This is what some political journalists and commentators are saying about Theresa May’s speech on Twitter.

Generally they are very sceptical, although there are mixed views as to how much damage May could be doing to relations with Brussels.

From the Guardian’s Patrick Wintour

From the Financial Times’ Gideon Rachman

From the Spectator’s James Forsyth

From the Telegraph’s Michael Deacon

From the Guardian’s Rafael Behr

From the Evening Standard’s George Eaton

From the BBC’s Nick Robinson

From the Daily Mirror’s Kevin Maguire

From Steve Richards

From Good Morning Britain’s Piers Morgan

From the Daily Mirror’s Jack Blanchard

From the Telegraph’s Ben Riley-Smith

That’s all from me for today. My colleague Kevin Rawlinson is now taking over.

And here is Jeremy Corbyn’s response to Theresa May’s speech.

Theresa May is playing party games with Brexit in the hope of winning advantage for the Tories in the General Election.

By winding up the public confrontation with Brussels, the prime minister wants to wrap the Conservative party in the Union Jack and distract attention from her government’s economic failure and rundown of our public services.

But Brexit is too important to be used as a political game in this election.

These are vital negotiations for every person in Britain and for the future of our country. But Theresa May is putting party interest ahead of the national interest.

The prime minister is right that there are those in Brussels who don’t want a deal. But that is also true of leading figures in the Tory party, who want to use Brexit to turn Britain into a low wage tax haven.

The prime minister says that no deal would lead to a different economic model for Britain.

In plain terms, that means wiping out employment rights and consumer protections and giving still more tax breaks to the rich and big corporations.

That’s the threat and the risk that comes from this Tory government.

Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, has described Theresa May’s claims as “preposterous, paranoid and xenophobic” and likened her to a “hybrid of Richard Nixon and Cersei Lannister”. Thornberry said:

For Theresa May to use the backdrop of Downing Street to‎ make such preposterous, paranoid and xenophobic claims is ill-befitting the office of Prime Minister. The only response from the British public should be to get her out of that office as soon as possible.

She talks about strong and stable leadership, but at the first sign of difficulty in her talks with Brussels, she is wobbling and lashing out like some hybrid of Richard Nixon and Cersei Lannister.

Instead of alienating our European partners, and insulting them with these ludicrous accusations, she should be working to build effective relationships and make meaningful progress; that is the way to get the best deal for Britain.

For those of you who don’t watch Game of Thrones, Cersei Lannister is the wicked and murderous Queen. (She also feuds with the High Sparrow, among others, which ought to be a negative in my book, although viewers will sympathise because my namesake is quite unbearable ...)

UPDATE: I’ve tweaked the paragraph above in relation to ‘spoiler alert’ complaints from readers.

Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has accused Theresa May of poisoning the atmosphere for the Brexit talks and called her speech “deeply irresponsible”.

Is Jean-Claude Juncker a Tory sleeper? Was David Cameron’s doomed attempt to stop him getting the job of European commission president just an elaborate ruse? It is starting to look like that, because it feels as if this an intervention that could move the electoral dial, and the Juncker dinner set it up.

Theresa May made a series of allegations against assorted European figures and institutions that were so inflammatory that they sounded like more like a Daily Mail editorial than a speech from a prime minister. For the most part they were also misleading or wrong.

• She claimed Britain’s negotiating position had been “misrepresented” in the “continental” press. That seemed to be a reference to the account of the dinner she hosted in Downing Street leaked to Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung. (There is a translation here.) But May and David Davis, who were both at the dinner, have refused to deny specific details of the newspaper’s account (although they have said they did not recognise its version of events.)

• She said the European commission’s negotiating stance has hardened. But it hasn’t to any significant extent. The Brexit negotiating guidelines agreed by EU leaders on Saturday were broadly similar to the draft ones issued a month or so earlier, and EU leaders have been saying for months that the UK will have to agree withdrawal terms before a trade deal is discussed.

• She said “threats” had been issued against Britain by European politicians and officials. But this just seems to be a reference to EU figures pointing out that Brexit will not be painless to Britain, an argument that the government itself used to make before the referendum. (And it is what May used to say herself too.)

• She said there were some in Brussels who don’t want the Brexit talks to succeed. But no serious figure in Brussels has said they want the Brexit talks to fail.

• She said there were some in Brussels who do not want Britain to prosper. But that is only true in the sense that EU leaders have stuck to the line they have always adopted, about how it would be unacceptable for Britain to be outside the EU while enjoying all the benefits it used to have.

