21/09/2016 Newsnight


Investigation and analysis with Evan Davis. Has Brexit harmed the economy? As MI6 recruits 1,000 spies, how many are hackers? Plus the latest on Syria and Ed Balls on Corbyn.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 21/09/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



No world War three, tick. Economy hasn't fallen into a big hole, tick.


Bake off still on the box, tick. This Brexit thing seems to be going


OK. Except of course, hasn't started yet. The economy appears buoyant, so


how much can we read into that? We will try to make sense of the


economic signals and see where we are heading. The head of MI6 says


they will hack their way to victory as he recruits 1000 new spies. The


information revolution fundamentally changes our operating environment.


In five years' time there will be two sorts of intelligence services,


one that understands this fact and prospers and one that doesn't and


hasn't. And Ed Balls is here as the polls close in the Labour leadership


election, with Jeremy Corbyn the hottest favourites. Where did it all


go wrong? The doom-monger Remainers have been


slain, their scares exposed. That view has gained a bit


of traction of late, and today we got an official


statistical summary of data so far from the Office


for National Statistics. And it was ambivalent enough


to reassure all sides. Basically, it said -


we don't really know But we've got through


the first part. There was other news too:


an official forecast It cut its UK growth


forecast for next year, but nudged it up for this year,


and headlines went both ways too. Clearly the world hasn't


fallen in, and that raises two questions


- big questions. And secondly, does the economics


profession have egg on its face for suggesting things


might go wrong? No one doubts there were


the occasional exaggerations on both In fairness to economists,


they were a little more The most talked about warnings came


from the Governor of Material slowdown in growth,


notable increase in inflation, that's the MPC's


judgment, it's a judgment not based It is a judgment not based


on a whim, it is a judgment based on rigorous analysis and


careful consideration. Of course, there is a range


of possible scenarios around Which could possibly


include a technical Well, in using the words that he did


at the bank behind me, Mr Carney gave the Remain politicians


something they could COuld work up into


more lurid scenarios. But nothing that has happened


since June has made the actual words appear


particularly stupid. And for economists more generally,


they have had some mood swings, as they so often do,


and not just the economists. The first big business survey that


came after the With the global financial crisis


of 2008, 2009, the bursting of the dot-com bubble and the 1998 Asian


financial crisis, the difference this time is that it is all entirely


home-grown, which suggests the impact could be greater on the UK


economy than before. All in all, it's a mixed enough


picture for everybody's interpretation to be guided


by their preconceptions. So what do we know


and what don't we? Look at that edge of


the Grand Canyon in the And the pound has not


recovered from that But then you can look at things


like car production, which So let me tell you why the answer


to the question "what is the It is that economists


are making one important prediction and that is that


companies will hold off investing Why build a new factory if you don't


know if you'll be able to sell That is a scary prediction,


but it is way too early Economists are saying that business


investment will contract next year. 90% of them feel that


would be the case. And the average expectation


is for a contraction This is quite unusual,


it would generally occur in a recession, such as we had


in 2009, for example. But this time it is occurring


without a recession in GDP So it is a sharp change


in an unusual circumstance. We will wait to see


what happens next year but the truth is, economies


do move quite slowly. Markets move fast, the pound can


plummet here in the city in a day but production lines,


they chug along, chickens carry on laying eggs,


regardless of referendum results. We have little idea


yet as to what "Brexit means Brexit" means,


what its short-term effects are, let alone


the all-important long-term impact. With me now is Linda Yueh,


Professor of Economics at London Business School,


Chris Giles, who is the Economics Editor


at the Financial Times, and Alistair Heath, Deputy Editor


of the Daily Telegraph. Alistair, I think you are the most


sceptic among the panel. You think the economics profession over egged


it and have egg on their faces? Yes, big time. All the hysteria about an


immediate recession, a financial collapse, that hasn't materialised


and I think it was a mistake for economists to make that kind of


prediction or to allow themselves to be portrayed as making that kind of


projection. It has damaged their credibility going forward, and that


is a problem because we need their assistance when it comes to


negotiating the right kind of Brexit, a pro-growth, liberal


Brexit. They damaged themselves and went too far. I think what the data


to date shows is there was no catastrophe, that this Armageddon


situation did not materialise. Linda, speak up for the economists?


I think there is some truth to the fact that because this was a


referendum that was fiercely argued, I think both cases stated their


cases very strongly. Economic is not a science, it is a social science.


