diplomacy orforce? in gaza, israeli troops enter rafeh, so where does that leave a ceasefire agreement, the future of palestinians who evacuated to rafah and the fate

of the israeli hostages? we'll talk live to this woman in tel aviv, whose relative is still being held by hamas somewhere in gaza. and to unicef, about the situation on the ground in rafah. our diplomatic editor mark urban is here on what the chances are for a ceasefire now. also, tonight, the star witness at donald trump's hush money trial today was adult film actor stormy daniels, who testified in vivid detail about when she had sex with him — mr trump denies it. here she is talking to newsnight in 2018. he attacked me first, i was called a liar, that it never happened. and unless he's had a penis transplant then i'm pretty

sure that's a checkmate. in court, ms daniels gave plenty of detail about her alleged encounter with him. so is trump's legal battle having an impact on the election? mark has travelled across america to find out how both sides of the polarised us electorate are worried for the future of their country. one concern is that trump is going to win and this country will be under a virtual dictatorship for at least the next four years. the other concern is biden will win and there will be another revolt, some sort of january 6th part two. the woman who wants to be chancellor after the next election accuses the government of gaslighting you. we'll ask labour if they're guilty of it. un secretary—general antonio guterres appealed today to israel and hamas to spare no effort to try and agree a ceasefire. after more than 1100 israelis

killed in the hamas terror attacks of the 7th of october, after more than 3a,000 palestinians killed in gaza, haven't we seen enough? 128 israeli hostages remain unaccounted for, with at least 3a presumed dead following the hamas attacks in rafah thousands of palestininians are on the move after being ordered to evacuate after what's described as a "limited operation" by israeli military. and in tel aviv family members of hostages held by hamas joined other demonstrators outside the us embassy. they have gathered behind an empty coffin with red paint on their hands, calling for an end to the war and the immediate release of all hostages. mark's here. talk to our audience through what has happened today. quite talk to our audience through what has happened today.— has happened today. quite a lot, im ortant has happened today. quite a lot, important developments - has happened today. quite a lot, | important developments militarily and on the diplomatic side. looking

at the military stuff first, bringing up a map. this is the area in the south of the gaza strip, these two blue lines mark the israeli incursion into the rafah area. rafah city as such they have not yet gone into. what's important is this access of advance whether you have gone up to the international crossing point with egypt which up until now has been a principal aid entry point. it's limited in the sense they haven't gone into right in the middle of the city where hundreds of thousands of refugees, perhapsi million people are. it is apparently supposed to impress the israeli public that the israeli army is willing to do that while at the same time not crossing american red lines about going in there. we will bring the map to a wider perspective now and get a sense of some of the risks for everyone. these are the main crossing points in the south. rafah

with the egyptian crossing and elsewhere between israel and the gaza strip, both blocked because of this advance. that only leaves a crossing right at the top in the north—east. the newport which america has been building is not yet operating. very quickly the aid situation could get very dire in there unless aid routes are opened up there unless aid routes are opened up again. the diplomatic action today, quite important. the americans are saying that hamas did not accept the ceasefire deal yesterday, quite a remark from the state department spokesman. they responded to it and added some changes of their own. israelis meanwhile are saying this is all very unacceptable but both sides are still talking. in very unacceptable but both sides are still talkina. . very unacceptable but both sides are still talkina. , ., very unacceptable but both sides are still talkin. , ., ., ., still talking. in terms of rafah, because what _ still talking. in terms of rafah, because what you _ still talking. in terms of rafah, because what you just - still talking. in terms of rafah, l because what you just described still talking. in terms of rafah, - because what you just described in terms of crossings being shot, does that mean there is potential and there are people living here... following israeli warnings. —— crossings being shot. is there the

potential for a greater humanitarian crisis in rafah?— crisis in rafah? they own that crisis in rafah? they own that crisis even — crisis in rafah? they own that crisis even more _ crisis in rafah? they own that crisis even more than - crisis in rafah? they own that crisis even more than they - crisis in rafah? they own thatj crisis even more than they did before they took the crossing point from egypt will stop it is apparently americans are doing everything they can to get the rafah crossing from egypt open again for that they have the head of the military central command in the middle east in cairo tonight liaising with the egyptians and also the head of the cia on the diplomatic side. the americans are saying they think they can get aid flowing again across the rafah crossing tomorrow. 50 flowing again across the rafah crossing tomorrow.— flowing again across the rafah crossing tomorrow. so what hope is there for a ceasefire? _ crossing tomorrow. so what hope is there for a ceasefire? this - crossing tomorrow. so what hope is there for a ceasefire? this is - crossing tomorrow. so what hope is there for a ceasefire? this is the i there for a ceasefire? this is the extraordinary — there for a ceasefire? this is the extraordinary question. - there for a ceasefire? this is the extraordinary question. both - there for a ceasefire? this is the l extraordinary question. both sides positioning themselves, making these statements, like the hamas one where they are willing to accept it, but actually the americans and israelis implying that in the small print hamas would only accept it if it was a complete cessation. the israelis want the ability to switch on the

