you are proud of your record as Home Secretary.When I'm putting to you, and tell me if I'm wrong on these points, a million people arrived legally, 23 ,000 arrived in this country legally, 70 % of whom were granted asylum.That all happened on your watch.Are you proud of that?

Under a regime put in place by people in your party that I changed.

That's believable, that's believable.It was reformers who were compelling James to allow all of these people in.You accepted them into your party.James, James, James.You are totally unwilling to accept your own record in government.This is like dealing with my kids.

There is no fighting in the war room.

Hang on, let's ask James Murray.James Murray, you're escaping.So why did you accept them into your party?James, cleverly.James Murray, we did some exclusive polling of the British public fairly recently, which our political editor, Tony Diver, came on the Daily T and discussed.And one quite stark line out of it was that more than half of the people we surveyed said that they don't recognise their country anymore.

Do you understand what they're saying when they're saying that mass migration has changed the complexion of some communities and that it scares people?

I recognize that communities have changed over time and I think that the level of immigration we saw toward the end of the previous government was too high.

Well, do you not think that it was too high under Tony Blair?

I think the levels it went up to under the previous government was, you know, it was like a million people.

Can you just address Labour's record on immigration?Because people recognise net migration of 25 ,000 before 1997 in the 25 years before 1997, we're in the tens of thousands.In the 25 years post -1997, and this did start with Blair, you'll then turn tens of thousands into millions.

Having immigration means communities have changed.But a lot of the ways in which they've changed have been for the better as well.And I want to make a positive case about immigration.When people come to this country and work in our health service, when they work in social care, when they do many of the important jobs for our country, when they contribute economically to our country, socially, improve the economy or wider society, they can make a contribution to it.So I don't, I don't, I don't, I just want to make that important point because when I talk about.about immigration having an impact on our country, I think we should recognise that some of that impact has been good.

It's created sectarian politics in many Labour seats, hasn't it?

In terms of what we inherited, though, the level of immigration under the previous government had gone far too high, and we were determined to bring it down, and that is what is now happening under this government.The number of people who are in asylum hotels waiting for their decisions to be taken is not only meaning that they are in those hotels, but it's costing us as taxpayers a huge amount of money to pay for them, which is unacceptable.And that's why we are committed to closing the hotels over this Parliament.

I just want you to address the point that there may be an irony in the fact that mass migration that occurred under Labour, successive Labour governments, but also Tory Labour governments, has created sectarian conflictsthat may see you and many of your colleagues ousted at the next general election.Do you recognise that?

Well, I recognize when I'm campaigning and when I campaign in my area, I appeal, I try and appeal to every community.I make sure I'm talking to everyone, no matter what their background, religion, heritage, whatever.I talk to them and try and earn their trust.And I think our politics you know, is strongest when it's about personal connection.And so when I spend time in my constituency, when I go and knock on doors, when I talk to people, I want to earn their individual trust.

We need to move on to foreign affairs.James, if I could start by you and then obviously open up to other people.If Argentina were to attack the Falkland Islands, would and could the British government defend them?

That's jumping into a hypothetical there, but let me just say...No, but it's important, because you're talking about ways that things have changed.But let me just say...In 1982, we could.Let me just point you toward the reaction about what was said recently about Britain and the Falkland Islands, and we made absolutely clear 100 % that the Falklands are British.It's a matter of self -determination.

People have been asked.They want to remain part of Britain.That is a settled matter.Well, good.

I'm pleased to hear that.But my point is, if the islands were attacked, do you believe the British government could defend them today?

Well, I believe that although our armed forces have been hollowed out under the previous government, we are still in a position where we're able to defend our interests.Now, I'm not going to go into the specific hypothetical.I don't think that's helpful for a government minister to do that.And I'm explicitly not going to talk about those kind of hypotheticals, because I don't think it's helpful to talk about it.

No, but just in case, you should send HMS Dragon now, because it'll take two or three years to get there.James Cleverley.James Murray spoke rightly there about the hollowing out of defence taking place under not just Labour governments but the Tories too.

I've been on record as saying that we could and should have spent more on defence in our time in government.We lived through a period of relative peace which, in hindsight, we should have realised was never going to be sustainable.I'm very proud of the response that the Conservative government had to Russia's full -scale invasion of Ukraine.And let me explain how you answer this question as a former Foreign Secretary.If Argentina invades the Falklands, we must do whatever it takes to defend the Falklands and to eject them.That's how you answer those kind of questions, mate.

There can be no question mark or ambiguity about Britain's willingness to defend our people internationally.That's how you answer those kind of questions.

Are you two completely convinced that you can be trusted on maintaining the sovereignty of overseas territory when you open the negotiations on the Chain Cross Islands and you actually gave them away?

So Camilla, on that one, let's be absolutely clear.We entered into talks with Mauritius.It was clear that our red lines, including the sovereignty of that base...Why did you do that?

