13/04/2017 Newsnight


Analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Evan Davis. The US drops biggest-ever conventional bomb, and people who are Just About Managing are defined.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 13/04/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



10,000 kilograms of bomb, the biggest no-nuke ever deployed,


dropped onto the tunnels used by Isis in Afghanistan.


Is America trying to tell us something?


We are so proud of our military and it was another successful event.


Uh, everybody knows exactly what happened, so what


The US military made the decision to use it.


We'll ask if it's a sign of a military more willing


We've been hearing for ages about the squeezed middles


and the just about managing, but now the Government is helpfully


We now know that Enceladus has almost all of the ingredients


to support life as we know it on Earth.


But should we even be looking for extra-terrestrials?


GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast, or MOAB.


And it was dropped in Afghanistan earlier today, aimed at the tunnels


used by the Afghan branch of so-called Islamic State.


The Americans have never used a conventional weapon


this powerful in combat, and given everything that has been


happening in US foreign policy, it is no wonder that everybody


Now, don't fall for some of the hyperbole - it's huge,


but it would take more than a thousand of these


But does it tell us something about the willingness of the US


military to flex its muscle in the world?


I'm joined by our diplomatic editor Mark Urban.


As a bomb, is this a big threshold through which the world has passed


today? I'm not sure. The RAF's Grand Slam that was dropped in World War


II was just slightly below this in size. These sort of super bombs are


clearly meant to have some kind of propaganda or psychological


operations effect. But if you go back in Afghanistan to the early


days of American operations after 9/11 in 2001-2, they dropped several


examples of a thing called the BLU82 daisy cutter which is only slightly


smaller than this. So this mega- bomb theory has been tried before.