violence again once these initial hostage exchanges have happened if they can't reach a satisfactory way to go forward. in the end, the big question about whether hamas remains in their as a force in being able to influence the future remains unanswered and that's what they are trying to negotiate around during the next day or two.— let's talk to maya roman. two of her family members have been kidnapped by hamas. cousin yarden roman—gat was released after 5a days. but another family member, carmel gat, who is a 39—year—old occupational therapist, is still being held after seven months. thank you for talking to us. i wonder what you know and what you can tell our audience about carmel�*s welfare. can tell our audience about carmel's welfare. ~ ., , ., can tell our audience about carmel's welfare. ., , ., ., can tell our audience about carmel's welfare. ~ ., , ., , ., ., ., welfare. welfare is a strong word to use in this situation _

welfare. welfare is a strong word to use in this situation but _ welfare. welfare is a strong word to use in this situation but we - welfare. welfare is a strong word to use in this situation but we know. use in this situation but we know that carmel was taken from her family home along with my cousin yarden along with yarden�*s husband and herfour—year—old. that was yarden along with yarden�*s husband and her four—year—old. that was the day carmel's mother was murdered outside the home. as carmel was taken away we understand she saw her mother's body outside her home. since then, the one thing we know, two teenagers who were released in the previous humanitarian deal were able to tell us that they were held with carmel and so we know carmel was alive at least at that point. white met at what point was that, how long ago was that? during the first humanitarian deal in november after 5a, 55 days. they told us they were held under quite harsh

conditions and that carmel actually helps them. she made them keep a journal and practice yoga. and when they were released, they didn't know they were released, they didn't know they were released, they didn't know they were being released and neither did carmel. they werejust they were being released and neither did carmel. they were just taken away and carmel was left behind alone. at that time we thought during the first humanitarian deal when my cousin yarden came back to us, the deal was for all the women and children and we truly believed carmel would be with us within a day or two. this is what yarden thought, and yarden even left a note for carmel when she was released. and then the deal fell through, hamas would not deliver ten women as it promised, as it was supposed to and the deal blew up. since then it has been another six months that we don't know what carmel has been going through in that time. what

don't know what carmel has been going through in that time. what do ou want going through in that time. what do you want your _ going through in that time. what do you want your prime _ going through in that time. what do you want your prime minister - going through in that time. what do you want your prime minister to - going through in that time. what do | you want your prime minister to do? i want all parties to do everything to get carmel back home. we are in a very difficult situation where our prime minister has to negotiate with a terror organisation and has to try and keep his cards close to his chest. i can never tell if he is doing everything he can and he is just trying to keep his negotiation position as strong as possible, or if not i have no way of knowing. i believe and i think the majority of israel believes that we need a humanitarian deal, a hostage deal, to bring everyone back that we can at this point and that is more important than any kind of military action. although it is important to keepin action. although it is important to keep in mind that the military action has been crucial in advancing the deals we have seen so far

because hamas is a terror organisation run by a person known as the butcher of khan younis. this is not someone who cares about the lives of carmel or the palestinian people. so we are in quite a terrible situation. it doesn't seem there is much that will cause hamas to truly reach a deal. at the same time i do expect my government to do everything it can to make sure a deal is reached because it is the values and ethos of our country that we leave no men behind and we make sure to fight for every last one. thank you so much for speaking to our british audience. we appreciate your time and we wish you all the best. thank you. just before the programme i spoke with unicef spokesperson tess ingram. i asked her what's been happening on the streets of rafah.

it's been an enormous roller—coaster for the people in gaza was that they have been following this news over the last a8, 2a hours. i spoke to colleagues on the ground yesterday who said they were hearing cheering coming from the streets as people heard the news that hamas had accepted the terms of a deal. children even came to the unicef base asking us if it was true, if the war was over. today, such a contrast with the rafah crossing closed to aid coming in and news of israeli tanks there. so it has been a really desperate 2a hours in terms of the highs and lows for people on the ground. 50 of the highs and lows for people on the ground-— the ground. so you say there is no aid coming — the ground. so you say there is no aid coming through _ the ground. so you say there is no aid coming through the _ the ground. so you say there is no aid coming through the rafah - aid coming through the rafah crossing now, is that correct? correct, not at rafah or the other main access point into guard said that haven't been operating since sunday. —— into gaza that haven't. we are on the precipice of a famine.