• She said that these interventions were timed to affect the result of the election. She clearly implied that the intention was not to help her. But any observer with a rudimentary grasp of British politics would realise that any evidence of Brussels intransigence helps May make her case that Britain needs “strong and stable” etc etc.

May used to portray herself as a sensible moderate. This speech had a glint of the swivel-eye about it, and in a just world it would backfire. It is just possible that it could. It is also possible that it could do long-term damage to the prospects of the UK reaching a sensible Brexit deal with the EU.

But it seems more likely that people will like it. The rightwing, anti-European papers (the Mail, the Sun, the Express and the Telegraph) will certainly love it. And experience suggests that EU-bashing always goes down well, even when it is pointless, or counterproductive. In the last parliament David Cameron obtained his most significant bounce in the poll after he vetoed plans for a new EU treaty. This turned out to be a Pyrrhic victory (Cameron lost goodwill, and the reforms went through anyway), but one poll saw Tory support rise seven point afterwards.

And this is what Theresa May said in her speech about the choice between her and Jeremy Corbyn.

If we don’t get the negotiation right, your economic security and prosperity will be put at risk and the opportunities you seek for your families will simply not happen.

If we do not stand up and get this negotiation right we risk the secure and well-paid jobs we want for our children and our children’s children too.

If we don’t get the negotiation right, if we let the bureaucrats of Brussels run over us, we will lose the chance to build a fairer society with real opportunity for all.

The choice the country faces now is very simple. Because there are only two people who can possibly be Prime Minister after the 8th of June to negotiate Brexit.

It is a choice between me – and Jeremy Corbyn.

With me you will get strong and stable leadership, and an approach to Brexit that locks in economic growth, jobs for our children and strong finances for the NHS and the country’s schools.

Or you will get Jeremy Corbyn with a hung parliament and a coalition of chaos.

Britain simply will not get the right Brexit deal if we have the drift and division of a hung parliament.

Here is the main passage from Theresa May’s speech about Brexit and the EU.

Whoever wins on 8 June will face one overriding task: to get the best possible deal for this United Kingdom from Brexit.

And in the last few days, we have seen just how tough these talks are likely to be.

Britain’s negotiating position in Europe has been misrepresented in the continental press.

The European commission’s negotiating stance has hardened.

Threats against Britain have been issued by European politicians and officials.

All of these acts have been deliberately timed to affect the result of the general election that will take place on 8 June.

By contrast, I made clear in my letter to the president of the European council invoking Article 50 last month that, in leaving the European Union, Britain means no harm to our friends and allies on the continent.

We continue to believe that no deal is better for Britain than a bad deal.

But we want a deal. We want a deep and special partnership with the European Union.

And we want the EU to succeed.

But the events of the last few days have shown that - whatever our wishes, and however reasonable the positions of Europe’s other leaders - there are some in Brussels who do not want these talks to succeed.

Who do not want Britain to prosper.

So now more than ever we need to be led by a prime minister and a government that is strong and stable.

Because making Brexit a success is central to our national interest. And it is central to your own security and prosperity.

Because while there is enormous opportunity for Britain as we leave the European Union, if we do not get this right, the consequences will be serious.

And they will be felt by ordinary, working people across the country.

This Brexit negotiation is central to everything.

Here is the key quote from Theresa May.

In the past few days we have seen just how tough these talks are likely to be. Britain’s negotiating position in Europe has been misrepresented in the continental press. The European commission’s negotiating stance has hardened. Threats against Britain have been issued by European politicians and officials. All of these acts have been deliberately timed to affect the result of the general election that will take place on 8 June.

Theresa May is now back in Downing Street and making a statement.

The election will be in 36 days, she says.

She says the election is about the future. The task for the next government will be to get the best outcome from Brexit.

And in the last few days we have seen how difficult it will be.

Britain’s position has been misrepresented by the continental media, she says. And she says threats have been made to Britain.

She says all of this was done to influence the election.

• May accuses unidentified figures in Brussels of meddling in the election.

She says the UK’s position is reasonable. But some in Brussels do not want the UK the talks to succeed.

That is why the UK needs strong and stable leadership.

She says the consequences will be serious if this negotiation is not a success.

Theresa May has just arrived at Buckingham Palace to see the Queen ahead of the election.

This is a completely unnecessary photocall. Prime ministers used to have to “go to the Palace” to call an election because in the past only the Queen had the power to dissolve parliament and call one.

