and shortly, paul hutcheon — political editor at the daily record. he's just been listening to the scottish leaders debate and so will be joining us shortly. first, the latest headlines. president biden�*s son, hunter, has been found guilty on all three charges in his federal gun crime trial. the jury in delaware found that he'd lied about his drug use on a form while buying a weapon in twenty— eighteen. while buying a weapon in 2018. it's the first criminal prosecution of the child of a sitting us president. hamas has given its formal response to the latest peace plan for gaza. the group says it has a positive view of the three—phase proposal but wants several guarantees. these include a commitment to a permanent ceasefire and the complete withdrawal of israeli forces from the territory. and we will have all the latest reaction to the scottish leaders debate. leaders of the five main parties have spent the last hour making their pitches to voters. as you probably know by now, july the 4th is the date of the uk general election. and for those of you follow formula one, you'll probably also know that july fourth is the start of the uk grand prix. that of course takes place at silverstone race circuit in northamptonshire — and it was there that rishi sunak launched the conservatives�* election manifesto today. as with all manifestos, it was packed with promises, including on tax, housing and immigration. so let's go through some of the main takeaways. on tax — a pledge to reduce national insurance a further 2p in the pound cut plus the abolition of the self—employed rate. with housing a huge concern in this election, the conservatives are promising help forfirst time buyers — they'll abolish stamp duty on homes up to £425,000, plus a new help to buy scheme. the party also says it will halve migration and have regular flights going to rwanda as part of its plan to deport some of those entering the uk illegally. with more on what was in the manifesto, here's our political editor chris mason with his analysis. halfway through this election race, it's the moment for the cardboard boxes. within them, bundles of promises not always kept that set out a party's blueprint for the next five years. so the manifesto is here, so is the cabinet, then the prime minister. music, applause, and ovations from party supporters, yes, but also this — a candid acknowledgement rishi sunak about how you may feel about him and the conservatives. i'm not blind to the fact that people are frustrated with our party and frustrated with me. things have not always been easy, and we have not got everything right. but we are the only party in this election with big ideas to make our country a better place to live. a central theme of this manifesto is tax cuts, including a promise of another 2p cut in national insurance. by 2027, we will have halved national insurance to 6% — that is a tax cut, my friends, worth £1,300 to the average worker. rishi sunak praised the enterprise and risk—taking of the self—employed, and said this. in the next parliament, we will scrap entirely the main rate of self—employed national insurance. and, having acknowledged on bbc panorama last night that it's become harder to buy a home in recent years, the prime minister said he wanted to make it easier. for the first—time buyers, purchasing a home up £425,000, we will abolish stamp duty entirely. stamp duty is a tax on buying a home in england and northern ireland. next, what about the plan to send some migrants rwanda? some migrants to rwanda? some conservatives say it's time the uk left the european convention on human rights — or echr — to make this easier. but mr sunak stopped short of saying that. if we are forced to choose between our security and the jurisdiction of a foreign court, including the echr, we will always choose our nation's security. for much of the last 18 months, you have tried everything to try and revive conservative fortunes, and not much appears to have worked. could we rename this document today your last—chance saloon? well, chris, i've been very clear when i got thisjob, that we were in for a very difficult time of the country. if you want a secure future, if you want lower taxes and if you want your pensions protected, more sensible approach to net zero, and you want your borders secure, vote conservative at this election. and there ended perhaps this man's last big set piece moment to change his fortunes. time, then, to scuttle through the crowds and talk to some cabinet ministers. what do you make of that? i think this is a really exciting manifesto for the future, and what i love about it is that it addresses every stage of our lives. if this is the game—changer, why are you standing down? me? i'm an old war horse that's been put out to grass because we need a new generation to support the prime minister in the future. this is a fudge—a—rama on the echr, isn't it? the safety of rwanda act makes it clear that - if there is a contradiction _ between an adjudication in a foreign court and our ability i to protect our borders, we protect our borders. are you going to win? this is absolutely in our grasp. i know we are behind in the polls... i notice you're not saying yes. it's an election, and i can't - predict the outcome of an election, that's not myjob. the outcome of the election is yourjob at home. the cases the different parties are making are becoming clearer. chris mason, bbc news, at silverstone. well, the conservatives are adamant their sums add up, but after a significant tax raising parliament, they're now trying to convince voters that things will change. however with finances stretched, how will they pay for any tax cuts. 0ur economics editor faisal islam explains. the manifesto is a 20 billion a year change to tax and spending designed to communicate really one thing the conservatives want voters — to trust them, that taxes can be lowered after an increase in tax and the size of government since the pandemic. let's take a look at how they say it adds up. that further 2% cut to national insurance. essentially that's a tax on work, i%. next april, another 1% in 2027, adding up to a £10 billion giveaway, then a smaller cut from the abolition of self employed national insurance. and the same again for some state pensioners tax bills and there are more smaller cuts. now over here is the funding for those two crackdowns essentially two crackdowns essentially on tax avoidance and welfare, saving a total of £18 billion a year. let's just take that £12 billion on welfare. the conservatives describe an