There would be no General Election until 2020. The country needs stability, she said, through the brexit negotiation. That was the position before the easter recess. But while on a Walking Holiday in wales last week, theresa may had time to reflect and she changed her mind. An unelected Prime Minister needs a mandate. In the polls, heres just one of them from yougov, theresa may and the conservatives have a commanding lead. Her allies were telling her there was no better time to go to the country. So, if this parliament here votes tomorrow to approve her call for a Snap Election as we expect it will then britain will vote again in six weeks time, on june the 8th. They are calling it the brexit election. Our Political Editor Laura Kuensberg begins our coverage. Did she surprise them . Did she surprise you . Did theresa may even surprise you . Did theresa may even surprise herself . Her biggest decision as Prime Minister taken only days ago. I have just chaired a meeting of the cabinet w
conservatives have £71 billion of unfunded spending commitments. again, a big dollop of caution on this one. it includes an assumption the conservatives will scrap national insurance. the tories have said that they would like to do that essentially, but not anytime soon, and they have said that they won t do it unless the money is available. when you hear both of these claims, you know, politics is in play. both parties are trying to persuade you that they would be better at handling the country s money. the most important figures are not necessarily these ones. they are the ones that will get in their manifestos later this month when we scrutinise it again. another thing i wanted to touch on, question that might come into tonight, is the economy moving in the right direction? rishi sunak wants to persuade you it is, keir starmer wants you to be more sceptical. let us look at two measures of this. one here: inflation. it is true to say inflation has gone down significantly since rishi
you would have round the table all the relevant people, whether it was the relevant people, whether it was the defence secretary, the aid secretary, the energy secretary, home secretary and the pro minister. prime minister. while of course prime ministers are powerful because they are prime ministers, they don t have a department of the same way that other ministers do, and having the national security adviser and the national security adviser and the national security secretariat working for you and bringing together the whole of government to address these challenges, i thought god politicians involved at the highest level and the right level to make sure this was being looked at properly. 50 make sure this was being looked at ”roerl . ., make sure this was being looked at n-roerl, ., ., ., ., make sure this was being looked at n-roerl. ., ., ., ., ,, . , properly. so a national security council as properly. so a national security council as you properly. so a national secur
joint intelligence committee to write a report on national security and foreign policy in opposition, and foreign policy in opposition, and one of the recommendations she made was to have a full on national security council, to have eight national security adviser, to have a national security adviser, to have a national security secretariat. the point was to first of all make sure that the whole government looked at these risks, and a second to make sure there was real ministerial oversight because the national security council would be chaired by the pro minister. thirdly, to make sure it was strategic, thinking right across the board about all the risks, and also making sure it was a truly international so you looking at risk of terrorism, climate change, space weather, all sorts of things, but also things like pandemics. why i particular thought this was important was, well i think the civil contingencies act and the previous government have done a good job in this regard, i knew th
until the end of the month and it is perfectly possible that a different case can be brought against him, but at the moment that has not happened and imran khan is not preventing us that mark presenting us with that evidence. he also said his party did not have any violence in it. it is true that the pt! has not been encouraging people to act in a violent way, but when we covered the protests we saw people that were very vocal supporters of imran khan out on the streets, throwing stones and using slingshots against the police. so there was certainly a level of fun is being used by people that we spoke to that supported imran khan. another point he made was, he suggested that there had been people who were essentially interlopers inside the crowd that were trying to encourage people to attack the buildings, the army buildings. again, he provided no evidence, is a really difficult for us to verify any of these claims being made by the former pro minister of pakistan, imran khan. pro-m