With Evan Davis. Mark Urban analyses the battle for Mosul. Plus the child abuse inquiry, the decision on Heathrow, air pollution, and is UKIP 'ungovernable'?
Browse content similar to 17/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Astride the River Tigris, a city of over two million,
But now a war zone, the fight to drive ISIS out and to get
This is perhaps the closest thing to a straight good-versus-evil
battle that will occur anywhere this year, at least, outside of fiction.
It's certainly worth understanding it, so we'll be
examining the military, humanitarian and political
Also tonight, this man was recently thought to be
Today he said the party is in a "death spiral" and has
This man still wants to be leader of the party -
And find out what our technology editor David Grossman is breathing
What I'm not separated from is the fumes. You can taste them. But what
am I breathing in? This bike has been set with an air quality
monitor. Will Brexit mean weaker
air quality laws? The battle has been long-awaited:
the so-called Islamic State has been in control of Mosul for over two
years and is now defending it against an alliance of Iraqi army,
Kurdish fighters, some controversial Shia militias and, of course,
some US forces, too. This is not the battle
to eradicate IS completely. It is a fight to drive the group
into a humiliating But there are myriad
challenges ahead. It sometimes motivates its fighters
by executing the ones Then there is the humantarian
challenge, 1.5 million There will, at some point
after the battle, be a need Think of how difficult it has been
between the republicans and unionists in Northern Ireland,
and then ask how hard it will be We'll be looking at all these,
but first, here's our diplomatic To the east of Mosul today
the first easy victories. But signs also of the IS group's
capacity to resist. A car speeds into a group of Kurdish
armoured vehicles before IS may be losing, but it's
still ready to defend Lots of the Isis leaders
and many of the fighters will turn towards Raqqa and Syria
as their last stronghold But I think it will be easier
to defeat Isis then, because we have to bear in mind Isis
is 95, if not more, percent, If they are pushed out of Iraq
into Syria I think it The city is now surrounded,
or almost so, a narrow corridor is being left open to the west
to allow IS fighters Kurdish brigades are now pushing
in from the east and north. Shia militias will advance
from the south-west. Given the risk of sectarian
conflict, these elements are meant Iraqi federal troops and loyal Sunni
militia will then enter the city Why leave a corridor open and drop
leaflets on the city for weeks before when that would seem
to violate any idea of surprise, Well, the answer lies in concerns
about the more than 1 million people And the feeling that if there is any
sort of prolonged fighting in that urban space it could have
dire humanitarian consequences. Mosul, you are talking
about 1.5 million of population. Can you imagine if Daesh
would take the risk? I'm sure they would do it,
to push the civilians to leave the city then you have
1 million refugees. It's going to be one
of the worst catastrophes. The aim is to keep the different
militias apart once the city's taken, because Mosul has long been
a cockpit of rivalry between Sunni Isis as a force has more or less
kept all the guns pointing In other words, pointing
towards Isis themselves. After they are defeated militarily
it's much more likely for us to see And we are not just talking
about sectarian Shia-Sunni conflict, but Sunni-Sunni conflict,
Shia-Shia conflict and And if losing Mosul would be
a heavy blow for IS, it still has its Syrian
stronghold of Raqqa. The prospect of an assault
there is still distant. In Syria I think it's
much more complicated. In Syria it took a dimension
like Kafkaesque, a crisis, it has I don't know, when we compare it's
much easier to see Iraq Ten years ago the Islamic State
was proclaimed in And it was overwhelmed
by a combination of force and splits The Islamic State in the form
that it is now being fought involved many of the same people,
tribes and places. And there's the warning
from history. If there isn't a convincing
political solution for those Sunni communities it's quite likely that
another form of the same jihadist ideology will break out
into the open again. The Mosul offensive can deal
with the immediate problem of a Jihadist group holding a major
Iraqi city, but what it do is soothe -- but what it cannot do is soothe
the ruling sectarianism of that country and the sense of grievance
felt by many Sunnis. Well, Mark has set out some
of the difficulties - and we are going to take these step
by step now. I'm joined by retired US
Army Colonel Peter Mansoor, who was an executive officer
to General David Petraeus in Iraq and is now a professor of military
history at Ohio State University. Rachel Harvey, who is an emergency
responder with British charity ShelterBox, who is joining us
from Irbil in Iraq. Toby Dodge, an international
relations expert from the LSE, is in the studio along
with Renad Mansour, a fellow of Chatham House
and Middle East expert. The evening. Let's start with the
military. -- good evening. Peter, you are in military expert. How
painful can IS make this military operation to get the city back? It
is going to the slow grind. As General Steve Townsend, the
commander of US forces in Iraq has said, the battle is going to take
weeks maybe months to culminate. The Prime Minister of Iraq wants to
finish it by the end of the year. The result is inevitable. The Iraqi
forces with US air support will end up crashing Isis. But it'll be a
hard fight for that to happen. The enemy has had more than two years to
dig in to urban landscape. Exciting palls of oil to darken the skies.