food stocks are running low and hundreds of thousands of people relying on that aid. a particular worry for us is fuel.— relying on that aid. a particular worry for us is fuel. why, what is fuel used for? _ worry for us is fuel. why, what is fuel used for? fuel— worry for us is fuel. why, what is fuel used for? fuel is _ worry for us is fuel. why, what is fuel used for? fuel is the - worry for us is fuel. why, what is i fuel used for? fuel is the lifeblood ofthe fuel used for? fuel is the lifeblood of the humanitarian _ fuel used for? fuel is the lifeblood of the humanitarian operation - fuel used for? fuel is the lifeblood of the humanitarian operation in i of the humanitarian operation in gaza. it fuels the trucks delivering food, fuelling the telecoms that allow us to communicate and coordinate. it allows families to stay in touch with each other when they are displaced. and worryingly most of all to me, it functions the hospitals. incubators in hospitals that are caring for tiny newborn babies that are clinging to life, they would be shut down without fuel keeping the hospital functioning. they would be shut down without fuel keeping the hospitalfunctioning. if keeping the hospital functioning. if you haven't had aid for two days, how much fuel for example under the stocks of other aid do you have? when might that run out? because there is talks potentially of the crossing being opened tomorrow. if

the crossing opens and we are able to get fuel in then that will be a game—changer. it will allow things to start slowly returning to normal. but as it stands at the moment, we only have enough fuel to maybe get us through tomorrow. it is really desperate and i think we have enough food to get to the end of the week. but we need fuel to operate trucks to distribute that food. it is getting really dire and at the end of the day children and families in gaza will bear the consequences. 100,000 civilians have been told to move out of rafah. are your staff saying they are seeing people go? yeah, people are on the move in large numbers. we are seeing people moving from east to west, loading cars up with mattresses and supplies, putting families on the back of donkeys or taking what they can carry on their backs. this supposed safe zone was already a

crowded place. i was there three weeks ago and it's very busy and it is now being loaded with even more people moving in. but the worrying thing there is that there are no toilets, no water. it is essentially a sand dune. the people fleeing for safety there will not find safety there. there is nothing there for them in this supposed safe zone. what should happen in unicef�*s view? people need to be able to move freely to find safety. they have to be given safe passage and need to be provided with somewhere safe to go. that can't just provided with somewhere safe to go. that can'tjust be safe in terms of bombardment but it must also be safe in terms of the basics people need to survive. these basics must be provided or humanitarian aid agencies must be allowed to provide aid to meet those needs and that is not happening at the moment particularly when aid agencies like unicef and others continue to operate in such a dangerous and restrictive environment.-

restrictive environment. from unicef, thank _ restrictive environment. from unicef, thank you _ restrictive environment. from unicef, thank you for - restrictive environment. from unicef, thank you for talking i restrictive environment. from | unicef, thank you for talking to newsnight. how would you describe the state of your personal finances right now? quarterly gdp data later in the week is expected to show that the economy has come out of recession, and the bank of england might signal cuts in interest rates to come. will any of that affect you? in a speech in the city of london today the shadow chancellor rachel reeves attempted to pre—empt any potential positive news from the government. in a moment we'll talk to labour's james murray, shadow financial secretary to the treasury. first here's ben. is the government "gaslighting" us over the state of the economy, as labour's shadow chancellor rachel reeves claimed today? in other words, are ministers trying to convince you that things are better than they seem, despite your own perceptions? well, let's start with the picture of the overall uk economy, measured by gross domestic product. official data suggests we went into a mild recession in the final half of last year, shown in grey. but new figures to be released on friday are expected to suggest we emerged from that recession

in the first quarter of 202a, with gdp growing again. and the office for budget responsibility, the government's official forecaster, is projecting the economy to continue to grow over the course of this year. the 0br also projects inflation to continue to fall this year, actually going below the bank of england's 2% target by the end of 202a. that's something that's likely to enable the bank to cut interest rates from their current levels of 5.25% in the coming months to perhaps as low as a.2% by the end of the year. now these are only forecasts — they're not written in stone. what happens could be better or it could be worse. but most economists would agree that it's reasonable for rishi sunak and jeremy hunt to point to these as positive trends for the uk economy. but there's some broader context which should not be ignored. this shows a measure of average living standards called real household disposable income per head. in 2019-20, it was £21,800.

