Bridget Phillipson (1:59)

Newscast, newscast from the BBC.

Paddy O'Connell (2:02)

Fat Boy Slim and me in the

Henry Zeffman (2:03)

classroom doing our violin lessons. I was the tattletail in the class.

Paddy O'Connell (2:06)

Can I have an apology, please? I trust almost nobody that daddy has

Jenny Bond (2:10)

to sometimes use strong language.

Laura Kuenssberg (2:11)

Next time in Moscow. I feel dulu with no salulu. Take me down to Downing Street. Let's go have a tour.

Henry Zeffman (2:18)

Blimey.

Laura Kuenssberg (2:20)

Hello, it's Laura in the studio.

Paddy O'Connell (2:21)

Hello, it's Paddy in the studio.

Henry Zeffman (2:23)

And hello, it's Henry at home.

Laura Kuenssberg (2:25)

Welcome back. The prodigal correspondent Henry.

Paddy O'Connell (2:28)

It's a weekend with more woeful reading for the Palace.

Henry Zeffman (2:32)

Yeah, very much so, Very much so. And I think after the dramatic scenes of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor's arrest this week, which I experienced as a punter rather than a correspondent because I wasn't working, and I think that almost sort of enhanced the drama and the sense of what a moment it was. You know, I think, I think it's probably hard to see when there will come a weekend where there aren't difficult headlines for the Royal family. You know, the fact is that the King's brother has been arrested and on suspicion of serious offenses, which we understand he denies. This is going to run and run and run. But the particular revelation which I think is probably most concerning for not just the monarchy, but other parts of the British state today is the suggestion in the Sunday Times and elsewhere about what Metropolitan Police Protection officers may have done and what they may have seen or heard while they were protecting Andrew Mountbatten Windsor at the time, as he was the Duke of York.

Laura Kuenssberg (3:42)

And there are also the questions that have come from Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, sort of detective work, writing letters about whether Andrew Mountbatten Windsor uses taxpayer funded jets and RAF bases to meet Epstein. So I think the interesting thing where this story has gone this weekend is it brings in the taxpayer. So was the taxpayer's resource and money abused in any way by Andrew Mountbatten Windsor's behavior? I'm not there speculating about the criminal case that's about was he up to things and using taxpayer funded support in ways that would be seen as being inappropriate or indeed wrong. So it's quite interesting, it's moved into that sort of ambit today and I'm

Paddy O'Connell (4:23)

very interested in the role of Gordon Brown. He's written to multiple police forces, says the Sunday Telegraph today, specifically on this jets issue. And the timeline is of note. I would suggest in trying to answer what's going on with Detective Brown, there's an overlap between Gordon Brown's premiership and Andrew's trade envoy ship.

Laura Kuenssberg (4:44)

That's right.

Paddy O'Connell (4:44)

And it almost looks like Gordon Brown's furious.

Laura Kuenssberg (4:47)

I think he is furious. I mean, he made no secret that the fact he was absolutely furious about Peter Mandelson's behavior during the time when he was Prime Minister and Peter Mandelson was his business secretary and some of his detective work, whether he's Poirot or Taggart, I'm not sure. But some of that pertains to the time when he was the Prime Minister and he has somebody who has always talked about integrity and standards in public life and taken those things very, very seriously. It seems like he's kind of on a mission, you know, and he's going through these files and himself, it appears, and is raising questions and has written letters to lots of different police forces. So, I mean, again, we've been saying this for weeks now, haven't we? But this whole massive document dump on the other side of the Atlantic is just yielding strand after strand after strand in a very sort of complicated tapestry of embarrassment, horror and questions about whether lots of people with power were behaving very badly.

Henry Zeffman (5:45)

I think there is almost a sense with Gordon Brown, isn't there, of atonement is perhaps too strong a word. But, you know, I do think it clearly is a relevant point that he brought Peter Mandelson back into government. He was the one who gave Peter Mandelson, Lord Mandelson, as he still is, the position in cabinet from which he was able, we have now learnt, to pass government information to Jeffrey Epstein for whatever purpose the Metropolitan Police are investigating. And so I think, you know, he clearly does feel a sort of responsibility to now do work that helps shed light on what exactly went on, you know, both in the government and at the top of the monarchy, or near the top of the monarchy while he was Prime Minister. But it does, I mean, it is fascinating. I think there's a new biography of Gordon Brown out at the moment and, you know, it does, it does sort of speak to the slightly different way in which he spent his post premiership career than other prime ministers. Yeah, and I know you've spoken to him on your program a few times, Laura, about sort of campaigns he's done on poverty and, you know, he doesn't live in London, which I think is just quite a striking thing for a former Prime Minister. And it is really interesting on a sort of human level.