You could argue that they were doing it in 2001 and they are still doing


it, so the effect can't be that great. Do you think it is political


signalling, or is it a political tactic or that someone has tried? It


was characterised today by the White House as a thing that came from the


military. It was mentioned that the commander in Afghanistan wanted this


to deal with this cave system. And I think it is an iPod with other


things we have been seeing. You have a military which under President


Obama, there were often chafing at the bit and would be complaining to


us that they felt restricted in what they could do. Now under President


Trump, far less so. It seems general Matias is fully empowered to take


all kinds of decisions and we are seeing the consequences of that in


many different places. The announcement was certainly


headline-grabbing - the use of a huge munition to attack


a cave complex in Afghanistan. The so-called mother of all bombs


is so big that it drops from the tail ramp of a Hercules


transport aircraft. When it detonates, it creates


a one-mile-radius shock wave. The White House characterised it


as a military decision. The United States takes the fight


against Isis very seriously. In order to defeat the group,


we must deny them operational The United States took


all precautions necessary to prevent civilian casualties and collateral


damage as a result of the operation. A little later, President Trump


was asked about it. We're very, very proud


of our military. Just like we're proud


of the folks in this room, we are so proud of our military,


and it was another successful event. Everybody knows


exactly what happened. What I do is,


I authorise my military. We have the greatest military


in the world, and they have So we have given them


total authorisation. The new administration launched


a special operations raid It stepped up activities in Libya


and Newsnight understands that it has also deployed US special


operators in Mogadishu, Somalia, But the biggest operational change


has come in the campaign against the IS group


in Iraq and Syria. There, raids have been stepped up


and the rules of engagement relaxed, leading to claims that civilian


casualties have In fact, the number of actions in


Syria for March were down slightly. The number of targets hit


by the Americans was down. But the number of civilian deaths


we think likely went up sixfold. We think more than 300


civilians died in March We've never seen numbers


like that before. I think that is the clearest


indication yet that and civilians are at greater risk


of harm because of that. Early reports suggest


that it was a military decision to drop such a big weapon


in Afghanistan, and that seems to be the pattern of a president who has


devolved considerable powers to the Pentagon to prosecute


a more aggressive campaign Kurt Volker is the former


US Ambassador to Nato Do you think this is a significant


change in the relationship between the government of the US and the


military? Have they unleashed the military to do what they will? I


would phrase that differently. There is a change, but the change is to


give the military a clearer and more ambitious mission and to then give


them the authorisation to carry that out, not to act without any


constraint of law, not to act in ways that would have the US


committing war crimes, but to say the mission is to destroy Isis. The


mission is to stabilise Afghanistan. Go and do that. What we had


previously was a lot of micromanagement of decisions. What


ordnance will we use? How much free reign with the military have? The


mission for Isis was to degrade rather than destroy it? This is


giving the military a clear mission and giving them authority to carry


that out. Do you welcome that? I certainly do. It is important not


only for the military to be effective, it is an important signal


to adversaries, whether it is Isis or the Taliban, that they will now


face an American and a coalition force that is prepared to do what is


necessary to do the job. That will have an effect on their morale,


psychology and operations. It will give momentum back to the


international effort. You have used the word I was going to put in my


next question, which is signalling. Do you think that is an important


part of a military strategy? You mentioned Syria and Isis. The one a


lot of people are thinking about is Kim Jong-Un and North Korea. Do you


think there is any element of deciding on these things in order to


say to someone like him, watch out? It does start as an operational and


effectiveness question. What does it take to be effective? Here, it is


targeting the mission in Afghanistan, targeting Isis and the


Taliban. That is the starting point. That said, when you are conveying to


the world that the United States is willing to take decisions and act


and will be effective, that is a signal that will be picked up by


people around the world, probably in a fortuitous way. Someone like Kim


Jong-Un in North Korea will be thinking twice about the seriousness


and effectiveness of the US. What do we think about the civilian deaths?


We have been hearing more of them in Syria. One of the things Obama


wanted to do was to improve the reputation and image of the US


around the world. It seemed that every civilian death paying him


personally. I wonder whether that pendulum is going to swing back the


other way and the US will take some brand damage if it is shown to be


more willing to have collateral damage. Actually, it speaks well of


President Obama that he was so pained at civilian deaths. We should


do everything possible to minimise that. We have to balance this in


terms of proportionality and achieving the mission. The reason we


are in Afghanistan, the reason we are in Syria is because of Isis Arma


because of the Assad regime, because of the chemical weapons used in


Syria, what they have done to their own populations. Without US


involvement, there are already 11 million refugees that have spilled


out of Syria fleeing the conflict, 500,000 people killed. So I agree


with the sentiment that we need to do what we can to minimise civilian


casualties, but we can't minimise to the extent that we are not having an


impact on the conflict. Do you think the president knew this was about to


happen this afternoon, or do you think he has delegated so much that


he is told afterwards or sees it on CNN? I don't have a window into the


way the briefings work inside the White House. I do believe he is


someone who is going to give the military and General Mattis in


mission and say, go do it. I also believe General Mattis and others


will be briefing constantly. They will be letting the president know


the status of operations. So in normal circumstances, I think he


would have been briefed. Ambassador, thanks very much.


The Oxford Dictionary's word of the year for 2011


It was the group identified by Ed Miliband as needing a bit


of tender loving care, working people, often


Mr Miliband famously struggled to define the group.


It was around average income, he said, not on six-figure salaries.


Well, hard-working families have long been politically appealing.


Then Theresa May famously talked of JAMs - the just about managing.


Then JAMs became OWFs - ordinary working families.


But it is only now that any government has tried


As part of its thinking on grammar schools, the Government has tied


itself to a definition of who they are.


It's the group of working families on below average income,


Is it useful to think about this group as a defined tribe?


We'll discuss that shortly, but first here's Chris Cook.


Today, we got some clarity about an important question. Who exactly are


these ordinary working families that the Government keeps going on about?


