the institute for fiscal studies, who you may or may not have heard of, it's theirjob, and they're very public about this, aren't they, to test whether or not political parties sums add up. and when you look at it, so i've got the labour manifesto here and they've done their costings at the back of the actual book. the conservatives put out a separate book with their costings. there's lots of kind of suspiciously round numbers here because obviously they've got to do... it's, it's, it's educated guesswork. yeah. a, how much stuff is going to cost? secondly, what the state of the economy is going to be, so, how much growth is there going to be? what does that mean for tax revenues? so there's quite a lot of guesswork. and then, yes, every party, i was at a news conference today that was all about this. every party will then try and trash their opponents and suggest that their numbers are dodgy. so i was at a conservative event today that was trying to do that about labour's manifesto and surprise, surprise the other day labour did an event, was trying to do the same thing about the conservatives. and so over and above the numbers, there's then that battle for trust, really, that battle to try and convince the electorate that your numbers or your people are trustworthy with the promises that they're making. and to ben's point, there's a sort of trust issue there, isn't it? yeah. i think it's good practice that manifestos have started putting the cost on the balance sheet. because they didn't always. and then people like ben who say, "well, what's the answer, it's either fully—costed or it isn't." there's a great example in the tax — under the conservatives, if they remain in power, tax is going up. their attack line is, "if you vote for labour, tax is going up." so the big challenge for ben and me, voters, is two things can be true at the same time. the prime minister can be right, but so is the record that the tory tax take is going up anyway. that's right. and there's also the big thing that chris says about guesswork, right? political parties and governments, they're always guessing about the future, right. in elections, famously, they're about the future. they're a "contest of the future." and actually, you're guessing, like any of us in your personal life, you say, well, one day i might like to buy a house in... malaga. and i think it might cost me... i was wondering what you were going to pick there. well, i don't know i was thinking of all sorts of different places, but you're you know, it's a normal thing for us as human beings, isn't it? you sort of guessing, you think, "oh, well, i might want to do up at my house. and maybe if i spend, you know, if i spend £500 on getting big pots of paint for my whole house..." you know, it's guesswork. it's educated guesswork, but guesswork nonetheless. and often it's about playing with the kind of sentiments or instincts, either of your own party or of an opponent. and then, as you say, paddy, two things can be right. so the conservatives today were saying about labour, "0h, look at their tax plans. their plans would mean the highest tax burden ever." which, given, that we currently have the highest tax burden in decades and decades and decades, would be true. but the counterpoint that labour can make is well, yeah, but look at the tax burden now. hmm. so it is important. it does help us. it is, i think a kind of relatively new innovation that is useful, but it doesn't mean it's all set in stone. it's falling to me to read out the questions. is that fair? i know, ithink. well, i don't know. can you do your mystic meg impression again about the future as a trade—off? yeah, it was good, wasn't it? so, i'm going to ask you one. i'm going to ask, clare in essex has asked, "how are the parties going to help people who can't afford to live anywhere?" housing is a huge issue for listeners and viewers, but it hasn't been at the top of the list for any of the political parties. so the answer, all the main parties are going to build more houses. they say. all the main parties have said this before and then, broadly, haven't done, they've failed to hit the target. there's also going to be some changes for renters, but basically how are the parties going to help people who can't afford to live anywhere. onjuly the fifth, they're not going to be able to do anything, no matter what they say. and neither of the big political parties — it is completely out of fashion for either the conservatives or the labour party to say, "we will build houses." so if anybody is thinking that a government in future on the 5th of july of whatever variety is actually going to say, "we will build these houses," in the way that happened decades and decades ago, that ain't going to happen. it's about enabling or hoping... hoping. and, and either loosen the planning system or create an environment in which private house—builders can build more houses. what's been interesting about the housing debate, i think, politically, is that you have an acceptance from those broadly on the right of the conservative party all the way to the left of the labour party — they might have different instincts about who should be building their houses and where they should be — but an acceptance of that failure under successive governments of different political colours to build anywhere near enough homes. yeah. but of course there is the argument that many a newscaster might be shouting into the ether on hearing us or watching us on tiktok of, you know, that instinct that says, "is there space for more houses around our way? and if there is, what about provision for doctors surgeries and school places, etc, etc?" so because there's a big argument about this which used to be expressed as nimby — not in my back yard — don't build them here, build them over there. but the problem has become banana, which is, build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone. because the problem has actually become, that we've got...nigel farage would say, because we've increased the population of immigration, the people who were already here didn't have houses, now there's an even more acute problems. so the housing issue also plays into the immigration issue and to your point about doctor service, plays into the health issue. but what i would say is that there's a great example on the bbc website of a couple, between them earning, £60,000 a year that their rent is £1,000 a month and they can't afford to save for a deposit. and the interesting other thing about this is what happened with the liz truss, shortest serving tory prime minister in