Since the the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was passed this has been unnecessary. The election is already happening.

But in 2015 David Cameron decided that he was going to go and see the Queen anyway. Presumably he felt that participating in this ritual made him look prime ministerial, and that people would not think it was a proper election unless they had seen the Number 10 Daimler heading up the Mall. The poor woman also had to put up with a separate visit from Nick Clegg, because he did not want to be left out and he insisted on going to see her himelf a little later.

And now May is performing the same pantomime. On the BBC a presenter said she would be going there to tell the Queen an election was taking place. Presumably she’s seen it on the news already. It would nice to think that she will tell May to leave her in peace and let her get back to watching the horse racing on TV, but doubtless she will find something more anodyne to say.

• Philip Hammond and David Davis have said voters would face a £45bn “bombshell” in tax rises or extra debt under a Labour government as the Tories went on the offensive against Jeremy Corbyn’s economic policies. See 1.44pm for an analysis of the Tory claims. Responding to the attack, Corbyn claimed it showed that the Conservatives were desperate. He said:

Every single one of the commitments we’ve announced so far are fully costed and fully funded. The Conservatives actually know that, because they must have read the statements we’ve put out.

It seems to me that only two weeks into the election, there’s an air of desperation approaching the Tory campaign, because we will not be raising tax for the low paid, we will not be raising tax for middle income earners, but we will be protecting the triple lock on pensions, we will be ensuring our schools don’t have to have collections at the school gates in order to pay teachers.

• Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator has voiced hope of reaching an “entente cordiale” with the UK, but said some in Britain still harbour illusions that Brexit can be painless.

• David Davis has rejected suggestions that the UK will have to pay a €100bn (£84.5bn) bill to leave the European Union, saying rising estimates of the divorce bill prove that no deal is better than a bad deal.

• Theresa May is facing a revolt from Tories who want her to ditch plans to reform the school funding formula. (See 1.05pm.) George Osborne, who was sacked by May as chancellor, is promoting the story as his splash on his second day as Evening Standard editor.

• ITV has announced that it is scheduling a TV leaders’ debate on Thursday 18 May, even thought May and Corbyn have already signalled they will not take part. (May will not come because she says she wants to prioritise campaigning, and Corbyn will not attend without May there.) The Lib Dems have confirmed that Tim Farron will take part and have challenged ITV to empty chair leaders who don’t show up.

The Conservatives sent their document costing Labour’s spending plans to journalists overnight. You should be able to read it here (pdf).

It is actually surprisingly thin. It runs to just 16 pages. The equivalent document produced by the Tories ahead of the 2015 election (“A cost analysis of Labour party policy”, released on 5 January 2015) was 82 pages long, although CCHQ knew that election was coming and had a lot longer to prepare.

This is what the title page looks like.

And here is the “scorecard”, summarising the way they have costed Labour’s supposed plans. The calculations are based on three elements: cuts Labour say they would reverse; extra spending proposed by Labour; and extra taxes proposed by Labour. By adding up the first two figures, and subtracting the third, they have produced a figure for the supposed “black hole” Labour would have in the national accounts in 2019/20. It’s £45.5bn.

If you have the time, and you are truly committed to the idea of subjecting politicians to citizen accountability, do read the whole thing. But for those of you who have got better things to do, here are some thoughts about it.

1 - The Tory document is surprisingly thin. To repeat the figures used above, when Labour’s shadow chancellor was Ed Balls, a fiscal hardliner who strongly objected to colleagues making unfunded spending announcements, the Tories managed to dredge up 82 pages of supposedly irresponsible financial commitments. But with Labour now run by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell - profligate Marxists, according to conventional Tory thinking - CCHQ can only stretch its attack document to 16 pages. Either Corbyn and McDonnell are not quite as spendthrift as Theresa May would have use believe, or CCHQ is losing its touch.

2 - Generally, the research is robust. At the Conservative press conference David Davis said the Tories had only costed proper Labour commitments (see 9.55am) and broadly that is true. Here is an example of how things are set out.

Labour produced a rebuttal document attacking the Tory claims which they managed to get handed out inside the Conservative party’s press conference.

But “rebuttal document” may be going a bit far. It was basically a press notice printed over four pages. It claimed to identify 10 mistakes, but five of those supposed “mistakes” related to policies funded by reversing the Tory cuts to corporation tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax. The Tory document takes these tax increases into account, so they are not mistakes at all.