So the long-term negative effect, that lots of economists predicted is


predicated on the UK not having astrometry deal with the EU and the


rest of the world, not having the same kind of access to the world's


biggest thing this block. But we don't know where that is going to


head and the immediate impact, which wasn't emphasised enough, in the


short term although this creates economic uncertainty, use and the


one thing economists agree on its investment is not on take-off, lots


of funds will wait to see, there are some signs of that. The Bank of


England report on their business agents around the country said that.


But the one thing I want to stress about uncertainty is different for


you and me, for other businesses and for consumers. Consumers are much


more optimistic, as we have seen in some of the surveys. Businesses are


more worried. Eventually the two come together, but just as you and I


react to uncertainty differently, there will be mixed reactions to


Brexit and the fact we are leaving and I think that point should have


been made more clearly. That is all you'll see in the immediate short


term, it's only been three months since the vote and we are still in


the EU until we are out on the subject of the same trade bills. Do


you think the economists over egged it... Mark Carney, said there is a


possibility of a technical recession. I think you've got to be


very careful. I think Alistair's portrayal of what economists


actually said is incorrect. They were much more careful. I think they


made in two areas they should hold their hand up and say, actually I


don't think we were right about the immediate impact. One was those


warnings about a potential financial crisis. That clearly hasn't


happened. The second was there was an expectation that sentiment and


confidence would disappear and that happened, but it came back much


quicker than they thought. Those two things I think they should put their


hands up on. With anyone forecasting a financial crisis warning it was a


possibility? I think that was entirely correct, it was possible.


It didn't happen. If they didn't warn about it we could have been


likely wearing 2008 saying, where were these economists, why were they


warning about it? I think the way they warned of this and the words


they dropped like recession, and some saying the next six quarters


there will be three or four negative quarters of growth, I think that


contributed to a sense of panic and created a lot of problems. There was


a run on some commercial property funds and all sorts of dislocation,


which fortunately seems to have abated. I think economists made a


mistake and overrate their case, but it says nothing about the long run


or the medium run. It doesn't say whether Brexit will a long long run


triumph or a damp squid are in the shorter men made a mistake. One


thing we do know, on the morning the pound fell, Linda, by 10% or so. We


looked at that and said, that is a big fall and it has basically gone


back up again. It has just settled at 1.30 against the dollar instead


of 1.40 or 1.40 five. The markets react quickly but economies moved


slowly, like oil tankers. One reaction to the pound could be we


sell more, we buy more from the rest of the world than we sell. Some


economists would say that sterling is essentially settling to wear


investors think the economy is headed, which as we 40 said, in the


medium term it depends a lot on what trade deals we get. But on the whole


there is worry, the same worries we had about the British economy before


the referendum, trade deficit, low productivity and wages, all those


things are still true. Sterling reflects that. What's interesting is


the stock market. It fell and then recovered. You saw the OECD and


others say what they hadn't figured in their June assessment was the


action of the Bank of England, of the Treasury, the fact... With the


Bank of England made a big difference? I only use that as an


example to say that... I think before class should be like the


weather app on your smartphone, if it tells you what happened today


it's pretty good. My point is policymakers can change the course


of the economy and that's why it's hard. I want to come to investment,


do we all do we not believe that companies are holding back on


investment, relative to those they might have carried out in the


absence of the Brexit to come as a result of the uncertainty Linda


spoke about? We do, we don't have a lot of evidence for it is the honest


answer. You haven't changed your mind that is one of the potential


short-term effects? Yes, the potential short-term cost. You gave


evidence economists are still very much in that position, thinking


investment is going to fall. Not dramatically, but is going to be


lower next year. They thought it was going to be rising. And it hasn't,


so they've made a six or 7% difference to the forecast.


Forecasts have changed for investment. You would think that is


rational, because if there is a huge amount of uncertainty, the


government doesn't seem to have much of an idea of what sort of Brexit


once, it certainly doesn't want to tell the public it. If you hand have


to spend ?304 million, would you do it now or wait a little bit? It is a


rational thing to wait. You would agree with that? It is possible,


yes. If there is one area affected in the short term it is business


investment, because companies... It makes sense he would wait. It's


possible, but the fact that 90% of economists are predicting something


next year, I not bothered by that because I think the constant


consensus among economists keeps changing. Sometimes they get it


completely wrong and they are bad at making short or long-term forecasts.