history, blowing up bits of the financial market, that had an impact on mortgage costs. and although things in the economy, the tories would tell you are starting to turn, there are millions of people who've had an effect on their mortgage costs. so even for people who have been able to afford a house, the issue about the cost of housing or the cost of renting or the cost of buying is a huge issue for millions of people. and the political parties, they haven't scratched the surface on it, really, in terms of big, bold ideas. labour say they can do huge amounts by speeding up the planning system and making it better. but it's interesting, it's one of these things, it's a huge issue for families and politicians haven't put it at the top of the agenda. and people understandably want answers straightaway because they want to solve that housing issue and doing stuff like ungumming the planning system, which is the kind of labour pitch, doesn't happen just like that. interestingly, party on your bananas and nimbys, interestingly, paddy, on your bananas and nimbys, keir starmer told me about six or seven months ago that he now regards himself as a yimby. it's a, yes in my back yard, but then, you know, he might be that, but then you've got to convince everybody who has a back yard. cos it might be in someone else�*s back yard. yes, exactly. what we probably need to say to clare in essex — and incidentally, iwent i had a home in essex and when i bought it, it was for three times the national income, the average income, which i was earning then. i went back to the same house, that same house is now ten times. and michael gove has come out to say he thinks we should go back to three times. but clare, what we can promise to do is come back and do a special special housing and do lots more on housing. but for now the answer to the question is how are the parties going to help people who can't afford to live anywhere? if they were here, they say, we're going to build houses, we're going to increase right to buy. or we're going to help to by bonfire of the planning. yeah. but on july the fifth, there ain't going to be any change. correct. yeah. shall we listen to 0livia? hi, adam, and the team. i was wondering what you think - the impact of constituency boundary changes is going to be? is it going to lead to any- particularly exciting contests? i'm sure i've read somewhere that it will favour the conservatives. - is this true and what does that mean for places like the blue wall- that the lib dems will be targeting? thanks. well, 0livia, that's a proper specialist subject there. props to 0livia. yeah. and for those of us who are going to be up all night on election night, like laura and i, for a start, it's a whole new map and set of things to get our heads around because there's certain, you know, rattling around in our heads as the names of various constituencies from the old boundaries. and then some of them have been tweaked slightly. some remain the same by name, but actually it's a slightly different geographical area. it's all very discombobulated. it is a bit discombobulated. so i suppose the short answer is when these boundary changes — which if you're not somebody who's followed this closely — essentially the maps of individual constituencies in the country, lots of them have been tweaked a little bit. it means that some of them are disappeared. so they've got different candidates standing. some of them, more or less, have just been sort of renamed. but it does mean lots of constituencies are slightly different to how they used to be. back in the day, cos this took years to do. the tories believed that by doing it they would get quite a big advantage because of course what happens over the years is people move, demographics change. and the idea is that each constituency roughly should have the same population. yeah. however, when it all came out in the wash — actually the tories don't think they'll get any sort of particular advantage from it. maybe something like sort of a half dozen seats. what it also say to 0livia is actually, given the way the polls suggest things are going, right now and we're still three, three weeks away, actually, the effect of the boundary changes is probably going to be quite marginal. what it does mean, though, is that some people are standing in seats where they don't have a local connection or they've had to move or and there's that very embarrassing thing where the conservative party chairman, she's one of the most senior people in the party, ended up without a seat and has ended up being imposed on a seat in essex. lots of essex tonight. yeah. where the local party is very unhappy. i think that was a fairly comprehensive answer from laura. i shall add no more. right. so let's go to anthony in rushden, who sent us a question on discord. "with a significant number of mpps not standing at the next election, "with a significant number of mps not standing at the next election, how will this affect the demographics of the parties? will it see the conservatives move to the right?" so if i go first, a lot of them are, sort of the labour ones, are nearly 70, the tory ones are 56, the snp ones are about 55, 56. so i would say straightaway i bet that the next parliament will be younger. hmm. yeah. i think there's a reasonable chance of that. i mean, what was striking, looking at the proportions of mps from the different parties who decided not to run again, is that there was a higher proportion in parties where mps concluded that their party was likely to fare poorly versus those that thought their party would do fairly well. or to put it another way, a higher proportion of conservative and snp mps decided that they wouldn't run again versus labour mps. you add them all together and there's quite a lot of mps who are not running again, therefore guaranteeing that whatever happens on the general election night there'll be a fair old number of new first—time mp or mp who are coming back, retreads as they are known, coming into parliament. and then the other element in terms of the demographics of the parties and will it see a conservative move to the right, that is more, i think, down to the performance of the parties as opposed to necessarily the candidates and seeing who is left, if the conservatives have a really, really bad night. or who is left if they do slightly better than some of them fear that they might do at the moment. and i think at the moment it's interesting, can you be sure of what's going to happen? no, you can't be sure because the map is ever—moving and it's ever—changing and campaigns are