Paddy O'Connell (7:01)

Yeah, I. I went up to Kokodi to meet him, sitting on a bunch of packing boxes counting loo rolls for his multi banks. And it's in. It's not just slightly from the Tony Blair Institute, it's completely and utterly different. And this detective work, Laura, you're suggesting to me he's going through the source files to get this done.

Laura Kuenssberg (7:23)

I mean, I don't know that, but it seems that way and it. And it could be that way. Remember though, also we know that he raised questions with the government about Peter Mandelson's time in office before this all broke. That was one of the news stories a few weeks ago, was that Gordon Brown had asked questions about this, I think back in September. So I don't know if he's sitting going through all of the files, but he's clearly taking this scandal incredibly seriously. As somebody who had their own insight, their own experience, their own access to what people were doing. And don't forget, when Andrew Mountbatten Windsor was a trade envoy, that meant he was working on behalf of the government.

Paddy O'Connell (8:01)

And do we think, Henry, that the government will tinker with the line of succession? And if it does tinker with the line of succession, will it involve Andrew and Sarah Ferguson's children, Beatrice and Eugenie?

Henry Zeffman (8:13)

It feels to me pretty inevitable that it will tinker with the line of succession at some point to remove Andrew Mountbatten Windsor from it. Though it's presumably likelier that that would happen after a legal process. So that might be somewhere down the track. Could, you know, even potentially be a different government? Who knows? In terms of the children, I mean, I think that's really one for a royal correspondent. I don't know what you think, but, you know, from my. I'm no royal expert, but I hear that, or I read rather the. The Prince of Wales, William, is quite close to Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. And I think that gets to the. The thing here, which is you have a family drama overlapping on a constitutional and royal and national scandal. And there's been talk, hasn't there, for years? And I'm interested in what Jenny Bond said on your program, Paddy, but there's been talk for years about how the King, the now King and certainly the future King William want a slimmed down monarchy. But there are still these people who when they are born, are very close to the top of the line of succession and then naturally over the decades become distant from the line of succession, but often still have grace and favour residences as both of Andrew's daughters do. You know, is that really sustainable over the coming weeks, months and years?

Paddy O'Connell (9:35)

They do pay rent, it's pointed out, but it's true, they do have access to them. I'm sorry, I don't know if you were about to go, but I was just going to say that Jennie Bond says there must be a change to the succession rules and that all of the former Yorks should come out.

Listener/Caller (9:48)

I think it's quite important to remove him and the whole of the York family, the daughters and their offspring, from the line of succession. I think it should be a neat, clean line of succession. William, his three children, then Anne and then Edward. That means a complete reversal of the way it is now, but I think that's how it should be. And it's not very difficult. It can't be. It just reminds me of customer services. A computer says, no, can't do it. Of course you can and you can do it quickly. Parliament could do it.

Paddy O'Connell (10:14)

And then, not only that, but because the Royal Family and the British Establishment didn't modernise this practice before, women automatically went to the back of the list. So if the. It's argued if the Royal Family had modernised previously with. I mean, they can't just do it themselves, Anne would have been ahead of Andrew. But because of the. The rule, which we would now judge to be sexist, women were told, get to the back, love. So you. Once you start looking at the rules of succession, I mean, I asked Andrew Marr and Jenny Bond if could name the 11th and 13th in line to the throne and they couldn't. Because Jenny Bond couldn't? No, because it's.

Laura Kuenssberg (10:50)

Jenny Bond couldn't?

Paddy O'Connell (10:50)

Well, no, because it's such. I went so far down the list because it's one of Eugenie's children is ahead of Anne under the existing rules. So the answer to your question, Henry, what did Jenny Bond say? A lot.

Laura Kuenssberg (11:03)

I think the question, though, is now prompting another bit of soul searching about the role of the monarchy and should it change or has it been damaged and how much it has been damaged. And I suppose the question for our newscasters, and we'd love to know what you think, is, is this a case where you think, well, there's one person who appears to have done dreadful things in a family, leave the rest of them alone, it doesn't make a difference. Or actually, is this one of these things where his behavior was sort of tolerated and he was only gradually edged out of the family over many, many years? And actually the palace must have known things and therefore the whole institution gets dragged into disrepute because of this. And, you know, we can't be sure where public opinion is going to end on this at all, you know, and different people, of course, will have different views. But Boris Johnson, who he spoke to about Ukraine, as we were talking about yesterday, he said, actually, in a way, it is a good thing that this can happen in this country. That law, you know, affects everybody without fear or favor. And he told us that actually the public's faith in the monarchy is sort of unshakable.