And make it harder for air strikes to target him. -- igniting pools of
oil. He has lit roadside bombs. The Kurdish forces will meet a stiff
resistance from an enemy that had a long time to prepare a battlefield
all the way. Many have said that the outcome is not really in doubt. That
assembly the numbers, is it, the numbers on the offensive to take the
city of the outnumbering those in city defending? -- that assessment
is the numbers. You may have upwards of 6000, 8000 Isis fighters in the
city. Opposing them are tens of thousands of Iraqi troops, Kurdish,
Shi'ite militias if they are needed. And they are backed up by US air
power and coalition air power that can make any defensive position a
shambles at the drop of a bomb. You will see a lot of firepower being
used and artillery guided rockets, as well. This will be a one-sided
fight. Does that raise the possibility that in rescuing the
people of Mosul that a lot of them will be killed in the process? I
think that inevitable, quite frankly. This is war. You cannot a
bloodless combat. They've left open an avenue for escape for civilians.
It is doubtful Isis will allow the civilians to flee. Isis wants a
humanitarian catastrophe to use it as propaganda. This is going to be
tough on the people of Mosul. But if you want to end the war against Isis
you have to take the city. Thanks. Just on the timing. Months, not
weeks, is this what we think of this military offensive? The analysis is
completely correct. We are not even in the city yet. It is important to
note. It'll take some time to move in, take the villages, especially
because it is coalition forces, many of them don't agree or coordinate
with each other. But they only have one enemy. They are looking to get
rid of that one enemy, which is the so-called Islamic State. And they
need to limit civilian casualties. Some generals we are speaking to
have said it is a matter of interest, inch by inch, and block
could take days to take over inside the city. They are conscious of the
fact that it isn't just military, they need to make sure the civilian
population is OK what happens. That brings us to the issue of the
humanitarian crisis. Rachel Harvey, I wonder if I can talk to you about
that. Set out, you are over in Irbil, just set out how ready you
are, and what expectations there are of a humanitarian out poor from the
people of Mosul. In a sense it has been a strange response falls. --
strange response. We don't normally get this kind of forewarning of the
humanitarian crisis. Normally we are reacting to an event after something
has happened. That is a positive. But other than that everything is
unknown. We don't know how many people are in the city at the
moment. It is all estimates. We don't know how many of those people
will be able to flee. We don't know when they will flee or in which
direction they will flee. It is a challenging situation to know how to
best respond. We've had months of planning. That has allowed
organisations to pre-position aid in places as close to the areas where
we think people will arrive. ShelterBox Is one of many
organisations working together. It'll come down to communication to
see our effective this response can be. We will have to be flexible. We
will have to adapt to events as they unfold on the ground. The
humanitarian response will be dictated by what happens militarily.
As the military response on faults we will have to react to the impact
of that. -- on faults -- unfolds. The people will probably escaped the
Kurdish areas, won't they? That is our working assumption at the
moment. But this is a region that has already taken in a number of
people, both Syrian refugees and Iraqis already displaced by conflict
over the past two years. This area would say it is already struggling
to look after those people already here. And now it is going to be
expected to take hundreds of thousands more people. There is a
scarcity of land on which to build camps. There is a shortage of
resources. And with the best well, with all of these uncertainties of
war you can plan a military operation as tight as you possibly
can but when it comes down to it military operations don't always go
100% smoothly. The humanitarian community is trying to make sure we
have aid in key places to cover an area wherever people are likely to
come. They are going to need shelter, food, they may need health,
they will certainly need some kind of protection. We are trying to get
all of those things together in key places so we can respond to all
their needs. These are likely to be highly traumatised people and
exhausted people. The arranges inhospitable. Most of these people
will have walked, having experienced the conflict which is getting
underway and before that having lived under IS the two years. -- the
terrain is inhospitable. They will be in a state before we get to them.