We want to provide a clear analysis of the situation of how these


children of ordinary working families are faring in our education


system and for measuring how our wider reforms can do better for


these families and so better for the country. This group, the OWFs, our


success soars to a previous favourite of Theresa May's, the just


about managings, or Jams. Let's think about who we are talking about


when I talk about the just about managing. These are people who have


a job but worry about their job security or have a home but worry


about paying the mortgage. Who, then, goes in the jamjar? Who it is


and General Mattis? -- who is and OWF? Below median income, but not on


free school meals is an OWF. What is median income? The median income for


up two parent family with two teenage children is ?33,000. For a


lone parent with one young child, it is ?70,000. The amount varies with


your family type. Education purists have been puzzling today about why


the Government is so interested in these so-called OWFs. That is


because the research that ministers have published doesn't really make


the case that the OWFs have been particularly overlooked. For


example, the OWFs, unlike the poorest children, don't seem to have


particular trouble getting into good schools, be they comprehensive or


selective. And while it is true that across England, the richer you are,


the better your grades seem to be, and that is a particular problem for


the OWFs. It is not unique to them, it is a problem for the whole


education system. But the OWF analysis helps the Government Selt


grammar schools. A lot more OWFs schools getting to selective schools


than the poorest. But many remain sceptical. We have looked at the


outcome of all of those living in selected areas and factored in the


losers as well as winners. Where you have an area with a concentration of


grammar schools, the children who don't get into those schools suffer


a GCSE penalty by comparison with similar children who live in a


comprehensive area. What we see from this new ordinary working families


group is that while they may have their access to grammar schools,


actually, the majority of them would expect not to get a place in a


grammar school. That means that they would not be benefiting. They would


be in the group that are missing out. Ms Greening today hinted at


measures to address the fact that grammars do take disproportionate


numbers of wealthier children. But the politics get a little muddy


here. Some of her supporters don't want her to push too hard there. I


certainly don't think quotas are a good idea and I would be concerned


to see a dramatic reduction in the pass mark. I think we should be put


back -- pragmatic about how we do this, but it would be reasonable to


say to existing grammar schools and to new ones, let's try our hardest


to make this system is fair as it can be. We want to make sure that


opportunities are open to everybody who can benefit from them. There is


another reason to focus on the Jams, though, or the OWFs, - politics. In


focus groups all the time, people talk and define themselves as the


people stuck in the middle who are too well off to get the support that


poor people get and not well enough to manage without it. They feel


neglected by politicians. It is certainly helpful for this Prime


Minister to pitch to people in the middle. There may be a more coherent


group at the ballot box and they are in the classroom. Chris Cook, there.


Phillip Blond is director of the ResPublica think tank,


and one of the brains behind the Conservative's


Polly Billington was special advisor to Ed Miliband,


who as Labour leader promised to stand up for the


Jams, and Alfs we are using them interchangeably, we prefer Jams


because they make better graphics, but there was a shift? As I


understand that there was a shift when the mandarins, now not popular


with Theresa May, looked at what just about managing looked like,


firstly there was not enough of them and secondly they looked too poor to


switch to voting Tory anyway. Out is a slightly broader... A broader


term, includes more people and does go further up the income scale. Big


question, is it useful to focus on this group because we are talking


about one third of families. I think it is worth asking who has politics


been about since the times of Mrs Thatcher? I would argue


predominantly for the most part it has only been about the top 10% and


the bottom 10%. And arguably all policy and politics has really been


in the interests of the top 10% and the concern for the bottom 10% is


done so to justify that settlement. So I think the concern with


something else is more than welcome and is desperately and urgently


needed because if unless you can eat actually speak to those who haven't


spoken to before, things like Brexit, Trump, going beyond button


or become explainable. What is clear is that we have significant groups


in this country who feel something and fair is being done to them, who


feel they are being ignored so it is not wrong to try to centre policy


around them, and I think in part, you know, this is to be welcomed. Is


that what your former boss tried to do, Polly? What I think you have a


problem with here, is you will come unstuck of your politics and policy


are not aligned. So pretty much everyone will think of themselves as


being part of the squeezed middle, that is part of their campaigning


allure, the same with the just about managing. People think they are


ordinary then they are extraordinary, they think they are


ordinary working people are not working, they think they are a


family when they are not family. So you can include everybody. If your


policy only affects a small number of people, and everyone else will


think, wait a minute, I thought this was for the many, not the few, and I


am not entitled to it. That is where things get unstuck. What you have


you with this grammar school policy which in principle I would be


against anyway, you have one where only one third of places are


available for this 50% core of people. How can that be seen as a


progressive their policy when two thirds of the places will be kept


for the 50% that are the richest? But the basic question is, why would


you focus on the people who are between half and 20% rather than the


bottom 20%. What is the effective argument that says, I should be more


worried about the person who is 60th in the list of poor people rather


than the person who is... You can deploy a range of arguments to make


this point. I repeat, these other people who have been ignored over


the past goodness knows how long. I thought Ed Miliband, who's made some


great contributions to Conservative thinking, really hit it right with


the squeeze medal. But where Labour went wrong was that they came with a


small-bore offer, only speaking to those on limited incomes, or those


on benefits, let's go mad, look at the now famous elephant graph which


shows basically over the last 30 years that globalisation has not


benefited middle or working-class people only super rich people and


the poor in the third World. So he makes the argument quite


convincingly that these people haven't experienced any real


increase in incomes for long time. That's why it makes sense to speak


to them. Not only that but if you look at modern Britain today it is


like a ladder where the runs on the ladder of further and further apart.