3 - By far the biggest spending item in the Tory document is one that Labour is actually proud of. The Tories claim that, overall, there is a black hole of £45bn in the Labour plans. But £35bn of that is accounted for by infrastructure spending. On the Today programme John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, sounded angry about the inclusion of this items, arguing that infrastructure is capital spending, not current spending, and that it should not be included in an exercise like this. (See 7.20am.) He is right, but perhaps he should have welcomed the chance to point out this area of difference. It is a consequence of the “fiscal credibility rule” he announced last year that would allow a future Labour government to borrow to invest and that differentiated him from George Osborne, who at that time was still committed to balancing the budget for current and capital spending.

4 - The Tory exercise has prompted Labour to clarify its position on some points, with the result that up to four possible Corbyn policies have been dropped. Quoting promises made by Corbyn during his 2015 and 2016 Labour leadership campaigns, the Tories said Labour was committed to paying under-25s the same benefits as over-25s and reversing cuts in the arts budget. Today, in their rebuttal, Labour said that neither of these were current party policy. Labour also said that giving nursery access to all children was also not current party policy, and that the quote from Corbyn in the Tory document suggesting otherwise had been been over-interpreted because Corbyn only said Labour would move towards all children getting nursery access. And Labour said that a quote from Corbyn implying Labour would buy out PFI contracts had also been misinterpreted. Labour said buying out NHS contracts was not current party policy, and that the party was only committed to no further PFI contracts, which was not the same thing.

5 - Excluding infrastructure spending, Labour’s supposed “black hole” is £10bn - which is big, but not unprecedented. Two years ago David Cameron fought an election promising to put an extra £8bn a year into the NHS, but without being able to explain how that would be funded. (“We’ve done it before, so we will be able to find the money again”, was essentially Cameron’s line.) It is also highly likely that £10bn will be well below the amount of money that the UK ends up paying the EU to leave, although the Tories are refusing to confirm that. (Admittedly the EU “Brexit bill” will be a one-off, not an ongoing spending commitment, but it could well end up being paid in chunks over several years.)

6 - Exercises like this are more to do with reinforcing pre-existing views than changing minds. Overall, today’s Tory document is more in the awkward category for Labour than the politically damning. Philip Hammond and David Davis were forced onto the defensive at their press conference when they were unable to answer questions about Tory tax policy, and Labour’s unfunded commitments are not that much larger than Cameron’s in 2015. But if voters trust a party on economic competence, politicians can get away with no end of fiscal evasiveness. Rightly or wrongly, Corbyn and McDonnell don’t have that luxury. A Guardian/ICM poll two weeks ago found them 39-points behind on economic competence. Today’s exercise is just about trying to keep them there.

Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, held his conference this morning as the European commission published more details of its negotiating guidelines. They are available here.

And here are the main points from what Barnier said.

• Barnier took what could be seen as a dig at Theresa May by saying it was an “illusion” to think that Brexit could be painless. He said:

Some have created the illusion that Brexit would have no material impact on our lives or that negotiations can be concluded quickly and painlessly. This is not the case.

He said there would be “consequences” to the UK leaving.

There will be consequences. Those who pretend - or who did pretend - that you can leave the EU and there are no consequences simply aren’t telling the truth.

There are human consequences, there are social consequences, there are economic consequences, there are technical consequences, financial. legal consequences. You are unwinding 43 years or so of a relationship.

He also warned that a deal could not be done quickly.

We need sound solutions, we need legal precision and this will take time.

• He said there could be “explosive” consequences if the UK tried to leave the EU without paying what it owed. Pointing out that the UK had agreed to fund the EU’s 2014-20 budget, as well programmes supporting countries like Turkey and Ukraine, he said:

We have to be rigorous in our approach to clearing these accounts, because otherwise the situation might be explosive, if we have to stop programmes. Can you imagine the political problems which might arise?

At one point Barnier even suggested there could be legal action if the UK refused to pay what it owed, saying there would be “legal problems” if the UK did not pay. He would not put a figure on how much the UK would be asked to contribute, even when asked to give a rough ballpark figure. He said the commission was still calculating how much the UK owed, and that its figures would be “incontestable”.

We have entered into rigorous and objective work which should be incontestable and which will have to take account of the commitments.

This was not a punishment, or a “Brexit bill”, he said.

I can’t understand why here and there I hear mentions of punishment [regarding] the exit bill, the Brexit bill. That is not the case. Commitments have been made and these commitments have to be honoured, these responsibilities have to be honoured.