agenda for dealing with the challenge, not going ahead with a massive post—pandemic rise in benefits for working households. could you raise that money? yes, but it's not a detailed plan. we don't know the specific policies. and so those affected, whereas we do know that over there for the tax cuts. so a total £17 billion tax cuts with the biggest element cuts to national insurance, the tax on workers worth £450 a year by 2027, balanced by what the conservatives assert they can raise from that £18 billion double crackdown. the other big change is a 6 billion a year increase in defence spending to get it up to 2.5% target funded by tens of thousands fewer civil servants and reversing the that which would reverse the post—pandemic increases and the diversion of research and development spending into defence. all of the money to pay from that comes from quite uncertain things — tax avoidance, cutting civil service jobs, efficiencies in quangos, cutting welfare spending without definite plans. so we've got definite promises of goodies, of giveaways with very uncertain ways of actually funding those promises. now, all this doesn't include some already announced policies of similar size. a bumper income tax hike from frozen thresholds, implied real cuts to some government departments, too. this manifesto is basically asking voters to trust that the conservatives can, will and want to shrink the welfare bill and the size of government in order to afford specific tax cuts in order to afford specific tax cuts, or rather to give back some of the recent tax rises. let's speak to our panel now — paul hutcheon is the political editor at the daily record. anna mikhailova is deputy political editor at the mail on sunday. and joe twyman is a pollster — and the co—founder of deltapoll. anna, one right up says the prime minister sought to present himself as the tax—cutting heir of margaret thatcher and nigel lawson. what did you make that assessment? that’s you make that assessment? that's certainly how— you make that assessment? that's certainly how he _ you make that assessment? that's certainly how he describes - you make that assessment? that's| certainly how he describes himself, whether_ certainly how he describes himself, whether or— certainly how he describes himself, whether or not voters will be convinces _ whether or not voters will be convinces another matter. effectively, they are currently trying — effectively, they are currently trying to _ effectively, they are currently trying to create low taxes and cutting — trying to create low taxes and cutting taxes is the dividing line between — cutting taxes is the dividing line between them and labour. the problem with that _ between them and labour. the problem with that is _ between them and labour. the problem with that is that his parliament is obviously— with that is that his parliament is obviously in the tax burden rights are record — obviously in the tax burden rights are record high and even the tax cuts _ are record high and even the tax cuts that— are record high and even the tax cuts that chris mason has just listed — cuts that chris mason has just listed that we saw unveiled in the plan promised today, even that doesn't — plan promised today, even that doesn't particularly cut the tax burden — doesn't particularly cut the tax burden. rishi sunak was challenged on this— burden. rishi sunak was challenged on this and — burden. rishi sunak was challenged on this and he seemed to say in his answer— on this and he seemed to say in his answer that— on this and he seemed to say in his answer that the tax burden would start to _ answer that the tax burden would start to creep down, but independent analysis— start to creep down, but independent analysis is— start to creep down, but independent analysis is suggested isn't the case — analysis is suggested isn't the case. whoever comes and it sounds like taxes _ case. whoever comes and it sounds like taxes are going to be pretty high _ like taxes are going to be pretty high and — like taxes are going to be pretty high. and whether or not voters will be convinced by his offerings today remains _ be convinced by his offerings today remains to — be convinced by his offerings today remains to be seen.— remains to be seen. paul, let's bring you _ remains to be seen. paul, let's bring you end- _ remains to be seen. paul, let's bring you end. we _ remains to be seen. paul, let's bring you end. we saw- remains to be seen. paul, let's bring you end. we saw in - remains to be seen. paul, let's bring you end. we saw in that. remains to be seen. paul, let's - bring you end. we saw in that piece from faisal islam just then, funding from faisal islam just then, funding from these tax cuts come from one of the experts in that report said around certain things, tax avoidance, cracking down on that. hello paul? {3h avoidance, cracking down on that. hello paul?— avoidance, cracking down on that. hello paul? oh i'm sorry, i missed the question- _ hello paul? oh i'm sorry, i missed the question. no, _ hello paul? oh i'm sorry, i missed the question. no, i— hello paul? oh i'm sorry, i missed the question. no, i was _ hello paul? oh i'm sorry, i missed the question. no, i was making . hello paul? oh i'm sorry, i missed the question. no, i was making a i the question. no, i was making a statement _ the question. no, i was making a statement but _ the question. no, i was making a statement but i _ the question. no, i was making a statement but i thought - the question. no, i was making a statement but i thought you - the question. no, i was making a. statement but i thought you would pick up. let me ask it in a question, what do you think about that? the concern about where this money will come from? you saw there in faisal islam's report there were the conservatives say that money will fund these tax cuts, but up with an expert in his report there said that some of those things are more unreliable sources, things like promise to crack down on tax avoidance for example. so do you think this is something that will work with mark i think that the issue the conservatives face with their tax and spending proposals is pretty similar to the problem that jeremy corbyn faced back in 2019. if you take some individual policies in isolation you'll probably find some degree of support for them amongst the electorate. but when you are not perceived have any credibility, when you are perceived to have squandered any credibility, that really undermines policy offering that you're making in the manifesto. i think that is the central challenge that the tories have got in the selection, that voters are thinking about what has preceded this election over the last four or five years, ratherthan election over the last four or five years, rather than the promises that they are making in the future. as to take tax, for instance, it's easy to say that you're going to cut national insurance, but people know that the tax burden is the highest it's been since i think 1948, and the tories promised to cut immigration, yet voters know that net migration is at the highest level it's ever been. so it's the credibility gap that conservatives are struggling to bridge, as much as the gap in terms of how they're going to fund their spending commitments.