And unless you are at the very top, you are experiencing relative


decline or relative stagnation almost anywhere on that ladder so


people feel, wherever they are, the middle is by definition... People


are feeling penalised so I think it is good politics and if the


Conservatives come up with a... Which I would encourage them to do


so they don't sacrifice policy... I don't think this is that and that is


part of the problem. If you talk about something everyone identifies


with India to offer doesn't meet that, you won't get anything out of


it. The only way you can persuade everyone else to consider giving


money to a certain group of people is that it is somewhere in the


national interest. I want an example apart from grammar schools, what's


an example of something you would do we would say, this is not about


people in the top half and not about people in the bottom, it's about the


people in between. Just one example of policy. Massively expanded


maternity and career rights for women. Women, when they leave a job,


they want to look after their children, as many do, they often go


back part Time low wage, no longer on a career path. Set of victory and


a massively expanded career -- so if we expand massively career path that


would help all women in that area. Polly, can you think of an area?


Financial security more generally, Phillip makes a good point but if


you think of accessing work that is more secure, because work is


becoming more flexible that means people spend more time feeling a bit


on the edge, and making sure that people have something they could


fall back on, not for ever but while they are flexing between jobs, the


fact that more people are experiencing that flexibility, not


just hipsters on their laptop but the people on the street corner


waiting... We have no through life education option for people. We


educate ourselves intensely at 221 and then nothing. What we have to


develop, and this will be another Jams policy is a 2- life education


officer so anyone can retrain at any point in their lives. With robotics


and AI, everyone will suffer. Lots to say about the Jams and the Alfs.