What happens when the inevitable military victory, however long it
takes, succeeds? That is the There's been a lot of planning and
training for the military campaign. My own best research suggests there
has been little or no thinking about the political aftermath. If we lock
at the aftermath of the invasion of 2003, aftermath of the surge in
2007, I think we see military capacity, military power being
deployed to deliver political solutions. Daesh, the Islamic State,
are violent, barbaric group is simply a cause of a series of
political failings and no-one has quite worked out how to reform the
Iraqi system to integrate those sections of the population that are
alienated and stop the Islamic State recruiting again. The Prime Minister
of Iraq, a man who was resident in the UK for quite a few years,
Manchester university, everybody seems to say he is something a
reconciler. Is he doing his best? Is he a baddie or a goody? He's doing
his best. Clearly, if you look at the opinion poll ratings, especially
after replacing al-Maliki, he was recognised or greeted with optimism.
However, he's incredibly weak in a fractured and internally divided
cabinet. He has little or no power. He doesn't control the Shia
militias. He doesn't control the Peshmerga. The Ministry of Defence
has been sacked over a vote of no confidence in the Parliament. Do you
agree with what we've heard about the state of the political set
newspaper Iraq? 100% agree. The biggest problem with Abadi is he is
facing many forces. The biggest are within his own camp, including the
former Prime Minister. He's still there. He's still looking for a
chance to bring Abadi down. Don't talk about sectarianism, there's an
internal Shia struggle that he is facing. This is what I heard in
Mark's piece. I was not aware - we all know Sunni-Shia. It's the
multiple dimensions. Post-2003 system is so ill legitimate, so
broken that it's not only Sunnis, it's Shias. There's a mass protest
movement from the summer of 2015 onwards de crying almost universal
corruption amongst the governing elite asking in a once oil-rich
country why they can't get electricity at the height of the
summer. We have a completely dysfunctional system. No-one has
come up with a plan to fix it. What would be your plan to fix it? What
is the political settlement that you're waiting for that would be
different to the period after the surge or original invasion, when it
did basically retreat into the most awful situation very quickly? I
think the period after the surge might offer a good example of
bringing the disenfranchised populations back to the bargaining
table. We need to sustain that. We have a military victory that we're
looking for. No-one is talking about the political victory. We have
plans, many different plans, but no plan. When you bring them back to
the table, what is this that you're going to get them to agree on? Is it
an autonomous region for the Sunnis so they're like the Kurds and it's a
more federal system? Again, it's very complicated. They have
different ideas of what they want. This is complicated. We need to give
them autonomy, to build systems of local governance in local provinces
so they can start to deal with their own affairs. This is what the former
Prime Minister did. They need to get them to discuss because
communication is the key to this. We've learned enough tonight,
probably enough for one evening. Thank you all very much indeed.
Stephen Woolfe, the man who was among the favourites to take
the leadership until that altercation in Strasbourg,
There are no hopes as far as I'm concerned.
I will be withdrawing my application to become leader of Ukip.
I'm actually withdrawing myself from Ukip.
I just don't think that Ukip, in this bible it has got,
where you have elected politicians fighting
each other, where there is just this visceral
hatred, in some cases toward Nigel or anyone
that is seen to be associated with him.
Some people call me his puppet for standing, and things like that.
Whilst that's happening, not only are they letting down the members,
but they are actually letting down themselves.
And I don't think at this stage Ukip is governable.
I'm joined now by Raheem Kassam, a Ukip leadership candidate
and the editor in chief of Breitbart London.
What's happened to Stephen and his ambition to be leader? I think he's
been through a really tough time. He went through a gruelling leadership
campaign the last time. The tactics got nasty. I don't think we should
see that inside our own party. We are a family. It shouldn't come to
those things. Stephen was particularly, more than anyone, on
the receiving end of the bullying, quite frankly. The fight, was he
going to be found guilty of partaking in a fight or starting it?
Because some said he was the one who said "Come outside." He said he
wasn't doing that meaning let's have a fight, but to take the argument
outside. Is that part of the thing here, that he was going to be
blocked from the leadership? Stephen wasn't innocent in that fracas. I
think he will admit, at least privately, that he bears some cull
pability for what happened there. I'm not going to prejudge. But from
what I've heard there's equal cull pability. He's saying he was hit.