Jenny Bond (12:09)

I think that the Royal Family is an amazingly resilient institution. I think it has an absolutely unshakable place in the hearts of The British people and the institution of the monarchy has an unshakable place in the hearts of British people. It will go on, it will recover from all of this. I think the only conclusion I really draw from this is what an amazing and wonderful country this is in the sense of the. I don't think there are many countries around the world where you would have a figure like the former Prince being subject to the law in the way that he clearly is and should be, as the King has said. So this will blow over.

Laura Kuenssberg (12:52)

So it's a good thing.

Jenny Bond (12:54)

This will blow up. And I certainly think that, if anything, I think that the position of the monarchy will be entrenched.

Laura Kuenssberg (13:03)

It's interesting, isn't it, because we've talked about this a bit last week, that era when politicians wouldn't say anything at all about the monarchy. They'll just say, I'm not going to say anything about that. No comment. Nice try. Jog on or get to the back of the queue, love. As Paddy just said to me, that era has changed. That time has. Has passed. And yes, politicians are still careful about what they say, but the taboo of politicians commenting on anything to do with the Royal Family has disappeared, which is an interesting thing in and of itself.

Henry Zeffman (13:32)

I mean, I think it is helped by the fact, and I think this gets to the line of succession stuff as well. To many people, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor will not be what they think of as the monarchy. What they think of as the monarchy is the King, the Queen and the direct descendants, you know, the people who are going to be king that we know of, that is William and George. And I do think, you know, there's an element, isn't there, where the discussion about the line of succession can be seen as a kind of displacement activity for a broader conversation about the monarchy. Because Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is never going to be King, whether they remove him from the line of succession or not. If he is, then some sort of unbelievable national tragedy has happened. And so, you know, I think you will probably see in Parliament this coming week and perhaps over the coming months and years, those who want the government to engage more deeply with a bigger conversation about the monarchy, trying to push it towards questions of what the King and what the future kings might be willing to do about this.

Paddy O'Connell (14:47)

We focus on the part of the Internet that most people don't know about. It's called the Dark Web.

Narrator (Dark Web segment) (14:54)

Undercover, in the furthest corners of the Dark Web, US special agents are on a mission to locate and rescue children from abuse.

Laura Kuenssberg (15:03)

Move in now.

Narrator (Dark Web segment) (15:04)

From the BBC World Service, World of Secrets, the darkest web follows their shocking investigations. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your BBC podcasts.

Laura Kuenssberg (15:20)

So today is a day of education, education, education. Whether it's special needs for kids who need extra help at school or student finance, which is rising up the rails as a political issue. And how much graduates are having to pay back for their student loans.

Paddy O'Connell (15:35)

Yeah, because the answer is more every time they pay off more. If you're on the plan two, we'll come to that in a second. First, there's an acronym which has been dominating the airwaves on this subject. It is Send S E N D

Laura Kuenssberg (15:50)

Special Educational Needs or Disabilities. And there's another acronym, ehcp Education and Health Care Plan. Now, forget about the Alphabet soup. The system that gives support to kids who need extra help at school is universally acknowledged to be a complete mess. This government has spent the last 18 months trying to work out ways to change it. But during that time there has been rising anxiety from lots of families who are desperately worried about losing the support that in many cases they had to fight ridiculously hard to get. The other important part here is that the bill for helping these kids has been going up and up and up and up and up. So it's not unreasonable to suggest, as many people would, that it is becoming messier and messier, ineffective and increasingly unaffordable. Enter then, Henry Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary who's got to try and sort out the system in England.

Henry Zeffman (16:45)

Yes. And it will be published in this white paper which looks more broadly as well at the school system tomorrow. She wasn't over eager to divulge details to you on the program, but I think you did winkle some out of her in particular that. Well, I think the key question that you kept asking her, and it will be a key question in terms of how these plans are received by Labour MPs as well, was whether children who receive support as it stands would no longer receive that support, whether there would be any changes to that. And she said, I'm not going to remove effective support. I thought that word effective was quite an important choice of words from her. I don't know if you felt the same. And she also acknowledged that some children would be reassessed now under the current system. That is meant to happen anyway, but it's not always clear that it does in the way that it is sort of meant to happen under the rules as they're set up.