It's going to be hugely important weekend in Turkey, a referendum on


the weekend could transform the country from a slightly


dysfunctional parliamentary democracy to a full on presidential


system. The man who stands to reign supreme is President Erdogan, very


much to the concern of civil libertarians and liberal


secularists. He has dominated Turkish politics for 14 years, an


authoritarian rationalist seeking the backing of the nation to


potentially put more emphasis on the authoritarian. Practically, there


will be no Prime Minister, he will be the leader of his party and the


president so there will be no one who can limit his powers. In the


dying days of the Ottoman empire through the new Republic of, or


Ataturk or the later years, the Turkish people have repeatedly found


themselves with strong leaders, or that aspire to be, President Erdogan


fits that bill. It does not like opposition and has cracked down on


the press. This former editor of an opposition newspaper is now exiled


in Berlin. Politically he is the kind of leader, like Putin or Trump,


who hates criticism, and takes every kind of criticism as an insult to


himself. Last summer's attempted coup briefly raised the prospect of


turmoil in Turkey, a violent Kurdish insurgency and attacks by the


Islamic State group have all been used to justify a state of emergency


so would a newly empowered president be better equipped to face these


challenges? And would it bolster Turkey's


power in the Middle East? If Turkey is able to play


a stronger, assertive role in those countries in the multiple conflicts


engulfing the region, then that is a good thing


for the region. But only if a stronger Erdogan


means a more stable, I spoke earlier to Ilnur Cevik,


chief adviser to President Erdogan. Started by asking him if we should


be worried the proposed constitutional changes will give


President Erdogan much power. Not really, because actually


what he is doing is, the president at the moment


has dictatorial powers. He has the powers of a junta leader


because the presidential powers were given, designed for a junta


leader after the 1980 coup. But let's just be clear,


does President Erdogan, after the referendum,


if he gets his way, he will have power to appoint


half the senior judges, his own vice presidents,


he will be able to make law? He can only appoint only four


of the judges and seven judges are being appointed


by the Parliament. By the Parliament,


of the senior judges, yes, He can hire and fire civil servants


and of course he can make The reason why constitutional


experts are worried about it is precisely because it


gives them so much power. The presidential executive orders


can be overruled by the Parliament. If there is any law that clashes


with the executive orders, then, the law overrides


the executive order. Why do you think so many


constitutional experts and others are worried as hell


about what Turkey looks like it's Truly, it's hard to understand


why, because we wanted To bring a new system, scrap


the military drafted constitution, But we didn't have the


majority to do that, so all we could do is suffice


with the changes that will just bring a clear-cut distinction


between separation of power and allow the president to run


the country while the legislative And was the president wrong


when he said on February 12th that the referendum would be


an answer to the coup and that those who vote No,


vote against him in the referendum, will be siding with the coup


and siding with terrorists, as some of the AKP party leaders


have been saying? The coup was a stark reminder


of what is in store for Turkey The coup was a kind of,


unfortunately, referendum by the people who flocked


into the streets and They braved tanks, they braved F-16


fighters, and the people of Turkey And now we are saying that we're


switching to a new system Would you be happy if President


Erdogan saw out another full two terms under the new constitution


and would thus have been Does that strike you as good


governance, good leadership Well, if the people vote for it,


if they are satisfied with the way he runs


the country, why not? They may get fed up with him


in the next two years, nobody knows. And if Erdogan shows bad leadership,


let's put it this way, if people are unhappy with the way he's


running the country, the Parliament can easily take


the country to early elections. The EU does not seem very


enthusiastic about these constitutional changes,


to say the least. Does it bother


you that the EU and your prospect of EU membership is receding


further into the distant, Not really, because we're not sure


where the EU is going anyway. We are trying to get


into the EU, while you guys The irony is, we have been pushing


and pushing and pushing and they haven't accepted us


for the past 54 years. We've been at the doorstep,


being treated like beggars. And our people are very,


very unhappy about that and we see our friends back


in Britain with Brexit coming out of the EU, and we are saying,


is it really worth all the effort? But we will see after


the referendum, the president will sit down with the EU leaders,


and I think we will really ask for an account of what has


happened until now. Ilnur Cevik, very nice to talk


to you, thank you very much. A pause for thought now,


because it's time for Viewsnight. Tonight, heart surgeon


Stephen Westaby wonders whether we are unwittingly


pushing his profession into a culture that


runs away from risk. Politics is destroying


British heart surgery. British heart surgery used to be


the best in the world. We were at the centre


of research and innovation. Over the past 35 years,


I've performed almost 12,000 But now heart surgery has been


suffocated by a culture of blame. British heart surgeons


are becoming a rare breed. After the Bristol children's


heart inquiry and the hospitals scandal, NHS


England decided to publish surgeons' death rates


under the banner of Mortality rates were published


hastily, newspapers named The implication was that surgeons


have responsibility for every death. Most deaths actually occur


when a common post-operative This happens most at nights


and weekends in the presence Surely the best surgeon should


have the highest death rates Now we have an elephant


in the consulting room. Surgeons are becoming risk


averse and the sickest Prospective surgeons are now


discouraged from entering such In 2000, 70% of heart


surgery trainees came So the NHS now relies


on heart surgeons who have He has recently written his memoir -


Fragile Lives - about his work Now, this next story


should probably have been the lead on this programme,


but it is just possible that it is a lot of hype


and one to be ignored. The news is that Nasa has made


a pretty dramatic statement about the possibility of life


existing inside one Nasa tells us that its Cassini


spacecraft has flown within 120 kilometres of the moon Enceladus,


where they use metric measurements, and they have found hydrogen


molecules, which was the last piece of evidence they were looking


for that microbial life may exist. In a moment, we'll discuss


whether humans should be looking for alien life at all -


but first, we are joined from Washington by Dr


Mary Voytek, the head How big a moment is this? This is an


incredible moment. We have been waiting for evidence just like this


since we first discovered that there were oche world outside of our own


Earth -- ocean worlds. The mantra of Nasa has been, follow the water. If


we find lots of water in these oceans, we find evidence of the


building blocks of life and now we have found a source of energy. What


is the terrain we are talking about and how similar is it to anything


you might find on this planet? The hydrogen is being produced because


the core of Enceladus is very porous. So ocean water can move


through it, get heated by energy from the core, interact with the


rocks and then vent in some fashion into the overlying ocean water. A


good example of this is what we find in our deep oceans, known as


hydrothermal vents. We are not sure that we have these tall structures,


but it's the same kind of chemistry. As you may know, when we discovered


these 40 years ago, we found them because they were surrounded by


incredibly complex and beautiful ecosystems, giant worms, shrimp,


fish, basically supported by energy coming out of these fluids from


beneath the surface. I am not going to ask you to put a percentage


chance on it, but when we say life is possible, does that mean we can't


rule it out, or does it mean we are talking 50-50? Give us a sense of


how likely it would be. Well, this is the first step in knowing that


this environment could support life. Whether or not life emerged, it is


probably likely that it has emerged somewhere. I am not sure if it is on


this particular moon or if this moon has had enough time. On our own


planet, recent results suggest that life emerged maybe within 400


million years of the formation of our planet. We think that this moon


might be as young as 100 million years, we are not sure of its age.