Just clarify it.What on earth did you do that for?

Because, unlike Labour, we understand that talks do not mean you have to come to an agreement.

But why have the talks?

Why would you enter talks about something you have no intention doing?

No, no, no.Don't insult people's intelligence.You led five rounds of talks about ceding British sovereign territory.No, I didn't.why you scurried away when it was talking about out of the House of Commons.So you're denying that?

James, are you denying that you ran five rounds of talks about giving away these sovereign territories?

That's exactly what I'm saying.At no point, at no point was I ever going to be willing to cede British sovereignty.

Why were you talking about the Chagos Islands and what were those discussions about then if they were not about the sovereignty?

The discussions were about having uninterrupted ability to maintain British, Anglo -American military presence and functionality on the Chagos Islands.That was what we discussed.We had red lines and the way it works with negotiations, and again Labour should take a lesson from this, if you have red lines And the people you're negotiating with also have red lines, and there is no point of mutual agreement.You walk away from the talks, which is exactly what we did.So when we left government, the simple fact of the matter is the Chagos Islands were British.The British sovereignty was intact.

And the point is, Labour got played by the officials in the Foreign Office.And I know the Foreign Office line, because I had it deployed to me.And they were told, and the fools in the Labour Party believed, that there was an imminent binding legal threat.I stood up, when I was on the back benches, I stood up and I asked the government minister, from which body are you expecting this imminent, legally binding threat?decision and they couldn't answer and they couldn't answer because there is nobody that can enforce a legally binding decision over the Chagos Islands.So this ceding of sovereignty was a choice and it was a choice made by someone who hates the idea of a Union Jack in the top staff side corner of flags around the world.

That's what this is all about.We must never lose sight of that.And again, it was the conservatives that led the charge in both the Commons and the Lords that now means that this is probably not going to happen.And I am very proud of the work that we've done in both the Commons and the Lords.

Zia, it's somewhat moot anyway, because Donald Trump has said he doesn't approve of the Chagos deal.Much seems to hinge upon the special relationship still, but he's becoming an unreliable partner in some people's eyes.You think about Greenland, you think about Iran.Your party once had a very close relationship with him.Are you going to deploy that?How will reform manage Donald Trump?

Well, so number one, I just want to make sure James is on the record here, because again, he talked about lying with confidence.If documents come into the public domain at some point, and we could have a reformed government at some point capable of releasing such documents, the negotiations that you as Foreign Secretary, led the charge on, at no point was the sovereignty of the United Kingdoms, was Chagos, was Britain's sovereignty over Chagos in question as part of those discussions, James.Is that what you just want to say right now?

This is being recorded.

This is being recorded.It's simply yes or no question.Was the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Britain in any way in question as a result of the negotiations that you led?I know you think you've got a trump card.

Yes or no?Yes or no, James?I know you think you've got a trump card, but I've already said that in the Chamber of the House of Commons.

Okay, so at no point was the sovereignty in question.

We had red lines.We were not going to cede sovereignty.Was sovereignty in question as part of the negotiations?

Have you started it?You started the negotiations.Are you saying no?Is he hard to understand?

He hasn't said no.Camilla, he hasn't said no.It's easy this.You know you were giving advice to James Murray.I do say this to all your politicians.It's really easy.

You just say yes.No, I have already said Murray because I've already said our red light district

was to not cede sovereignty.I've said it.I've said it in the chamber.

Is that a yes or no James?Are you struggling to understand?Is that a yes or no?One word, yes or no?

You're not going to get an answer that satisfies you, so let's move on.

We're not going to cede sovereignty.Which bit of not going to cede sovereignty?

Special relationship reforms foreign policy, go.Clearly, America is a pretty darned important trading partner to the United Kingdom.And whether we like it or not, again, not decisions reform made, but a great deal of our national defense infrastructure, including and especially our Trident nuclear deterrent, is reliant in many ways.I don't think, from what I understand from speaking to the military, even our fleet of F -35s, A's and B's, would struggle to be maintained and be deployed in any meaningful way without America's support.So that is just an obvious fact.To the degree President Trump or the American administration have said things that that Reform and Nigel disagree with, we made crystal clear.

You know, when J .D.Vance, for example, talked about questioning the role the British troops played in Iraq, for example, Nigel was vociferous in condemning that.Likewise, when President Trump did the same thing.So, two things can be true at the same time.Yes, it's important to maintain a relationship with whomever, by the way, is inside the White House at any given point.

But it is also true that we need to stand up for Britain's interests.And of course, of course, Britain should use any and all means to defend the Falkland Islands.But again, let's talk about why we're in the situation that we are in.When the Tories came to power, defence spending's percentage of GDP was 2 .7%.When they left, it was 2 .3%.And you can draw a straight line between that and the fact that we were unable to put a destroyer into the theatre battle when it mattered, and why people laughed when you said, yeah, it would probably take years to deploy HMS Vanguard.