and here's where it's projected to be in 202a—25 by the 0br - £21,600. so, still around £200 below where it was five years ago. it's reasonable for labour to point to this and argue that, whatever happens to gdp and inflation this year, average living standards are still going to remain under severe pressure. but what would labour do, if it won power, to turn this around? how would rachel reeves and keir starmer boost the national growth rate, which economists agree is vital for raising average living standards for households? the party's chosen fiscal rules mean it can't spend much more public money on housing or clean energy investment than the government currently plans without raising taxes. but labour argues it would boost both — and thereby overall gdp growth — by reforming planning and attracting considerably more private investment into those areas. economists do think labour could encourage more private sector investment in the uk through a more stable policy—making environment than we've had

from the conservatives at times in recent years. yet many of them are also sceptical labour can achieve its very ambitious plans — including decarbonising electricity generation and facilitating the construction of an additional 1.5 million homes by 2030 — without more state investment as well. if gaslighting means politicians not being straight with us about the problems of the economy, it's a term that could also be applied to those on both sides of the political aisle who suggest those problems can be easily, or cheaply, fixed. let's talk to james marie who is the shadow financial secretary to the treasury. what does labour mean by gas lighting? irate treasury. what does labour mean by gas lighting?— treasury. what does labour mean by araaslihtin? ., gas lighting? we mean the government are t in: gas lighting? we mean the government aret in: to gas lighting? we mean the government are trying to pretend _ gas lighting? we mean the government are trying to pretend things _ gas lighting? we mean the government are trying to pretend things are - are trying to pretend things are great and the british public have never had it so good and the economy is turning the corner and the plan is turning the corner and the plan is working but the truth is when you

talk to people as we have done in the local elections about their experiences and how they are trying to make an smeed people are struggling. if you talk to businesses they are struggling to pay bills as well. so the fact of the reality of people's experience does not match with the government are saying and i think when we get get to the next general election people was so the question for me better off than we were 1a years ago, is anything working better, and thatis ago, is anything working better, and that is the basis on which people will make their choice at the next general election. in will make their choice at the next general election.— general election. in terms of the .a . general election. in terms of the gap between _ general election. in terms of the gap between rhetoric _ general election. in terms of the gap between rhetoric and - general election. in terms of the gap between rhetoric and reality| gap between rhetoric and reality labour is suggesting if you win the election you can decarbonise the electricity grid by the 30 without spending on public money and that you will build 1.5 million homes by 2030. experts say both of those are unrealistic, as labour gas lighting the british public was absolutely not. the plan by 2030 to get to green energy is a combination of using some strategic private sector

investment and using some strategic private sector investment . . ., , using some strategic private sector investmen ., ., ., , . ., investment and that means we can get that investment _ investment and that means we can get that investment that _ investment and that means we can get that investment that is _ investment and that means we can get that investment that is needed - that investment that is needed alongside planning reforms to make sure we can build the wind turbines of the future. it is sure we can build the wind turbines of the future-— of the future. it is a fiction according _ of the future. it is a fiction according to _ of the future. it is a fiction according to experts. - of the future. it is a fiction according to experts. you | of the future. it is a fiction - according to experts. you need to ian. not according to experts. you need to plan not if— according to experts. you need to plan not if it _ according to experts. you need to plan. not if it is _ according to experts. you need to plan. not if it is unrealistic. - according to experts. you need to plan. not if it is unrealistic. howl plan. not if it is unrealistic. how we would use — plan. not if it is unrealistic. how we would use the _ plan. not if it is unrealistic. how we would use the strategic- we would use the strategic public investment to crowd in more private investment. as ben said there is a lot of private sector investment that actually wants to invest in the uk but it isn't doing so because they see the uk is risky, unstable, they see the uk is risky, unstable, they haven't got the support of government and they don't believe so the planques system will support their investment.— the planques system will support their investment. gary smith, boss ofthe their investment. gary smith, boss of the gmb — their investment. gary smith, boss of the gmb union, _ their investment. gary smith, boss of the gmb union, an _ their investment. gary smith, boss of the gmb union, an alloy - their investment. gary smith, boss of the gmb union, an alloy of- their investment. gary smith, boss. of the gmb union, an alloy of labour representing oil and gas workers has called your 2030 decarbonisation target impossible. cook, it cannot be done to stop because he says there is a shortage he says of