ever—moving. talking about that, we have a question from gareth that's come injust live in the last couple of minutes. "hello, newscast. could you give us an insight into how you decide where to go to report on any given day? it seems as if all the events and locations are only publicised at the last minute. do you get more advanced notice under embargo — so you have to have private until it's announced for security reasons — and when you get on the bus, do you have any idea where you're going or is it like a magical mystery tour?" this is so good. this is like...gareth, your question, it's very much targeted at my life right now. yeah. right now. so i've realised covering this campaign and laura, you've done a fair few of these is that i spend a fair chunk of every day in conversation with the little team that i'm part of, rattling around in a van — without any windows in the back, by the way — about where we're going to go the day after. yeah. so you're doing this story on the day, whilst wrestling with where are you going to go the day after? where are you going to go the day after? you're going to go hopefully where the most interesting news story is, but also some way that you can get to from where you are right now and also trying to ensure that you're hearing and reflecting the voices of all of the different campaigns across the piece. do the parties give us some advance notice of where they are going? yes, they do. usually i have conversations every weekend trying to get a sense of where they're going to go in the next four or five days. so you can begin to map out where you might end up. but then stuff happens and then the whole thing goes in the skip and then you and then you start again. it's not quite a case of getting on the bus, not knowing entirely where you're going because the bus driver knows where you're going and you've usually got an idea, even if we're not saying it out loud in our broadcasting at that point, because of security concerns and all the rest of it, where you're going or where the bus is going. but it's entirely possible you get off that bus before it even gets to where it's going. because you decide to go somewhere else. and it's possible you end up somewhere without any clothes, so you have to go to tesco to buy a pair of socks for the next day. i think this is something that you two would like to talk about on your own podcast, van life. stop, enough. i'm hearing van life. yeah, well that's... laughter. i've got too many mem... don't let me open that box. we're going to be here forever. it's fair to say, that the nature of it — and final thoughts on all of this... no, keep going. ..is that, i was reflecting on this with our team earlier on that... oh, no. no, it's not that bad. ..that the nature of spending 18 or 19 hours in the company, of a small collection of people, followed by four or five hours in a hotel, and then the whole thing starts again, is that, i mean, you really do get to know each other rather well and the foibles of one another and all the rest of it. some of my happiest days. i'm not the tidiest. right. but we know that from what we do in the newsroom, that's exactly a revelation, is it? blimey. so imagine a week in a van. oh, my god. yeah, well, i'd be like at you know, mr muscle. pick up your litter, your mucky pup. mr muscle is to clean fridges, isn't it? have you seen how he used to leave the newsroom? can i just ask you, is there any reason why the bbc political editor has to travel in a van with no windows, because i just think that might be a diary item for one of the papers tomorrow. well, as it happens, as old as it is, it's actually quite good for sort of concentration. you know, because when i, when we were sort of motoring through the peak district or whatever, a beautiful part of the country, and i've got lots of work to do and phone calls to make you kind of get on with that rather than saying," oh, isn't that a lovely view?" it sounds...well, look, ok. it's like blinkers on a horse. right. laughter. paddy... sorry. question for you, paddy on tiktok, onenation asks, not, maybe they are connected with the conservative's one nation group, i don't know. onenation on tiktok asks, "do you think the election will bring a lower turnout?" if you're asking me. yeah. a standard election turnout is 75—ish %. you'll put me right if i'm wrong. you're the expert. for a general. do i think it's lower than that? are you asking me? no, i don't. i don't think it's going to be lower than 75%. oh, interesting. i think it might be. i think it might be as well, but who knows. i mean, look, we don't know onenation, but we think it might be and in the parties, quite a lot of people think it might be. and the tories particularly are worried about their voters staying at home. and my favourite idea that the sofa wins, right? so the sofa votes. so you make an active choice not to go to the polls. and there's been a kind of historical downward trend, hasn't there? but then equally, you've seen moments where the electorate collectively think they really want to get stuck in, like the brexit referendum and it goes up. so yeah, but i think this time we know and everybody watching tiktok or iplayer or listening to this, we talk a lot at the moment about something that's very real, which is that people are really hacked off. they're really, really hacked off and they're hacked off with politics. they're hacked off with a lot of the shenanigans over the last five years. they're hacked of feeling skint, and the parties know that and they are you know, they're worried about sort of lack of engagement. yeah, i hear...sorry, chris. no, it's a slight side bar this, but it does come up in a couple of conversations i have with senior folk in the two big westminster parties in the last few days. slight side bar from turnout, butjust interesting in terms of the mood of the next few weeks. which is that, you know, election campaigns by their nature are sort of noisy and partisan and divisive and compelling you or asking you to take a side and then we've got the euros. yeah. which can be this moment of people coming together and also massive attention—grabber and it throws the tv schedules out the window and all the rest of it. i mean, the football, just to be clear for the uninitiated. so, you know, how do you as a party, tonally, kind of persuade people in a moment where the attention is elsewhere and people are throwing beer around in the town square and all the rest of it. not quite connected to sofa, but itjust plays into the mood of the next few weeks as people decide whether to turn out and t