But I perfectly except it may be the case. One thing we all agree on if


it's too early to say what the long-term impact of Brexit is. Any


indication, anything, Linda, that has given you a sense of foreboding


or a sense of encouragement, as you've looked at what has happened


so far? I think consumer sentiment gives me a sense that quite a lot of


people think the future will be better. Economists... It's very


difficult to model how that plays out, but obviously consumption is


the biggest part of the British economy. One of the hardest things


about leading indicators is normally you would look at bond deals but


because central banks have injected so much cash and rates are so low,


they are not good indicator these days. The long-term interest rates


in the markets and government lending have been so low... Yes,


usually you would say, wait, actually bond yields, the government


interest rates look lower in the future, that means the economy will


be weaker because rates have to be cut. That's normally how you would


view it. The other indicator is stock prices. The fact stocks


reflect how companies feel they are going to be earning in the future,


how investors view that, that's normally a leading indicator of how


the economy does. I think these surveys are important, and it is


important to note because all these investment decisions take a long


time to realise. We haven't got much time. I just want to ask about the


importance of the argument we've been having and the narrative,


crests, that Brexit seems all right. I don't know how many conversations


you've had, I'd had a lot in the last few weeks. Do you think that


might affect the of Having quite a good period now or a


reasonable period is paradoxically quite bad for the long-term records


of gives us a sense of superiority, we are great, this is what we felt


after the Second World War, we don't need to join in with other


countries, we can do Brexit all along, let's do it straightaway.


These would be the worst sort of decisions we could take and


paradoxically, the fact that things have been slightly better than we


might have expected might make it worse in the long run. What do you


say to that? I think there is the possibility of that but I think that


if you look at what Eurosceptics believe, they believed in this Nike


swish, some transitionary period and then a stronger economy and so on so


I think people have always expected it to be so so it is about the


detail and we don't know what the government was today but we have


ahead, they seem to want to restrict immigration, and that probably means


they will not want a hard Brexit rather than soft. We will know


before long. Thank you all very much. --


Austerity may be choking local government, --


one part of the public sector that is not in retreat.


It's MI6, the secret intelligent service.


Newsnight has learned that it is on a recruitment


drive, and is looking for a thousand extra staff.


You're better off applying if you know something


about the internet, as it's technology that is making the job


of MI6 so much harder, and driving the demand.


Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban explains.