We're not there, we await other investigations. The leadership
situation now. Would you support Nigel Farage saying look, I'm going
to stay on or I'm going to stand in this leadership election? He seems
to be the only one who can hold the party together. He's told me he's
not going to. You'd like it if he did, though? Other than it would
slightly thwart your ambitions. I'm young, I'm all right. It's up to
him. I think there's a lot of appetite in the party for Nigel
Farage. I've already said if I become the leader, he will be the
honorary president of the party. I think it needs to retain him in some
way. Ukip is Nigel. Nigel is Ukip. Some post that keeps him on the
side. The other candidate, because there was a determination about the
rules. Suzanne Evans, a frequent guest on this programme. She can
stand this time. She was blocked last time. Would you welcome her?
Absolutely. I've always said throughout the last, crazy ten days
that we should have an open contest. You could serve under her. If she
won you'd be delighted to serve under her? We know the party is
riven by splits and divisions and you're in a different division to
her. Could you unite under Suzanne Evans? It's a tough question. I'm
not sure she would take the party in the direction I would want it to go.
I would commit to this: Not attacking her if she won the
leadership. You might even leave the party if she became leader? No, I
wouldn't. People need to stick with this. People want Brexit. They don't
want a one party state. They want real opposition to the Tories.
Labour's not delivering it. Who are you supporting in the American
election? I would probably support Donald Trump. Patrick O'Flynn,
himself a candidate in the general election, he tweeted the choice
ahead for Ukip, in a way it encollapse late everything, is
whether to be the patriotic party of the common sense centre of of UK
politics or go Trump, ult-right. Doesn't that just encapsulate the
split in your party, between the Trump ones... I replied. I said it's
a silly, false dichotomy. You think Trump is a common sense patriot? No,
everybody in Ukip. Don't you think people think Trump is completely off
the scale who would say if you're a Trump person, I'm not for you. Trump
divides the world. Look, we're in Central London right now. It's
disgusting to support Donald Trump in Central London. I'm not taking a
view on it. I'm explaining this - If you say Trump is an inspiration to
you... Now you're putting words in my mouth. It's not so much that he's
an inspiration to me but I think Hillary Clinton would be bad for
America. That's all it comes down to - who is better. Do you think
there's a sort of fight gene in Ukip supporters, I don't just mean in the
boxing match, but all seem to just pick arguments. On Twitter tonight
arguing with Al Murray. What is it about you guys and fighting. A
already Murray -- Al Murray is funny, he gets the Jock lar element
of it. There's a lot of tongue-in-cheek behind some of this
stuff. It's not all animosity all the time. There's a lot of
playfulness here. Honestly. You're looking at me exceptically. I mean
that. But I also think it has come a point where it's too much because of
the crisis in Ukip, it doesn't know what it stands for. I want to make
the party great again. I will do it, 100,000 members if I'm leader. Thank
you very much for coming on. ( If there is one organisation that
has been competing with Ukip in the struggle to settle
on a leader, it's the independent It just cannot break free
of distracting headlines about itself and its personnel
problems, rather than The chair, Alexis Jay,
today tried to clarify the inquiry's But the legacy of the last chair,
Lowell Goddard, lives on in the form of argument and recrimination,
involving the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, and her
permanent secretary. What did they know
about Lowell Goddard, Our political editor, Nick Watt,
has been following the row. it is one of the most ambitious
inquiries in British history, but it has been plagued by disputes at
almost every stage. Today the three people who have the future of
Britain's national child abuse inquiry in their hands moved to draw
a line under this most troubled of investigations. But first, remember
this... Order. Statement the Secretary of State for the home
department. Secretary Theresa May. I would like to make a statement about
the sexual abuse of children... Theresa May has enormous political
capital invested in this inquiry, after she overcame some scepticism
to set it up and then had to appoint three consecutive chairs after the
first two stumbled. With questions raging about the resignation about
her third chair, the Prime Minister is keen to focus on the main purpose
of the inquiry. Dame Lowell Goddard resigned shortly after the Home
Secretary and I talked about these issues. Let's remember, the point of
the inquiry is that there are many people who have suffered from child
abuse, who over the years, have felt that their voice was being ignored.
Nobody was listening to them. They deserve justice. Until today, this
was the Government's official explanation for the abrupt
resignation of Goddard on August 4. Ultimately she found it too lonely.