undersea cables available in the global supply chain. irate undersea cables available in the global supply chain.— undersea cables available in the global supply chain. we need to fix all arts of global supply chain. we need to fix all parts of the _ global supply chain. we need to fix all parts of the system _ global supply chain. we need to fix all parts of the system to - global supply chain. we need to fix all parts of the system to make - global supply chain. we need to fix| all parts of the system to make this ambitious target a reality. you all parts of the system to make this ambitious target a reality.— ambitious target a reality. you can ut our ambitious target a reality. you can put your fingers — ambitious target a reality. you can put your fingers to _ ambitious target a reality. you can put your fingers to make _ ambitious target a reality. you can put your fingers to make there - ambitious target a reality. you can put your fingers to make there be | put your fingers to make there be enough undersea cables in the global supply chain. that is why he is saying it is impossible. if you don't believe him new golding is the head of market intelligence at the energy industry council, he asked if your target was achievable and he said it is not possible. the former head of energy strategy at the old department for business, energy and industrial strategy adam bell, the target is very much a moonshot. it is an ambitious target and we need to make sure the government is working with the private sector developer it but if you have the private sector ready to invest and they want to invest in new wind turbines, all the new energy sources of the future, you need to have a government who suffered and a willing partner and that means not just the strategic public investment we have talked about but also things like planning reform because... 0n

like planning reform because... on this point, at the moment this is effectively a ban on new onshore wind turbines. we could change that planning law if we got into government and make sure all of that private investment which is ready to invest in onshore wind turbines actually has a supportive government he once to work with them to deliver that change. 1.5 he once to work with them to deliver that change-— that change. 1.5 million homes by 2030 ou that change. 1.5 million homes by 2030 you say _ that change. 1.5 million homes by 2030 you say you're _ that change. 1.5 million homes by 2030 you say you're going - that change. 1.5 million homes by 2030 you say you're going to - that change. 1.5 million homes by i 2030 you say you're going to build. so if you win the election by the end of 25, you will have built 300,000 homes next year. correct? taste 300,000 homes next year. correct? - don't know when the election will be, it might not be early 2025. all targets take time to ramp up towards but what we are saying is... but it's interesting. _ but what we are saying is... but it's interesting. you're not saying it's interesting. you're not saying it is 300,000 homes per year then between the election at 2030 if you when. between the election at 2030 if you when. we between the election at 2030 if you when. ~ . . between the election at 2030 if you when. ~ ., , ., ., ., , when. we are setting out how many homes we can _ when. we are setting out how many homes we can build _ when. we are setting out how many homes we can build under— when. we are setting out how many homes we can build under our- when. we are setting out how many homes we can build under our plan | homes we can build under our plan and there will be a profile when they are delivered and we were set out the plants. you

they are delivered and we were set out the plants-— out the plants. you have already told us to _ out the plants. you have already told us to plan. _ out the plants. you have already told us to plan, 1.5 _ out the plants. you have already told us to plan, 1.5 million - out the plants. you have already told us to plan, 1.5 million new. told us to plan, 1.5 million new homes by 2030. that is a guarantee? i will sit out the exact profile now because we need to work out what we inherit. ., ., ., , , ., , inherit. you already promised that sto the inherit. you already promised that stop the leadership _ inherit. you already promised that stop the leadership has _ inherit. you already promised that stop the leadership has already i stop the leadership has already promised that. he stop the leadership has already promised that.— stop the leadership has already romised that. ., ., promised that. he asked me about what would — promised that. he asked me about what would happen _ promised that. he asked me about what would happen in _ promised that. he asked me about what would happen in the - promised that. he asked me about what would happen in the first - promised that. he asked me about| what would happen in the first year and over the course of a parliament mmp and over the course of a parliament ramp up towards things and towards investment answering more homes. because you need time to make the change. 50 because you need time to make the chan . e. ,, ., because you need time to make the chance. . because you need time to make the chance. ,' because you need time to make the chance. , ' ., because you need time to make the chance. j ., ., , change. so it is 1.5 million homes b 2030. change. so it is 1.5 million homes by 2030- that — change. so it is 1.5 million homes by 2030. that is _ change. so it is 1.5 million homes by 2030. that is the _ change. so it is 1.5 million homes by 2030. that is the target. - change. so it is 1.5 million homes by 2030. that is the target. not | change. so it is 1.5 million homes| by 2030. that is the target. not a guarantee? _ by 2030. that is the target. not a guarantee? we — by 2030. that is the target. not a guarantee? we are _ by 2030. that is the target. not a guarantee? we are aiming - by 2030. that is the target. not a guarantee? we are aiming for - by 2030. that is the target. not a guarantee? we are aiming for it i by 2030. that is the target. not a | guarantee? we are aiming for it but you're talking about the first year and i was making for you have to make up to does delivery plans. but ou can make up to does delivery plans. but you can cite an eye to our audience to 1.5 million new homes by 2030 under a labour government is guaranteed? it under a labour government is guaranteed?— under a labour government is guaranteed? under a labour government is auaranteed? , ., ., , ., guaranteed? it is the target and you will see it in — guaranteed? it is the target and you will see it in the _ guaranteed? it is the target and you will see it in the manifesto - guaranteed? it is the target and you will see it in the manifesto where i will see it in the manifesto where it is published. you will see it in the manifesto where it is published.— will see it in the manifesto where it is published. you have signed up to the conservative _ it is published. you have signed up to the conservative spending - it is published. you have signed up to the conservative spending plans going forward if you win the