Laura Kuenssberg (17:45)

I think that's absolutely right. So what stood out to me was that she basically in the end said, yes, children will have their needs reviewed and their provision reviewed. And that has been what is the heart of the difficulty for the government here is by even mentioning that they are going to try and reform special needs education. That caused ripples of anxiety which end up in MPS inboxes with worried constituents saying, is the government going to take something away from my family? Now the government wants to emphasize, in their view this is not the, the principle of this is not about removing support, but it's a very difficult balance to strike here. They're saying they want to get better support to people earlier on. They don't want parents to be stuck in a sort of never ending expensive legal battle. They want to have more kids getting better support in mainstream schools. But the practicalities of making that happen are very difficult. Interesting too though to note and I think it's important in this, they're looking to move towards a new system from 2029. So this is a long period of changes and a complicated system. It's not something that's going to happen overnight. But there might be political trouble on it, you know, there really might be political trouble. Even though ministers have been trying very hard to bring backbenchers into these conversations before the proposals finally emerge into the

Paddy O'Connell (19:06)

light of day tomorrow because it's 20% of children receive some kind of support for special educational needs or disabilities. And one of the things that happens in a child's life is that the government changes several times and therefore if you're in the family that is working hard with the authorities to get this sorted out. If a big policy change is even disgust on the horizon, you think, ah, that's exactly when my child's going to be 14. So it becomes a giant political issue, much as of course spending on adults who need have welfare needs. It's part of the bigger argument, how much money does the country not have? And every time Labour tries to get its backbenchers to spend less of the money that we do not have, the backbenchers don't like it.

Laura Kuenssberg (19:53)

That's right. And there are elements of this plan where you can think already, I wonder if backbenchers are going to put up with that. Will backbenchers, for example, be on board with the notion that kids will be reassessed when they go from primary to secondary school? That is a moment for many families. It's like peak stress of a kid moving from one setting to another. Will they be on board with that? Don't know. How is an individual MP going to explain These changes to people who are already worried by the very notion of change coming down the track. We should also just say these are about changes in England only. But if you look around the uk, you know, the same pattern of messy system stressed parents, schools feeling. The pressure is there in the other parts of the UK too.

Paddy O'Connell (20:39)

Yeah, because I was going to say we have a devolved system of education, but if there was one home nation that had aced this, with happy parents, happy children, happy teachers, happy government, we could just copy it in the other home nation.

Laura Kuenssberg (20:52)

Well, that's right. And Wales, interestingly, did a big reform of this. They call it ALN Alternative Learning Needs a few years ago, and they made some big changes, but that hasn't been universally welcomed either. So the problems are familiar in the different parts of the uk, even though the approaches are a bit different in each, because the education systems are a bit different in each. And as you say, they're. They're. They're devolved. Henry, how vulnerable do you think the government is to their backbenchers kicking off on this issue?

Henry Zeffman (21:17)

Pretty vulnerable. I mean, I guess the way of framing it slightly reductive, but it's the question that's being asked at the top of government is, is this the new welfare? Are the government at risk of having to back down, as they were a year or so ago now on changes to welfare? And I think there are some pretty key differences in how they've approached it. The welfare proposals were, though the government claimed otherwise, perceived by Labour MPs as a way of saving a certain amount of money quickly in order to get them scored by the Office for Budget. Responsibility for an oncoming spring statement. That is not what's happening here, certainly not the way that the government is framing it. The lead in is much longer. There is much more sort of reassurance being given to Labour MPs. All that being said, you do come back to the fundamental point that you raised, Laura, which is that even if the government approaches this as sensitively as it is trying to, there will inevitably be concerned parents in the inboxes of Labour MPs, and there is just a kind of question of how Labour MPs then respond and how they then act towards Bridget Phillipson, which I think is kind of unknowable until they start getting those emails, as they surely will probably from tomorrow.

Laura Kuenssberg (22:41)

And it's just going to be a massive communication job for the government here if they want to get these proposals through. You know, that's one of these classic things. It's a Big argument. They want to make it. They don't want to make people anxious. They want the system to be better. They've taken a long time to come up with these proposals, and they would take a long time to implement. But it is something that is going to be a big and possibly angry political conversation, not least because the opposition parties are not on board with all of it. Yeah.

Paddy O'Connell (23:08)

And just with respect to newscasters who's. This is their life.

Henry Zeffman (23:11)

Yeah.

Laura Kuenssberg (23:12)

It's huge.