And he insisted that the EU would not be asking the UK to sign a blank cheque.

There was never any question of asking the UK to give us a blank cheque. That would not be serious. All we are asking for is for accounts to be cleared, for the honouring of commitments which the UK has entered into.

• He said the European court of justice would “quite clearly” have the competence to adjudicate on the rights of EU citizens “well after the date of the withdrawal of the UK”.

• He signalled that the EU would insist on getting an agreement on what the UK would pay before moving on to talks about a trade deal. This is a point of conflict with Theresa May, who does not want to agree what the UK will pay until she knows what trade deal she will get.

• He claimed that the dinner he and Jean-Claude Juncker had with May in Downing Street last week was “cordial”.

• He said that he met May for the first time at the dinner last week and that they had a shared interest in mountain walking. He used this to make a point about the dangers ahead in the Brexit process.

If you like walking in the mountains, you have to learn a certain number of rules. You have to learn to put one foot in front of the other, because sometimes you are on a steep and rocky path. You also have to look at what accidents might befall you - falling rocks. You have to be very careful to keep your breath, you have to have stamina because it could be a lengthy path. And you have to keep looking at the summit, the outcome. That’s what I learnt when mountain-walking.

• He seemed to criticise the UK for taking so long to trigger article 50, saying the EU had already had 10 months of uncertainty.

• He said he hoped the EU would be able to move on to phase two of the Brexit talks in October or November. But he said that would only happen after the EU and the UK made progress on three issues: what the UK would pay to leave, the rights of EU nationals in the UK after Brexit and Ireland.

• He said the general election would not change the EU’s position, but having a new government in London with a five-year term would create “stability”.

A new government following the elections which Theresa May called early ... will have a certain longevity and stability for five years, which is not the case for the current government ... These elections will not change anything as regards the position and determination of the European Union.

Q: It is clear that you will not be talking about a transitional deal at this point. But Theresa May says she won’t agree a financial settlement until she knows what the final outcome will look like.

Barnier says he is not surprised by the mandate he has been given.

One of the conditions for having an orderly withdrawal is just that; for it to be orderly.

If we want to make a success of this, we have to proceed in an orderly fashion.

If we don’t do that, that might compromise the outcome of the negotiations.

He says the nature of any transitional period will govern the future relationship.

First we have to establish a solid basis for talks, “a climate of confidence”.

• Barnier signals EU will insist on UK agreeing what it owes the EU before a trade deal gets discussed. Theresa May wants the opposite.

Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, is giving a press conference now.

He says today the European commission will publish plans to translate the negotiating guidelines agreed by EU leaders on Saturday into firm proposals.

These cover the first stage of the negotiations only.

He says they will pay great attention to Ireland. He is going to Ireland next week.

He says the UK should put great effort into looking at three preliminary issues - the right of EU nationals, money and Ireland - over the next few weeks and months. That is important if there is to be a success.

Some have suggested that Brexit can be sorted out easily, he says. He says that it is an “illusion” to think that Brexit can painless.

• Barnier says it is an “illusion” to think that Brexit can be painless for the UK.

Philip Hammond, the chancellor, is now speaking at the Tory press conference highlighting the party’s claims about Labour’s spending plans. (See 6.34am.)

He says the government is still paying off the debt built up under Labour. The only way to do this is to live within our means, he says.

He says Jeremy Corbyn takes a different view. He says people should not be afraid of debt or borrowing.

That is the approach that got the country into trouble, he says.

He says the Tories will set out their tax and spending plans in their manifesto. But Theresa May has made it clear that she will not make any commitments she cannot fund, he says.

He says Labour’s plan would be a recipe for chaos and uncertainty. He says the UK cannot take the risk of adopting them.

Labour’s plans would lead to higher taxes, more borrowing and more debt, he claims.

David Davis, the Brexit secretary, was on ITV’s Good Morning Britain this morning before his Today programme interview. This is what the Press Association has filed about what he said.

David Davis has rejected suggestions that the UK will foot a €100bn euro (£84.5bn) Brexit bill, saying Brussels will only receive what it is legally owed.

The Brexit Secretary said the European Commission could not set a “divorce deal” figure and dismissed as “laughable” reports that prime minister Theresa May would be barred from negotiating with her counterparts.

It had been believed Brussels was seeking up to €60bn (£50.7bn) for Brexit, but added demands by the EU could send the figure soaring, according to the Financial Times.

The UK could receive calls to contribute to post-Brexit farming payments and may be blocked from obtaining a share of EU assets, the FT said.