I mean, you talk to people in the army.you talk to people in the Navy, you talk to people in, you know, across the entire military apparatus, including by our intelligence services, it has been utterly hollowed out.And this is absolutely a uni -party issue.It was reform, it's the last one I'm going to make, reform of the first major party to talk about taking defence spending to 3 % and then 3 .5%.That's exactly what reform would do.

All right, let's have a yes -no answer from James Murray.The Chagos deal is dead.You've saved billions because you're not going to pay it to Mauritius.How many of those billions are you, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, going to ensure go into the defence budget?

That was a question with a few different parts of it.

Well, it's not.It's are you going to take the Chagos money that you were going to give away and put it into defence?

I realise you're picking me up now on the yes or no question, and I shouldn't have smiled earlier when you were teasing the others about that.

We could ask it a little bit easier.Should you take the money that you were going to give away, along with the islands, paying Mauritius to take islands that we owned, which is ludicrous to most people, should you insist that some of those billions go back into defence.

Look, whatever happens in terms of the Chagos Islands, can I make this point?Can I make this point?Because we've been talking a lot about how much is being invested in defence and we as a government have set out exactly how we will pay for getting to 2 .6 % of GDP by April next year.And then we are committed to the ambition of 3 % in the next parliament.Now, that is really important because I think we recognize that we need to increase our investment in defense.We need to make sure we have the right defensive capabilities for the future.

And actually having that ability here in the UK is really important.Now, look, there's also been some questions here about our relationship with the US.And I know that Nigel Farage referred to TrumpIt is a deep and special relationship.We work with the U .S.

day in day out on security, on intelligence, on trade, you know, all sorts of things.Every day of the week there is a cooperation between our two nations and has been for many years.That does not mean that when the president says do this you have to say yes.It is okay when it's in our national interest, and in fact, it is right when it is in our national interest to say no.And I know that when the President said to the UK and other countries, join the offensive strikes on Iran, I know the Conservatives and Reform both wanted to follow him straight in there.

That's not true.That's exactly what they wanted.

That's exactly what they wanted to do.

That's not true.

But what we said is no, because it's not in our national interest.And I was on another panel with the Shadow Chief Secretary, the guy who shadows me, and he confirmed that on Friday night, he would have wanted Britain to follow the US in on the offensive strikes on Iran.So that is the position of the Conservative Party.It's a position of reform.But it's not in our national interest.

And that's why Keir said no.Thank you.We have to draw to a close with some very important questions to determine how in touch or out of touch you are with the voters.Now, I don't know the answer to any of these.But I'm going to start with you, James Murray.Oh, dear.

are six Asda's free -range large eggs.Oh, blimey.I don't know, sorry.Give us a guess.

Just have a guess.

I would have guessed £20.

How much do you think half a dozen eggs cost?

Half a dozen eggs?A couple of quid?I don't know.Very good.

£2 .10.

James Cleverley.How much is a loaf of Sainsbury's thick -sliced white bread?

Again just over two quid.

Two quid?

You get the same shop as me.It's 75 pence.Really?

Okay.I think that James might be buying homemade bread by David Cameron.

Okay and finally Sia, how much is a Tesco's own brand two pint of semi -skinned milk?

It's a bit of maths there.Two pints is about 240.

It's £1 .20.I think the right -wing politicians all shop in Fortnum's.

Yes.

That's what's going on.

That would be a four -pinter, a two -pinter.It's £1 .20.

£1 .20.

We want to end on a light note, as we so often do.

I think we began that way, and it was light throughout.

I enjoyed it.It was so light.Tony Blair had Things Can Only Get Better.Theresa May had Dancing Queen.I'd like to ask each of you which soundtrack would you give your esteemed leader right now?James Murray.

I will survive.

So this is going to sound very earnest and a bit corny, but when I go running and Spotify generates a playlist, they keep doing that song, which I really like, by Heather Small, Proud.Do you remember the one from the Olympics?

Oh, James Murray.Well, okay, you might be the only person in the country listening to that record and thinking of the Prime Minister, but well batted.James Cleverley, what soundtrack best describes you?Badenoch?

I think I'm going to get, and I'm going to show my age now, I think Eye of the Tiger.

That's all about, you know, getting out, back on your feet, fighting away.Karate kid, very good.And Zia Yusuf, what describes Nigel Farage?

Two pints of lager and a packet of crisps.

I think at the risk of naming a song and an artist, Nodig's probably not on the playlist of most Telegraph readers.I'm going to go with an artist called The Game.Hate it or love it, the underdog's on top.

Aha.There we go.All right.There we go.Wonderful.Well, that brings this Daily Teal's Tea Special to a close.

Yep.

James Murray, James Cleverley, Zia Youssef.Thank you.

Start your day with the latest news and opinion, plus our bite -sized puzzles.Scan the QR code to sign up free today.