in an age when people live so much of their lives online, how can you


create convincing false identities? And how do you stop our intelligence


service from using facial recognition to find out the real


identities of your operatives? MI6 has argued it needs more people to


create aliases and cover its tracks. It currently has 2500 staff but


Newsnight has established this is set to grow by 40% took nearly 3500


by 2020. Last year the government announced the agencies would get


1900 more people. Newsnight has established that MI6 will get most


of that and MI5, currently 4000, and GCHQ at 5600 receiving smaller


increases. Although the service has not yet publicly confirmed the scale


of its increase, the MI6 chief, and a rare public appearance yesterday,


acknowledged the size of the challenge posed by the internet. The


information revolution fundamentally changes or operating environment. I


would go further to say that in five years' time there will be two sort


of intelligence services, those that understand this factor and those


that don't and not. I am determined that MI6 will be in the former


category. How exactly has the internet change things? The killing


of a Palestinian militant in Dubai in 2010 gives some close. Using CCTV


and passport details, it took only a few days to point the finger at his


-- is really intelligence. They cloned the passports of people who


had visited Israel were left there. Why? Because completely fake


identities are not easily discovered. But as they should, bad


fakes are not much harder to find with governments and even insurgent


groups, able to deploy advanced techniques. Our opponents,


unrestrained by considerations of lawfulness or proportionality, can


use these capabilities to gain visibility of our activities, which


means we have to completely change the way that we do stuff. And then


there is rapid advance of facial recognition technology. For example,


a photo of John Smith, arriving at an airport somewhere as a vacuum


cleaner sales rep, can now be the first searched. It might reveal


someone of an entirely different name several years earlier


celebrating their recruitment to the foreign office on Facebook. Of


course, these techniques can put plenty of aces into the hands of


British espionage also. But the agencies have convinced Whitehall


that post Snowdon, cooperation with the big service providers and


technology firms has taken a knock. To the extent that those revelations


damaged and undermines the trust that needs to exist, I think it is


highly problematic. Now the agency has to recruit almost 1000 new


people to establish more elaborate aliases, sweep up Bridge of Spies


online identities and exploit the options to gather more intelligence


through the internet. And on civil service pay, finding so many new


people could be quite a challenge. Markers of me. How quickly has those


caught up? George Osborne talked about expanding the intelligence


services? There were two statements last year, one about 1000 new spies


and one about 1900 in the strategic defence review and both referred to


the top agencies, including GCHQ, the security service and buy some


aspects even of police intelligence as well but we know that 1000 will


go just to MI6, so forget the numbers going to those other


agencies, which on their terms is a famous bureaucratic victory. And a


pretty substantial growth. It is 40%. Is it technology driving that


order they just want extra people? That is very important and it is


fascinating, yesterday, to hear the chief making those arguments


publicly without going into the details of how much they are going


to get. They are comfortable talking about two there are three key


missions. As they involve counterterrorism, cyber security


and, in those areas, this is the key, this type of thing. The other


area which they term more generically strategic advantage,


that is more interesting, the traditional business of spying, in


support of the UK's diplomatic position and all of this was agreed


before Brexit but if you wish to say that we still punch above our weight


in the world, and to find out the detail of those other European


countries' positions on this negotiation, it would be useful to


have this extra resources. Thank you.


For the world community, or most of it, the Syrian government


and Russia are between them responsible for atrocities that


In addition to the targeting of an aid convoy on Monday,


there were more deaths of those trying to help people yesterday,


Well, when it comes to Syria we know our position,


we know the American position, the Russian position too.


But what do self-respecting Syrian government supporters say


about the things that are occurring in their country?


Earlier I spoke to Bouthaina Shaaban.


A spokesperson for the Syrian government.


I believe that nobody knows for sure what happened but what is certain


is that neither the Syrians nor the Russians have any interest


in targeting the humanitarian convoy when we are trying our best to make


humanitarian assistance reach everywhere in that country.


But it is unlikely the rebels would want to attack a convoy


There are Russian planes, there were Russian planes,


two Russian warplanes in the sky at the time.


The Russians have just released pictures of the convoy


that was protected by artillery and they have just said, the UN,


that there was an American drone who was accompanying the convoy.


So as you said, there are many statements about what happened


but the one certain thing is that the convoy was in an area


Neither nor the Syrians or Russians were anywhere near the area


You know, also, I would like to remind you that for the last


week that terrorists in Idlib were announcing in full


mouth that they would not adhere to the truce agreed


upon by the Russians and the Americans and it was


said that they were going to burn any convoy that comes


Do you think the bombing, deliberate bombing or


attack on a Red Cross convoy is a war crime?


Because many people are saying that this looks really


They think your side is guilty of it.


I think the logical thing would have been for the Russians and


the Americans to try to investigate, do a proper investigation,


instead of circulating concepts and assumptions.


Do you think the Syrian government can win the war that is currently


Do you know how we can win the war in our country?


By stopping this war and by stopping the bloodshed in our country.


We are absolutely devastated every day because of this war.


It is a war that has been imposed on us, it is a war that has been


brought to our people, to destroy our people


I know, but what I want to ask is, do you think you can win the war?


We're all thinking about ways in which this war, which has gone


We don't want it to be like the Lebanese civil war,


President Assad is not thinking about himself,


he is thinking about Syria and about the Syrian people.


It is our institutions, our schools, our army that has been destroyed.


We want to stop this war, we want to stop the bloodshed.


There are over 30,000 terrorists and mercenaries who have


been brought to Syria, they are butchering our people.


The West keeps calling it a civil war, it is not a civil war.


I understand the way you want to frame the war is not


I understand that you want to say it is bad foreigners


We know that the war is a bit more complicated than that,


which is why we persist in calling it a Civil War, even though,


of course, lots of foreign powers are at fault.


Let me just ask you about more immediate issues.


Do you think, is the Syrian government position that there


There was not a single gunshot in which the Syrian government


refused to cooperate with the Russians and the Americans


It is those terrorists who at every single juncture refused to adhere


And yet we don't see the West pointing fingers at the terrorists.


We see the West pointing fingers at the Syrian government.


The Syrian government is the one who looks like the West,


it is not the terrorists who look like the West.


I could explain why but I'm not going to because we don't have time.


The suggestion from the Americans is that there may be some kind


of no-fly zone over large parts of Syria, northern Syria.


Could you, Syria, agree to the idea of a no-fly zone as part


Because a no-fly zone is a huge violation of our sovereignty.