election unless you are going to tell me that has changed both you look we have set out some clear differences between us and the conservatives like closing remaining loopholes in the non—dom tax status which have left. we loopholes in the non-dom tax status which have left.— which have left. we are talking about public— which have left. we are talking about public spending - which have left. we are talking about public spending and - which have left. we are talking i about public spending and where which have left. we are talking - about public spending and where we would raise taxes, one of the closing repose on non—dom stack status through closing the loophole on private schools, it would go to private services so we can get an immediate injection of money into schools which is an important straightaway. we need economic growth which brings us back to the earlier conversation. $5 i earlier conversation. as i understand _ earlier conversation. as i understand that - earlier conversation. as i understand that you - earlier conversation. as i | understand that you have earlier conversation. as i understand that you have broadly speaking signed up to the conservative spending plans, you have the same fiscal rules as them. they keep changing there is. that im - lies they keep changing there is. that implies cuts _ they keep changing there is. that implies cuts of _ they keep changing there is. that implies cuts of 496 _ they keep changing there is. that implies cuts of 496 a _ they keep changing there is. that implies cuts of a% a year every year. 30 billion overfive implies cuts of a% a year every year. 30 billion over five years, thatis year. 30 billion over five years, that is what the experts say. she will talk about those cuts. the

conservatives won't talk about those cuts. he won't say where those cuts will be or whether you would raise taxes to avoid those cuts or whether you would borrow which would break your fiscal rules to avoid those cuts. so perhaps both labour and the conservatives are gas lighting the voters. brute conservatives are gas lighting the voters. ~ ., ., , , conservatives are gas lighting the voters. ., ,~ ., conservatives are gas lighting the voters. ~ ., , . ., ., voters. we are absolutely clear that our fiscal rules _ voters. we are absolutely clear that our fiscal rules are _ voters. we are absolutely clear that our fiscal rules are ironclad. - voters. we are absolutely clear that our fiscal rules are ironclad. the - our fiscal rules are ironclad. the fiscal rules underpin everything else and. ~ . ., , fiscal rules underpin everything elseand. . ., , else and. which means you will stick to the cuts. — else and. which means you will stick to the cuts. 496 _ else and. which means you will stick to the cuts, 4% in _ else and. which means you will stick to the cuts, 4% in unprotected - to the cuts, a% in unprotected departments. brute to the cuts, 4% in unprotected departments-— to the cuts, 4% in unprotected departments. we don't know the detail of the _ departments. we don't know the detail of the government - departments. we don't know the i detail of the government spending plans yet and i have already set out some key differences between what we would do if we won the next general election in terms of closing those ripples if we got into government and using that money to fund the nhs and using that money to fund the nhs and schools in other priorities. so that means cuts to unprotected departments like courts, the police, etc. ., , , ., ., etc. now, can i 'ust set out what we would do in — etc. now, can i just set out what we would do in public _ etc. now, can i just set out what we would do in public spending. - etc. now, can i just set out what we would do in public spending. only . etc. now, can i just set out what we would do in public spending. only if| would do in public spending. only if ou will would do in public spending. only if you will not— would do in public spending. only if you will not repeat _ would do in public spending. only if you will not repeat what _ would do in public spending. only if you will not repeat what you - would do in public spending. only if you will not repeat what you have i you will not repeat what you have already set twice. i you will not repeat what you have already set twice.— you will not repeat what you have already set twice. i said we would