But Davis said the UK had not been presented with a consistent sum for its impending departure from the bloc.

“It was 50 billion at one point, 60 billion, 100 billion, we have not seen a number,” he told Good Morning Britain.

“We have said we will meet our international obligations, but there will be our international obligations including assets and liabilities and there will be the ones that are correct in law, not just the ones the Commission want.

Pressed on reports that the eventual divorce figure could reach up to 100 billion euro, he said: “We will not be paying 100 billion.”

He added: “We will do it (negotiate) in the meeting, we will do it properly, we will take our responsibility seriously.

“What we’ve got to do is to discuss in detail what the rights and obligations are.”

He also claimed the EU could not bar the prime minister from joining Brexit discussions at future EU heads of government meetings while the UK remained a member state.

According to reports, Brussels was plotting to limit May’s Brexit discussions to direct meetings with the European Commission’s lead Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier.

Such a move would run contrary to May’s claim that she would be negotiating directly on the terms of Brexit with fellow European leaders.

Davis told the programme: “The decisions in this exercise at the end of the day are taken in Council - that’s a gathering of all the leaders of the European Union - and, frankly, until the day we leave, we are full members of the Union, we have every right to attend every Council and we will exercise our right.

“Just as we are obeying the laws of the Union, exactly to the letter, we are also going to expect our rights.

“The idea that somehow one side of the negotiation can dictate how the other side runs a negotiation is laughable.

“This is an exercise in trying to shape public opinion and trying to pressurise us - it won’t work.”

Q: What about money?

Davis says the UK has said it will pay its legal obligations.

But they will not be determined by others.

Q: Will they be determined by the European court of justice?

No, says Davis. Once the UK leaves, it will not be subject to the ECJ.

Q: Michel Barnier, the EU’s negotiator, says the ECJ should settle this.

Davis says he does not agree with Barnier on this.

He says you will not hear a word of criticism of Barnier from him. He says Barnier is tough, but that it is possible to do deals with him.

Q: Doesn’t the prospect of leaving with no deal look more likely?

Davis says he does not agree. He thinks there will be a deal.

On the money, he says the sums apparently owed by the UK have gone up from €50bn to €60bn to €100bn.

Q: If the UK walks away, will we not pay anything?

Davis says there would be nothing to be paid.

But that is not the outcome the UK wants, he says.

• Davis claims it would be possible for the UK to leave the EU without having to pay anything. But that is not what the UK wants, he says.

Davis says the UK wants to see early progress on the rights of EU nationals living in the UK.

He says the UK has provided various possible solutions: an early solution, or an exchange of letters outlining an agreement.

Q: Why don’t we take the moral high ground and just say EU citizens can stay?

Davis says the intention is to give EU nationals living here “a generous settlement, pretty much what they have now”.

• Davis says UK wants to offer EU nationals living in the UK “a generous settlement, pretty much what they have now”.

Good morning. I’m taking over from Claire.

David Davis, the Brexit secretary, is about to be interviewed on the Today programme.

This is bound to come up.

Ukip is expected to make its second major policy announcement of the election campaign today by promising to slash the proportion of national income spent on foreign aid from 0.7% to 0.2%, an annual cut of nearly £10bn.

Ukip has long been a vehement critic of the target. At a policy launch on Wednesday morning the party’s economic spokesman, Patrick O’Flynn, is expected to say it should be cut from 0.7% to 0.2%.

In quotes released in advance, O’Flynn castigated proponents of the 0.7% target such as Tony Blair and David Cameron as being of:

a generation of gap-year politicians who were more engaged in the fortunes of places they had visited between school and university than in living standards in working-class communities in their own country.

The greatest joy for such politicians was being name-checked by rock stars and film stars and told how virtuous they were for being so generous with other people’s money.

Tom Brake, the Liberal Democrat MP who speaks for the party on foreign affairs, said the 0.7% commitment, introduced under the Tory-Lib Dem coalition, was “a major achievement”.

He said:

Ukip would cheerfully see a child starve to death if it won them some cheap, snarling clip on the evening news.

Tim Farron heads off on the Lib Dem battle bus to Oxford today with a record number of members on board (the party, not the actual bus).

On Tuesday afternoon, the party topped its previous record membership – 101,768 in 1994 – with 101,832.

The Lib Dems say more than 14,000 people have signed up since Theresa May snapped her fingers for the election; and more than 50,000 since the leave vote triumphed.