Paddy O'Connell (23:12)

I. I want to say that you. You just said, typically a fascinating thing, Henry, which is, is this going to be the new welfare? I just think in a way, everything's the new welfare because we were talking about the defense spending, more money that we don't have being promised earlier than we did, the money we didn't have before we were going to be spending. And I just think in a way that's almost like everything's the new welfare.

Laura Kuenssberg (23:34)

Yeah. And it's. But it's the product of two things that don't sit happily together, is you have a government that is not popular and a government where budgets are going up and they are spending more money, but things just as they have for families around the country have got much more expensive, and there are more demands on the public purse at a time when there's a lot of pressure on it. And an unhappy party and an unhappy government has to make difficult decisions. And obviously, if you're an unhappy and unpopular government, it's a lot harder to do that than if you are a happy and popular government that has a good track record at explaining difficult things. This government does not have a good track record at explaining difficult things to the public, and that is a problem. And changing the education system is a big and difficult thing to do. So we'll have to see how they fare.

Paddy O'Connell (24:30)

So we promised to also talk about older young people, students. And under a change in the loans system introduced when the Conservatives led a coalition government, students on Plan 2 funding can find that even though they try and pay the loan off, they owe more after making payments, and it's been covered more and more. You described it as rising up the political escalator. And so Kemi Badenoch has ridden into the Sunday Telegraph with an article, which is why I mentioned the fact that the Conservatives were there with the first change. And now Kemi Badenoch's implying she wants to see the system changed back.

Laura Kuenssberg (25:10)

That's right. So Plan 2 loans are loans that were given out between 2012 and 2023, and essentially, as well as just the Fact that interest racks up. The concern is that basically, as I said, one of our viewers feels like the government's been acting like loan sharks here because the rates of interest are seen by many people to be punishingly high. And in the recent budget, the Chancellor froze some of the thresholds too, in coming in future years. So there's a sense that this issue of student debt is becoming more and more fractious. Enter then the Conservatives seeing giant, big political opportunity here. So that is their plan. They want to cut the amount of interest that gets charged, but in order to do that, to get the money for it, they would get rid of a hundred thousand university places. This was how Laura Cho justified that choice. The Shadow Education Secretary this morning.

Bridget Phillipson (25:59)

We're going to stop the government funding dead end university courses because we know

Laura Kuenssberg (26:03)

which course is a dead end, because

Bridget Phillipson (26:05)

we know the IFS says that for 30% of young people going to university, it has negative returns for them. That is not okay. It's bad for them and it's also bad for the public because we spend about 8 billion pounds a year funding these courses.

Laura Kuenssberg (26:20)

But which courses would you see come to an end then?

Bridget Phillipson (26:23)

So what we would do is we take up about 100,000 of those. We would do it on the base of people. It is a lot of people, but we're spending the money on alleviating the debt issue for lots of people out there and also increasing apprenticeships. So there's a real choice when it comes to 18, whether you go to university, you have a brilliant apprenticeship or you go out to work.

Laura Kuenssberg (26:42)

It's interesting, isn't it? So this is a clear political choice. She went on to say, okay, well, some creative arts courses would be the ones in the firing line. But it's a clear political divide here. You've got the Tories saying, basically, let's get rid of some university courses in order to make it more reasonable, more affordable for people who do go. And it's a big divide between labor and the Conservatives.

Paddy O'Connell (27:03)

Yeah, I think it's fascinating. I was so pleased to hear you ask the question, what courses would you then take out?

Laura Kuenssberg (27:08)

Yeah.

Paddy O'Connell (27:09)

You know, sort of in the eye of the beholder because, you know, obviously it's very useful to the country to do electrical engineering, but it's also very important for many of us to even live with the news cycle, to see a great movie or read a great book. So we do actually want people to be able to spell and write.

Laura Kuenssberg (27:29)

And whose choice is it? It's for government to tell us what to Study or not to study now? Yeah, if the taxpayer is contributing towards that cost, well, then maybe it is. But actually, doesn't that then move into sort of personal freedom and personal choices? A really interesting political area.

Paddy O'Connell (27:46)

Henry, to Laura's point, how sur surprised have you been as a Westminster watcher, as we like to call Westminster watchers, to see this issue which has been hiding in plain sight, really, except for the millions of people who are paying it, to see student loans rise up the agenda?