Do you think the Syrian government, as you look back over the last five


years, what mistake, what is the biggest mistake


Is it not having conceded to the demonstrators early


Is it the barrel bombing or the chlorine gas?


Is it not having come to the negotiating table earlier?


What do you see as the biggest mistake your side has made or do


you think you have made no mistakes at all, it is only everybody else


Unfortunately, I come here and I take my time out in order


to address you and your respectable audience and all I get is accusatory


questions that are taken from a media that has taken


Everyone speaks about barrel bombs and chlorine and nobody accepts,


to come to the country and see exactly what is going on.


We actually do have people, the BBC sends people to Syria


Can I ask when you were last outside Damascus, just out of interest?


Because it must be quite difficult to travel.


When were you last able to get to Aleppo, for example?


Personally, I haven't been travelling to Aleppo


but there are many people from Aleppo who are coming


here and from here who are going to Aleppo and who are


So we are all a bit reliant on second-hand reports.


Thank you very much for talking to us.


Theresa May is facing a bit of criticism from supporters


of David Cameron for dismantling his legacy - with the return of grammar


schools and the very public sacking of George Osborne.


But Newsnight has learnt that she is not holding back


and is preparing changes to how the Conservative party is run


Nick Watt is with me. What have you learned? Newsnight understands that


a race me is taking a very hard look at how the Conservative party raises


money and the signals that sends out. I understand that in her sights


is the annual Black and white party for the party, this takes place


every February, lots of champagne, they got into trouble if you years


ago when the auction and an internship, not sending out the


right signal! No decisions have been made about dumping the name but I


think the feeling is that they need to do this differently and there is


talk about how maybe you could have a series of parties outside London.


I think that Theresa May thinks that sort of event really does not sound


very good signal, does not fit in with their mission. To champion the


struggling middle classes. And I understand from Downing Street that


she is thinking of taking quite a look at how wider fundraising, is


applied to be so reliant on hedge funds and also looking at imposing


that ?50,000 cap on individual donations. The Labour Party will not


like that, they say that will be hostile because that would harm


their trade union donations. Do you feel you're getting a picture


of Theresa May, the Prime Minister and what she will be like? She made


her name in 2002 when she said there was a danger the Conservative Party


could look like the nasty party. She clearly thinks it looks like the


elitist party wants to move away from that. It also shows how she


wants to run the Conservative Party very differently. Patrick McLachlan,


the party chairman has gone back to the traditional role, he sits in the


Cabinet in the Woakes Cecil Parkinson did under Margaret


Thatcher and he does the two bits, runs the machinery century, out in


the country. She wants to get away from the split role when the


fundraising was done by Andrew Feldman, David Cameron's big body.


She wants to get away from that but there murmurings maybe she does need


to realise that money does need to be raised and there are some


concerns among Tories that know about fundraising who say, watch


out, you need to be careful, we do need to raise money. Nick, thank


you. The voting is over in Labour's


leadership election. The results will not be counted


as quickly as a vote on Strictly. We have to wait to Saturday,


but hey, you know who's One person who was a leadership


candidate himself once, but whose career has had some


interesting turns since, One time sidekick to Gordon Brown,


then a job in the Cabinet, Shadow Chancellor,


he has been around. A very good evening to you. Thank


you for coming in. Good to be here. How bad is it that Jeremy Corbyn is


going to win the Labour Party, do you think? I think the country needs


a strong opposition that can be a credible party of government. At the


moment the verdict of the voters is the Labour Party is not a credible


party of government. I'm afraid Jeremy Corbyn has brought in new


members, he might win the leadership election among the new members and


members of the Labour Party, but the issue is, what does the country say?


If Jeremy had succeeded in a great boost in the opinion polls, that


would be different, but I'm afraid at the moment the verdict of people


in marginal seat is they don't feel that Labour at the moment is


speaking for them. Until that changes, I'm afraid Labour will be a


party of opposition and that's not good enough, we should be a party of


government. What you think went wrong with the Owen Smith campaign?