She was a long way from home. She decided to step down. That's all the
information I have about why she decided to go. Last week, the Times
reported that this man, Mark Sedwell, her most senior official
was alerted six days earlier to criticism of her management skills
and allegedly racist views. Today, the Home Secretary offered a fresh
explanation. Dame Lowell had not spoke ton me about her reasons, so I
relied on the letter she had sent to the committee. In her letter, she
said she was lonely and felt that she could not deliver and that was
why she stepped down. Dame Lowell strongly refutes the allegations
about her. The only way we could understand properly why she resigned
would be to hear from Dame Lowell. That original appearance before the
Select Committee may still cause trouble for the Home Office.
Newsnight understand that's there is unease amongst some MPs that Mark
Sedewell sat in silence when Rudd made her statement last month. One
observer said Sedwell, highly regarded by the Prime Minister,
faces a decisive day when he appears before the committee tomorrow.
As MPs debated the inquiry, along the river its new chair issued a
rare public statement. This was short on specifics, but Professor
Alexis Jay appeared to nod towards a scaling back of its work. If we were
to pursue the traditional public hearing model that people associate
with inquiries of this kind to the thousands and thousands of
institutions in England and Wales, we would fail. There is no
possibility that we can do that. However, we will apply it to some,
that will not be the main ways in which we will take this inquiry
forward. The Prime Minister, the Home
Secretary and a new enquiry chair will be hoping some answers into a
dark past may be provided by the end of the decade. But for now questions
will continue to hang over this enquiry.
As you heard, tomorrow the Home Secretary and her permanent
secretary will appear before the Commons Home Affairs
One of its members and a candidate for the chairmanship,
Good evening. Do you think Amber Rudd unreasonably misled the
committee when she met before and said, you know, Dame Lowell Goddard
art resigned because she was isolated and wanted to go home? When
the Home Secretary gave evidence to us on the committee she was
referring to the reasons that were given to her by Dame Lowell Goddard
art as to why she left. Whether at that point there was more, we don't
know. There might have been legal reasons to speculate why she had
gone. But Dame Goddard has gone now. There are a number of issues that go
beyond the head of enquiry. One is the extent to which the controlling
mind of the enquiry is impacted or influenced by the Home Office.
Before 1971 the Home Office had a role in inspecting and approving the
heads of children's homes were a lot of these awful things happened. If
you have an enquiry that is dominated by Home Office personnel
that's possible. I dated anybody has an issue with Herrerin abilities.
She was in the social work profession for over three decades.
-- with her abilities. We shouldn't sweep that under the carpet. That
needs to be dealt with. Are you suggesting maybe it needs another
chair? Alexis J isn't the right chair? I'm not saying that. --
Alexis Jay. Some survivors will not trust a social worker. The question.
I'm not raising that. The survivors are. -- that is a good question.
They have got to be the primary concern. If they say that is an
issue for then you have to deal with it, you cannot pretend it away. Some
hope we can just get on with this, we cannot keep changing the head.
Absolutely. I think people chair that view. The professor will be
appearing tomorrow in front of the committee. She wants this to be done
by 2020. One of the controversy is coming out the Department of Dame
Goddard is that you should forget about the past and focus on the
future. I would say that would be wholly unacceptable to my
constituents. What happened to them may have been in the past but they
live with it every day and will continue to do so in the future. One
of the things Dame Goddard suggested was that there was under sourcing of
the enquiry. But they refounded the Home Office. This is why it would be
good to have judge Goddard B there. -- Goddard be there. Were they
sitting on this? I don't know. That will be a line of enquiry. Thanks
very much. At one point, we were
expecting a decision It's probably next week now,
but hey, we've been waiting 48 years so another few days is neither
here nor there. But Nick Watt is back with me
with news on how the Government might push Heathrow,
if it is selected as the favoured What are they thinking? The Cabinet
will discuss tomorrow whether or where to build a new runway in the
south-east. We know that the Cabinet subcommittee will meet next week,
will make a decision, announced it next week. The government is
planning to hold a Commons vote within a week of that announcement.
They are obliged to hold a formal vote. It is a national strategy
policy statement. Within a few months. But they want to go much
earlier to stop opponents building up steam. If they were to go to
Heathrow, Zac Goldsmith could have his by-election but they would hope
they would have the numbers in parliament to have parliament
approve it by then. There is speculation they might overheat and
Gatwick. I am told they will go for one of the three options. -- there
is speculation they might have one at Heathrow and Gatwick. Tell us
which one. You must know. If you are going to one option, it looks like
you are following the airports commission. If you are following
Howard Davies you are going for a third runway at Heathrow. But
ministers are saying no decision has been made yet. The Prime Minister
wants to hear from the Cabinet. They will follow the information. Those
members on the subcommittee have a pile of papers, they need to do
their homework, then they will publish it.