do in the immediate _ already set twice. i said we would do in the immediate term. - already set twice. i said we would do in the immediate term. quite l already set twice. i said we would j do in the immediate term. quite i already set twice. i said we would - do in the immediate term. quite i am talking about the big picture. the big picture is economic growth, you need the economic growth to get sustainable revenue per public services and the real story of the last 1a years is that because we have had such a low growth taxes have had such a low growth taxes have gone up and were said to be the highest in 70 years but public services are still failing and that is the doom loop we are in under the conservatives. we need to get the economy growing and we know in a medium and longer the only way to get this sustainable revenue public services is to reckon with.- services is to reckon with. thank ou for services is to reckon with. thank you for being — services is to reckon with. thank you for being with _ services is to reckon with. thank you for being with us. _ there are reports of long queues at airports across the country tonight due to a "technical issue" affecting passport control e—gates. airports including heathrow, gatwick, edinburgh, birmingham, bristol, newcastle and manchester all confirmed a border force problem was causing delays to people arriving to the uk. the airports said they were supporting border force to "minimize disruption". we're keeping an eye on it

and if we get more information before the end of the show we'll let you know. stormy daniels testified at donald trump's criminal trial today, claiming that he told her "this is the only way you're getting out of the trailer park", before having sex with her in his hotel suite in 2006. he denies that ever happened. the alleged encounter has ultimately led to this criminal trial, the first for a former us president. here's scott detrow from the trump's trials podcast. thank you for talking to us. quite a moment today, to have stormy daniels and donald trump in that courtroom together. and donald trump in that courtroom touether. ., , ., ., , together. donald trump often goes back and forth _ together. donald trump often goes back and forth over _ together. donald trump often goes back and forth over the _ together. donald trump often goes back and forth over the course - together. donald trump often goes back and forth over the course of. back and forth over the course of his political career attacking people, being attacked, but they are hardly ever in the same room. here was donald trump sitting in the defendant's table watching stormy daniels that the value in graphic detail about this alleged 2006

encounter between them. she went on and on talking about details about his hotel room, about the conversation, about what she felt like when he propositioned having sex with her to the point where trump is mccloy has repeatedly objected and afterwards asked for a mistrial saying that the stormy daniels seem to be suggesting that the sex was worse. the judge presiding over this trial dismissed that request saying i had my chances to object in the moment but he seemed uncomfortable with the testimony at times, especially early in the day, when daniels seem to be treating it more of an interview than testimony in a trial going on and on at length in a lot of details that weren't really pertinent to the case but still again four hours or so of testimony but pretty detailed things of the united states even in the trump here at this was pretty notable unsurprising. what the trump here at this was pretty notable unsurprising.— the trump here at this was pretty notable unsurprising. what has been the reaction — notable unsurprising. what has been the reaction to _ notable unsurprising. what has been the reaction to her— notable unsurprising. what has been the reaction to her testimony? - notable unsurprising. what has been| the reaction to her testimony? trump left the courtroom _ the reaction to her testimony? trump left the courtroom and _ the reaction to her testimony? trump left the courtroom and seem - the reaction to her testimony? trump left the courtroom and seem to - the reaction to her testimony? trump left the courtroom and seem to be i left the courtroom and seem to be pretty confident talking to reporters saying that he thought the

prosecution case had gone off the rails today and the result with a paraphrase. i think it's important to point out those details here are salacious and created a lot of headlines but this is not central to the criminal charges that crump was facing. it is as we know, in his country is not illegal to have an extra marital affair or illegal to pay hush money necessarily, the question here is was the payment done to aid his presidential campaign, a campaign contribution, and further repayments to his then lawyer michael cohen done in a way to disguise that campaign contribution, that is the crime of the centre of this trial.— the centre of this trial. still to come michael _ the centre of this trial. still to come michael cohen. - the centre of this trial. still to come michael cohen. that - the centre of this trial. still to come michael cohen. that is, | the centre of this trial. still to i come michael cohen. that is, he the centre of this trial. still to - come michael cohen. that is, he was jailed, he was jailed after pleading guilty to campaign finance charges. that's right, he is the star witness, the entire case centring around michael cohen's star testimony and he is a flawed

witness. the prosecution knows that, it has been making clear that not many people like michael cohen and it seems like they are trying to pre—empt attacks on michael cohen's character that will come from the defence. their point is that michael cohen com you don't have to trust him, he has gone to jailfor this and there is a lot of other evidence and there is a lot of other evidence and a lot of other people corroborating the central claim that michael cohen orchestrated a payment in the final days of the 2016 election in the period after the access hollywood tape when the trump campaign was panicking. they thought they had lost the race and were doing everything they could to control the damage and that's the moment the payment was finalised and that's what this trial is about. thank you very much. well, that trial doesn't seem to have had any noticeable effect on donald trump's polling figures — particularly in the swing states so important to deciding who'll be elected president in november. and in this year of elections there could hardly be