Farron had set himself a target of 100,000 members by the end of the parliament – which has turned out to be today but, at the time he made the pledge, was expected to be 2020.

Shadow chancellor John McDonnell is on the Today programme.

He doesn’t really want to be drawn into yesterday’s Diane Abbott maths mishap, but he says the income from reversing government cuts to capital gains tax means Labour is “completely covered” on the funding promises it has made on policing.

“There’s still plenty of leeway” to cover other pledges (such as the arts premium) with CGT savings, McDonnell insists – though we won’t get details until the manifesto is published. Increased welfare spending will not come from CGT, he clarifies.

He says what the Conservatives have published today – the “tax bombshell” advert – on Labour’s plans is “lies”.

The ad claims there would be a £45bn gap between Labour’s spending plans and the revenue it would raise. McDonnell says that figure is misleading because it includes £35bn of capital spend:

It’s shoddy that the Tories have produced it.

And he’s not impressed that the BBC is putting those figures to him.

Welcome back to the politics live blog on polling eve: the day before the local/mayoral elections before the main event. Really there should be a snappier name for such an occasion.

I’m Claire Phipps with this morning’s election roundup – sign up here if you’d like the Snap sent direct to your inbox – and the best of the early campaign news. Andrew Sparrow joins us later.

What’s happening?

You might have thought things had been falling to pieces for a while, but today marks the formal dissolution of parliament and the official start of the general election campaign. With local and mayoral elections tomorrow, expect things to get even snarkier very soon.

As in, right now: a new ad poster for the Conservatives pictures Jeremy Corbyn with a bomb because – wait for it – they say he doesn’t like bombs, but he loves a tax bombshell.

Labour dismissed the ad as “desperate”:

Labour’s policies are fully costed and properly paid for. Our plans will be set out in our manifesto.

But will Diane Abbott’s mathematical malfunction on policing costs contribute to the party’s economic credibility deficit? (On that note, Labour expects to spend less than half as much as the Tories on this campaign, which readers can interpret either as a lack of donors or an acknowledgment that spilling £19m in six weeks is on the gluttonous side.) Labour insists its shadow home secretary will still be a key player in the campaign, not least because some other politician – of whatever hue – will soon enough say something foolish or eat something in a peculiar manner.

Theresa May’s chips aren’t quite it, according to my official sardonic-eyebrow-ometer of political embarrassment. Hiding from voters and reporters scores a bit higher, though. Claims that the “ordinary, real, honest-to-goodness, gawd-love-em” people rounded up to gaze at the PM are in fact party activists continue to dog the Tory campaign, not least because the Tory campaign keeps stacking the PM’s events with party activists.

She might be bloody difficult to find, but the PM (or Lynton Crosby and co) has found a canny fresh use for that “bloody difficult woman” phrase Ken Clarke originally bumbled about her. Keen to cast that chilly Brexit dinner as one at which British steadfastness won out against the euro-meanies, May has embraced the description to “warn” Jean-Claude Juncker that the divorce negotiations won’t be going his way. It might be bloody difficult to hide today’s Financial Times – which leads on analysis suggesting the breakup bill could be an upfront payment of up to €100bn. But it’s tomorrow’s fish and chips paper, right?

At a glance:

• Labour will pledge today an immediate halt of hospital closures.
• Liberal Democrat membership has topped 101,000 – its highest ever – with more than 14,000 signing up since the snap election was called.
• A man who campaigned against the cut in widowed parent’s allowance has died. Alan’s family is entitled to £50,000 less than if he had died before 5 April.
• Government agrees to publish air pollution strategy in next week – and could include handouts for diesel drivers to scrap their cars.
• Nicola Sturgeon has dismissed claims her deputy Angus Robertson could lose his seat to the Tories.
• Nominations in Northern Ireland reveal pan-unionist electoral pact.
• And from the BBC: Yscir, the unrepresented ward in Wales where nobody is standing for election on Thursday. (Wales also has 92 uncontested council seats.)

Poll position

A Guardian/ICM poll has the Tories down one point on last week, and Labour up one. But the gap, though trimmed, is still a yawning 19 points:

• Conservatives 47% (-1)
• Labour 28% (+1)
• Lib Dems 8% (-2)
• Ukip 8% (+1)
• Greens 4% (+1)

Nearly three-quarters (72%) of those polled thought the Tories would win a majority. A quirky 17% plumped for a hung parliament; 10% said Labour would form the next government. Find the poll nitty gritty here.