Well, airports and aeroplanes are often seen as one of the main
culprits of toxic emissions by those who seek to improve
But those of us who bought diesel cars, thinking that would help,
have known for a while now that we are actually poisoning our fellow
citizens with toxic emissions that are far worse than we'd
down or use Brexit as a chance to dump the EU-mandated levels
Our technology editor, David Grossman, has been looking
at the UK's commitment - or lack thereof - to cleaner air.
The cycle path up the side of the A3 is not the prettiest
but it is pretty fast, and at least I am separated
What I'm not separated from, of course, are the fumes.
This bike has been fitted with an air quality monitor.
The main thing it's measuring is nitrogen dioxide.
What that does to the human body can be pretty nasty.
In simple terms that's going to increase your susceptibility
It's going to increase your risk of having, say,
It's going to make you more susceptible
If you've got asthma or sensitive lungs it might make you more prone
A strict EU limit came into force in 2010.
An annual mean of 40 micrograms per cubic metre of air.
However, the government won't enforce it until 2024
for the UK as a whole, and even later, 2025, for London.
Frankly it's enough to make you want to hold your breath
And here is the 40 micrograms annual mean limit.
My journey up the A3 was swimming in nitrogen dioxide.
But the biggest spike of the day was appropriately enough
Tomorrow the environmental lawyers Client Earth are continuing their
We need to go back to court now with the government because this
government in the 35 years that I've been doing environmental work
is the most reluctant to follow the law when it comes to important
We have 40,000 people a year dying early in the UK
And the government has done in its heels and said we're just not
going to comply anywhere near the time we are supposed to.
They were supposed to comply in 2010.
They are now saying in London it will be 2025.
But their own plan shows it won't be anywhere near 2025.
So why has the UK struggled to meet air quality laws that were supposed
Up until May Stephen Heidari-Robinson was David Cameron's
adviser on energy and the environment.
He says one reason is we do too much computer modelling and not
As you've done today, going around and actually measuring
things, it's probably the right way forward.
I think the second is you sort of look at these numbers
and you struggle to see why they are not going down.
And that's a large proportion of what happened with the VW scandal.
It turns out that actually emissions from diesel vehicles are six times
This problem is largely about diesel vehicles.
Really we need to address that issue if we want to solve
But given the scale of solving that problem, and meeting
those EU legal limits, there is some concern
that the government might try to use Brexit to abandon them or perhaps
Last month the Commons environment audit select committee couldn't get
Are you giving a commitment that standards will be higher,
or at least at the level of the European standards?
I'm saying to you what I've said to you previously,
that we want better air quality we have today.
-- that we want better air quality than we have today.
And that's what we'll be working, to that outcome.
Today we have enforceable legal standards.
I'm just wondering if you were going to keep them, that's all,
Will the government which is so reluctant to comply
with the law try to move away in the Brexit process?
And so will thousands of our citizens.
It would actually give us the best standards in the world.
In the meantime air pollution continues to damage thousands
As for me I think I'll take the long route through the park from now on.
in The Times on a story that David Cameron wasted ?1 billion on the
Troubled Families Programme. They suppressed the report. They wasted
money on that particular scheme. That's almost it for tonight,
but if you're not fortunate enough to have a baby boomer index linked
final salary pension, you probably didn't attend
the Desert Trip concert in California this weekend,
unkindly dubbed Oldstock The average age of the
headline acts was 72, The cheapest seat was $199,
the most expensive $3,000. Anyway, for everyone else,
here it is in 40 seconds. # People try to put us down
# Talking about my generation #. # Been around for many a long year
#. # I hope I die before I get old #.
# All we are saying... #. # We are just two young souls
swimming in a fishbowl # Year after year #.
If you have managed to avoid the showers over the past few days it
has felt good in the sunshine. A chillier feel thanks to a cold front
which will sweep down the country in the next few hours. Away from that,
sunshine, but some showers tomorrow in northern parts of the UK,
Northern Ireland, and Scotland. Temperature is
With Evan Davis. Mark Urban analyses the battle for Mosul. Plus the child abuse inquiry, the decision on Heathrow, air pollution, and is UKIP 'ungovernable'?