Is it about him, the candidate, the pitch? What happened? Clearly the


membership of the Labour Party has changed very substantially over the


last year and a half. Jeremy Corbyn is clearly speaking for, in touch


with the members of the Labour Party, it seems, because they are


voting for him in large numbers. Owen Smith was almost the outsider,


challenging the incumbent. The problem is, in a democracy it is not


the members of the party who elect the government, it's the voters. I


don't remember a time where the Labour Party membership and its


views had become so disconnected from where the marginal seat, the


swing voter, the centre-left vote is an issue after issue, things are


pulled apart. To be fair to Jeremy, if he wins, he is winning because he


speaking for his members. The failure, and you are part of this


scum and new Labour is part of this, the failure is, is it not, that your


site, Owen Smith and your clan have not managed to grip 500,000 people


in the same way Jeremy Corbyn did? Jeremy Corbyn has mobilised and


infused a lot of people and for some reason the other wing of the party


just can't? What's wrong? In this world, where numbers are being


recruited on the mentorship has grown, the only answer in the end,


for the centrist mainstream centre-left of the Labour Party, is


to do the same. But in the end, I know from general elections and how


you win, you have to have a compelling vision, which people


think reflects their view of the world. Jeremy clearly has a complete


vision that represents members views and I think Owen has been saying, I


sort of share your views, but I'm not Jeremy Tilse I don't think in


the end that will work. Labour is going to have to say, or the PLP,


the mainstream Labour MPs are going to have to say, we have a view of


the world which is not the same as the Conservatives, not the same as


new Labour but also not the same as Jeremy Corbyn's... He didn't define


himself enough? I think it is very difficult for Owen when you have


such a short campaign, to do that. I think he chose not to do that. Chose


to be as close to Jeremy as he could be, that's not going to work. Look


back to when Labour was in power. Somehow, at some point, now you look


back on it looks as though there was a bit of a wedge between traditional


Labour voters and the new Labour project. A lot of them went to Ukip,


some went to Jeremy Corbyn, who is not New Labour at all. Is that a


single thing, is it about the immigration, the polls in 2004,


2005, when we had unrestricted immigration and no one else in


Europe did? Is it about the crash? What do you think whether one or two


things that led to that? I don't think it's one thing and I think in


some ways the problem started earlier than that. 1997, Labour said


we can run the economy competently, we can be tough with the public


finances and invest in the schools and hospitals. We can reverse the


unfairness of the Tory years. From 97-2001 that was compelling. After


2001, a weak Conservative leader. Labour turned on itself. We started


to be defined by arguments about whether we were going to privatise


the NHS or not, which was completely out of touch of whether country was


and where the members were. It started earlier. On top of that you


have the global financial crisis, which we didn't see manage, the


globalisation of labour, a problems for communities up and down the


country... China, industry moving to China over that period? I think we


thought in 2001 globalisation would be about companies moving to China.


What we never saw was that globalisation would actually be


people moving from Poland and the Czech Republic to work in Britain. I


don't think in our country, France, Germany, America politics has coped


with that global financial crisis or the mobility of labour or the


squeeze on medium incomes at a time when incomes at the top have been


rising so fast. All of those things meant the centrists, centre ground,


which said we could grip a manage this, people said, you are not doing


so well. Why has it not really work? In those circumstances populism


techs over, whether it is Donald Trump, Marine le Pen or Jeremy


Corbyn. It's easier to communicate in a protesting way, it's not a


manifesto for government. Ed Balls, thank you very much indeed. Let's


take a quick look at the the Times's from page. Our story, MI6 hires


hundreds more spies. That is it from us.


We leave you with great news for TV post-production geeks.


The ReelSteady image stabilisation software plugin for Adobe


After Effects has been thoroughly tested and works rather well.


Why are we telling you this interesting but slightly niche fact?


Well, the stabiliser software has now been tested with the help


of a legendary GoPro movie - that of basejumper Graham Dickenson


In case you're wondering, yes he used a parachute.


Vive la France! Vive la France!


across western Scotland and Northern Ireland. Plenty of sunshine


cloud, a bit damp. Eastern Scotland will see some showers, into the


cloud, a bit damp. Eastern Scotland of Northern Ireland later on. Plenty


of sunshine in of Northern Ireland later on. Plenty


north-west up and having a sunny day that some


will brighten up across northern England, with quite a


will brighten up across northern across East Anglia and the


south-east. Through the afternoon across East Anglia and the


quite warm, 20 or 21 the high. across East Anglia and the


glum start much of Wales in south-west


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Evan Davis. Has Brexit harmed the economy? As MI6 recruits 1,000 spies, how many are hackers? Plus the latest on Syria and Ed Balls on Jeremy Corbyn.

Download Subtitles