Diary

• At 9.30am, chancellor Philip Hammond and Brexit secretary David Davis lead a Conservative campaign event in Westminster.
  
• From 10am, Tim Farron’s Lib Dem battle bus pulls up in Oxford West.
• At the same time, the European commission’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, holds a press conference to set out EU plans.
• At 3pm, Theresa May is off to the palace to mark the dissolution of parliament with the Queen.

Talking point

Life after you’ve been fired from Theresa May’s cabinet can be a mixed bag. Michael Gove learned about Twitter hashtags, interviewed Donald Trump, and last night admitted the PM was right to elbow him out:

I think it showed very good judgment actually. I think that after the European referendum Theresa needed to have a clearout and she needed to appoint her own people. I think that in those 11 months we have seen the Conservative Party governing the country in a way which not only reinforces that strength and stability at the heart of power, but also shows calmness and competence.

A toughened-up GCSE A-grade for that original twist on “strong and stable”, Mr Gove.

George Osborne, the former “long-term economic plan” sloganiser who now edits the London Evening Standard, used his first leader column to caution the Conservatives against asking for “a blank cheque” or running a campaign amounting “to no more than a slogan”.

In a transparent attempt to out-ironise the ex-chancellor, May hit back:

First of all, can I wish George all the very best … What I am doing is giving a very clear message at this election.

Do they want that strong and stable leadership in the national interest with the conservatives or a coalition of chaos headed up by Jeremy Corbyn?

Read these

In the New York Times, Katrin Bennhold’s take on the tabloids and Brexit is worth a full read. It’s her exchange with former Sun editor – and currently suspended columnist – Kelvin MacKenzie that is likely to grab attention:

I asked what headline he would like to see in the paper were he still in charge. ‘I think the fake news headline that would give this country the most joy,’ he replied cheerfully, ‘would be “Jeremy Corbyn knifed to death by an asylum seeker”.’

Mr Corbyn is the leader of the Labour party. Mr MacKenzie’s fake news headline inevitably brought to mind the murder of Jo Cox, a pro-Remain Labour lawmaker who was killed by a man with far-right leanings a week before the referendum. Her death prompted a lot of soul-searching over whether the tone of the campaign had encouraged hate crimes.

(The next morning, I got a text message from Mr MacKenzie: ‘Hi Katrin, Can you change that perfect headline from “Jeremy Corbyn knifed to death by asylum seeker” to “Jeremy Corbyn defrauded by asylum seeker”. In the light of Jo Cox murder mine is in tol [sic] poor taste.’)

Stephen Bush, in the New Statesman, says a decision by David Cameron in 2005 to withdraw the Conservatives from the centre-right European People’s party grouping has rebounded on his successor:

The president of the European Council, Donald Tusk – who is responsible for chairing meetings of the elected leaders of the EU member states – is a member of the EPP. When he looks around the room, the most influential person is Angela Merkel, a member of the EPP. On issues affecting the day-to-day running of the EU, Tusk will consult [Jean-Claude] Juncker, a member of the EPP. The president of the European parliament, Antonio Tanjani, is also a member.

The regular meetings of the EPP are an opportunity for the bloc’s members to get to know one another and reach agreement in a more collegiate atmosphere. If the Conservative MEPs still attended, it would be an arena where the two sides could come together and understand one another better. It would be an important source of intelligence for Theresa May on what her counterparts are thinking, and vice versa.

And here’s an English translation of the Frankfurter Allgemeine article on the May-Juncker dinner.

Revelation of the day

Ukip’s Paul Nuttall scored lowest of all party leaders in polling by ICM for the Guardian. That’s not the revelation. After reports of Labour candidates distancing themselves from Corbyn – deputy leader Tom Watson chimed in yesterday, saying: “Sometimes the most important question isn’t what makes the best PM. It’s who makes the best MP” – Ukip’s candidate for mayor in Doncaster, Brian Whitmore, went a hop and skip further:

To me, Paul, he’s got a big mouth, he can be heard at the back of the room without a microphone, but at the end of the day I don’t think he’s as fast in his political nose as what Farage was…

I must say he’s the wrong bloke to be leader.

The day in a tweet

Ed Miliband in a dead heat with Ed Miliband for today’s prized tweet slot. In the end, the bacony hand of friendship won out over tweet evidence that the former Labour leader yesterday mowed a potential voter’s lawn.

And another thing

Would you like to wake up to this briefing in your inbox every weekday? Sign up here!