So we have all the ingredients, we are just not sure if there has been


enough time for life to have emerged and started to take advantage of


this food source. Where would this life come from? This hasn't come


from a meteorite flying around the solar system and planting life, this


is life evolving out of the chemistry of the soup it sits in?


Absolutely. The idea of panspermia is something we talk about, which is


sharing a Genesis on one body by ceding the second one. That is


something that could happen between the Earth and Mars where there has


been a significant amount of material exchanged. This is very far


from us. Enceladus is a billion kilometres away, so the likelihood


that there would be seeding from Earth out there is almost nil. So we


would be talking about a second Genesis. Mary, thanks for joining


us. Professor Nick Bostrom,


director and founder of the Future of Humanity Institute,


at Oxford University where he looks at understudied existential threats


to the future of humanity. He wrote: "Where are they -


why I hope the search for extraterrestrial


life finds nothing". Do you really feel that you don't


want us to find it? I think no news is good news as far as the search


for extraterrestrial life is concerned. It would be tremendously


exciting and scientifically interesting, but I think it would be


a bad omen for our own future. Explain this to us, because it is


quite a complicated argument. Why would it be bad to discover worms on


another planet? In a nutshell, the idea is that we look out at the


universe and we see a grand total of zero advanced to extraterrestrial


civilisations. As far as we know, it looks empty out there. We know there


are a lot of planets and moons. So there has got to be some great


filter or something that takes these billions of planets and moons a hard


that for life that then produces zero space colonising civilisations


that we would have seen. There are two possibilities. This great filter


could be behind us in our evolutionary past. Maybe it is just


really hard for life to produce even the simplest organisms or to evolve


more compact life. Or it could be in our future. Maybe all this


sufficiently advanced civilisations destroyed themselves before they can


colonise the universe. So if we do find life, it might be a sign that


they are poised to destroy us? Which would be bad news. The other


argument, maybe inspired by films we have seen, is that we become


infected. If we find a little thing there and bring it back here, is


that a plausible risk? It is a small risk, but a risk. On the one hand,


we might discover a lot of useful stuff by investigating the different


biochemistry. Maybe we could find new drugs or organisms that would be


useful. But you can't rule out the possibility that this life would


have discovered some different metabolic pathway that is more


efficient than Earth's so if you brought it back, it could outcompete


our microorganisms. As somebody who thinks about the future of humanity


in quite a deep way, how likely is it, do you think, that we will


encounter intelligent life at any point? A lot of people speculate on


UFOs. Is that tiny? It is very small. Of course, a lot of


cosmologists think the universe is literally infinite, in which case we


can be pretty sure that there is intelligent life out there, but it


might be so far away that we will never come into contact. But isn't


that why we haven't encountered these intelligent species, it is


because it takes too long to get around? But we know that even within


a reasonable sea, and remember that the timescales are very large


because the universe has been around for billions of years, so that would


be a long time to cover quite far. Even within the radius that we know


a civilisation could have travelled, there are billions of planets and


none of those has produced any space-faring civilisation so far as


we can tell. Mick, thanks very much. Now, before we go, all of that data


about life on Enceladus came Cassini was launched in 1997,


and has been sending back astonishing information and images


ever since it reached It will run out of fuel this autumn,


and for its final, doomed, mission, it has been programmed to plunge


through Saturn's rings and burn out as it enters


the planet's atmosphere. This is what Nasa thinks


the mission will look like. Some of us may end up being a little


disappointed with the weather on Good Friday. It is looking pretty


overcast and there is some rain on the way, but most of it should be


light and it will not last all


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Evan Davis.

The US drops biggest-ever conventional bomb; people who are Just About Managing defined; Turkish referendum; is heart surgery in trouble?; life on Saturn's moon?

Download Subtitles