a more important one. you saw mark earlier, but he's just back from the united states where he's been talking to people in the heartlands, looking at the very different ways donald trump and joe biden are campaigning. later this week it's biden, but tonight's report starts outside that new york courthouse. the wheels ofjustice sometimes turn in unexpected ways. donald trump's on trial in new york for covering up hush money payments to a woman he slept with. to a woman he allegedly slept with. eric trump arrived with his dad donald trump today... so we see the trump circus. and of course for millions of americans, what happens to him, his drama, is far more important than what he did or didn't achieve in office or what he might do if he was elected again. donald trump supporters have turned the trial into a chance to demonstrate their loyalty

to the don. freedom! with trump having won a series of primaries, the republican party is rallying around him and momentum is building, and his critics shudder at the dangers of this moment. i do think that in terms of consolidating republican support there is no question, even people who said he's a dangerous dictator are now saying they will support him no matter what. so you have people running around this candidate, people being blindly partisan — he's republican so we are going to support him. the court cases, i think, are not having any noticeable effect on his support. i think most of his voters have already discounted the court even before they've made a decision. and so ijust think the trump support is so firm that i have a hard time seeing many events that could possibly undo it. cheered on by his base, even the accounting for alleged crimes can be turned to advantage by team trump.

"finishing the wall" might seem an unlikely campaign slogan but it speaks to american concerns about their long border with mexico and the millions of undocumented migrants who have crossed it in recent years. in arizona, a key swing state in the coming election, the mayor of one border town explained why this lands badly for biden and well for trump. i believe they have, all along the southern border, i believe they've flunked the test. we've had the same laws on the books for over 30 years and every president, whether democrat or republican, has figured out a way to work within those laws and control the border. this president has decided that this is the way he wants to work with those laws, which is not control the border. you mention that during

president trump's period of office there was a more effective regime here. so looking ahead to the next few months, does the memory of that and the sense that in a more general sense president trump might be the right man, give him a lot of support in this city? i believe it does. we want to look at those very important issues, and it seems to be the border keeps coming up as one of those top issues. and he has been very effective. and when he came here, he was here three times, he was well received every time. his attention to the details of what's happening at the border were very effective. of course, many of the trump 2016 campaign promises about the border proved to be empty ones, not least his idea of making mexico pay for the barrier or that he would complete it. building that wall, this wall or barrier, in fact,

was such a distinctive trump campaign mantra in 2016 that you'd think that his failure to do so, the barrier only covers parts of this border with mexico, might be counted against him. but in fact, many people in these border states believe they want him back in office precisely to finish the job. add to any quibbles about policy the trump camp's attempts to pressure those overseeing elections. arizona's maricopa county has become such an important battleground that it was subject to unsubstantiated claims about rigging in 2020 and the midterms two years ago. the man supervising the next election here is bracing himself for more. i am a republican. i'm a proud republican. i have long been a member of the republican party. i still believe in what i view as the central tenets of the republican party —

free markets, rule of law, strong america, strong national border. but obviously much of that has been supplanted by fealty to one individual, and central to that is fealty to some of these false allegations about the 2020 election. we've gone north to another key electoral battleground. bucks county in pennsylvania is what they call a bellwether, having voted trump in 2016 and biden in 2020. on a sunny sunday, the streets of doylestown throng with shoppers. eddie burke runs coach's, his cheese steak sandwiches draw in the customer. but he's struggling to keep his profits in these times of rising prices. it's a struggle. it's difficult, yes.

just to meet every, with everything, yeah. with bills, utility, everything went up. everything's way up. like my gas, electric bills. just everything. eddie feels the biden administration is partly to blame, and its attacks on opponents are just deflection. i don't like the fact that instead of taking responsibility and saying, ok, maybe we came out of covid and that's what they say, and we were handed this. and they all do that. but take more of a responsibility. but they are going to blame trump. and then they tie in the maga. and the maga people, they demonise them so bad, but what the maga people are, and i know a lot of them, and i'm a union guy. i used to be in the union, i did roadwork 18 years. they are your so—called what they call maga, your constructor, your construction workers, your electricians, your carpenters. there's maga. so i don't like when

they label it that way. and they dehumanise people like that.