— going to fund their spending commitments. . «a ., �* , commitments. thanks paul. let's brina commitments. thanks paul. let's brin: joe commitments. thanks paul. let's bring joe in- _ commitments. thanks paul. let's bring joe in. our— commitments. thanks paul. let's bring joe in. our tax _ commitments. thanks paul. let's bring joe in. our tax cuts - commitments. thanks paul. let's bring joe in. our tax cuts going i commitments. thanks paul. let'sj bring joe in. our tax cuts going to be the winner when it comes to pulling? if be the winner when it comes to ”ullin ? , ., be the winner when it comes to ”ullin? y., ., be the winner when it comes to ”ullin? ., ., ,, pulling? if you ask in abstract terms would _ pulling? if you ask in abstract terms would people - pulling? if you ask in abstract terms would people like - pulling? if you ask in abstract terms would people like to i pulling? if you ask in abstract. terms would people like to see pulling? if you ask in abstract - terms would people like to see their taxes _ terms would people like to see their taxes reduced. — terms would people like to see their taxes reduced, they— terms would people like to see their taxes reduced, they say _ terms would people like to see their taxes reduced, they say yes, - terms would people like to see their taxes reduced, they say yes, but. taxes reduced, they say yes, but inevitably— taxes reduced, they say yes, but inevitably it _ taxes reduced, they say yes, but inevitably it is _ taxes reduced, they say yes, but inevitably it is more _ taxes reduced, they say yes, but inevitably it is more completed l taxes reduced, they say yes, but. inevitably it is more completed than that. inevitably it is more completed than that if_ inevitably it is more completed than that if you — inevitably it is more completed than that. if you keep— inevitably it is more completed than that. if you keep taxes _ inevitably it is more completed than that. if you keep taxes and - inevitably it is more completed than that. if you keep taxes and public. that. if you keep taxes and public spending — that. if you keep taxes and public spending at — that. if you keep taxes and public spending at the _ that. if you keep taxes and public spending at the same _ that. if you keep taxes and public spending at the same level- that. if you keep taxes and public. spending at the same level they are now, _ spending at the same level they are now. to _ spending at the same level they are now, to increase _ spending at the same level they are now, to increase taxes _ spending at the same level they are now, to increase taxes and - spending at the same level they are now, to increase taxes and spend . now, to increase taxes and spend more _ now, to increase taxes and spend more public— now, to increase taxes and spend more public services, _ now, to increase taxes and spend more public services, or- more public services, or reduce taxes _ more public services, or reduce taxes and — more public services, or reduce taxes and spend _ more public services, or reduce taxes and spend less _ more public services, or reduce taxes and spend less on - more public services, or reduce taxes and spend less on publicl taxes and spend less on public services, — taxes and spend less on public services, it's— taxes and spend less on public services, it's the _ taxes and spend less on public services, it's the status - taxes and spend less on public services, it's the status quo i taxes and spend less on public services, it's the status quo toj services, it's the status quo to keep— services, it's the status quo to keep it — services, it's the status quo to keep it the _ services, it's the status quo to keep it the same _ services, it's the status quo to keep it the same as— services, it's the status quo to keep it the same as it - services, it's the status quo to keep it the same as it is not. i keep it the same as it is not. that receives the — keep it the same as it is not. that receives the most _ keep it the same as it is not. that receives the most popular- keep it the same as it is not. that receives the most popular option. and also— receives the most popular option. and also putts— receives the most popular option. and also pull's latest _ receives the most popular option. and also pull's latest survey, - and also pull's latest survey, compared _ and also pull's latest survey, compared to _ and also pull's latest survey, compared to 34% _ and also pull's latest survey, compared to 34% just - and also pull's latest survey, compared to 34% just over i and also pull's latest survey, compared to 34% just over a | and also pull's latest survey, - compared to 34% just over a third that said — compared to 34% just over a third that said we — compared to 34% just over a third that said we should _ compared to 34% just over a third that said we should increase - compared to 34% just over a thirdl that said we should increase taxes and spend — that said we should increase taxes and spend more _ that said we should increase taxes and spend more on— that said we should increase taxes and spend more on public- that said we should increase taxesl and spend more on public services, 'ust and spend more on public services, just 14, _ and spend more on public services, just 14, one — and spend more on public services, just 14, one in— and spend more on public services, just 14, one in seven _ and spend more on public services, just 14, one in seven people - and spend more on public services, just 14, one in seven people said i and spend more on public services, i just 14, one in seven people said we should _ just 14, one in seven people said we should reduce — just 14, one in seven people said we should reduce taxes _ just 14, one in seven people said we should reduce taxes and _ just 14, one in seven people said we should reduce taxes and cut - just 14