Henry Zeffman (28:03)

Well, I think it's fascinating because I think it is quite clearly a generational effect. We now have a non negligible number of MPs as well, dare I say it, as journalists who are on these Plan 2 loans and are aware in a way that is much more real than some numbers on a Treasury budget document of what these Plan 2 loans look like in practice. So I do think it is a sort of generational thing of having people of influence in Westminster who have lived 10 to 14 years of these loans. So I think that's really interesting. I think I completely agree with Laura that this is becoming a problem for the government. I think they are going to have to have an answer on this. I mean, Bridget Phillipson said, and it's a completely fair point, this is a system that was brought in by the Conservatives and in some ways altered by the Conservatives over more recent years too.

Laura Kuenssberg (29:01)

I will look at it, of course I will. The reality is that we inherited a system and the Conservatives left behind this system. System, the system they're now complaining about. That does have problems. It does, but there are also problems when you seek to make changes happen. The chancellor changed the thresholds, so the Chancellor froze the thresholds, which has made the situation more acute. This is not having nothing to do with you. The threshold is going up this year, so students will be paying less in years to come. Yes, it will be frozen. But this is a system that developed over many, many years, came in in 2012, 13 was not a system that

Henry Zeffman (29:36)

we designed the kinds of people who they need to appeal to here. And I think, by the way, there is almost no Labour coalition for victory at the next general election, which doesn't involve a lot of people on Plan 2 loans voting Labour. They are not considering voting Conservative instead in large numbers. If you look at the polls, they're considering voting Green. So, you know, Bridget Phillipson is saying to them, well, the Conservatives brought these in and I think a lot of those people on these loans will think, yeah, sure, but what is the Labour government going to do about it? And I think just one more point, I mean, Richard Cole said on your panel, Laura, why has it taken so long for the send white paper to come after Labour got into government? And I do think there is a sort of broader question on the education space send university fees. Neither of these were unknown problems to the Labour Party through their years in opposition. And yet actually increasingly quite deep into their first term in office, in government, they are looking like they're sort of grappling around for answers which might still take some time to come into practice. I think that is a little bit politically dangerous for the government.

Laura Kuenssberg (30:46)

I think it is and I think it's one of the quite legitimate criticisms for the government that's been made by many people. I wouldn't be the first person to say it is that the plans that they said were very well developed in opposition and they would be ready to hit the ground running. That has proven not to be the case in lots of different areas. And this government has been very fond of having consultations and reviews. And now even the process of a white paper takes a long time before you then actually get laws going through parliament and all the rest of it. So the sense of urgency, I think it is fair to say, has not always been universal in this government and they are now not far off two years in charge.

Paddy O'Connell (31:21)

And on a closing and brighter note.

Laura Kuenssberg (31:24)

Oh, let's have a brighter Note.

Paddy O'Connell (31:25)

Well, of 118 year olds, a proportion don't go to university and a proportion do, but many, with whatever route they choose, do have a very great start in life with many friends, many new things to learn, many opportunities. They start businesses. And there is, of course, you know, alongside the, the payment factor, we do want young people to enjoy being young and grow and discover and invent and so we mustn't just be. Just beat everyone into pessimism. You can go to university and have a fabulous time and learn things and it can improve your life and you cannot go to university and with a great family support or a mate, you know, who start a business. So we don't want to be the people. I mean, Jeremy Hunt accused me, didn't

Laura Kuenssberg (32:08)

he, of being a doomster.

Paddy O'Connell (32:09)

Being a doomster, which I don't think is fair. Jeremy Hunt, but he's welcome. He should, he should come on newscasts and say things he wants. But I think it's an important point, actually. We don't want newscasters who are 18 to think, I listen to those people wanging on and it's all doom, doom.

Laura Kuenssberg (32:24)

It's not all doom. The world is a wonderful place and there are always lots of interesting and exciting things to talk about and to do in your lives. And if you're an 18 year old newscaster, tell us actually, or a 19 year old or a 20 year old newscaster, tell us whether or not this conversation about finance is affecting the decisions that you might make for your future. Because that's another interesting sideline to all of this, including the some students who were at university during COVID who are taking universities to court to try and get some of their cash back. So that's another interesting story on the education agenda. I think that's probably brought us to the end of Sunday's newscast. Can I shamelessly say to people, I really do think it is worth listening to the full conversation with the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the former head of the military, Admiral Sutoni Radican. We go back in time to the beginning of the Ukraine war. We ask them what now and what next? There are two people who've been absolutely at the heart of managing leading the UK's response to that conflict. So that is on BBC Science for your listening pleasure should you desire what's on iplayer as well.

Paddy O'Connell (33:25)

Well, I don't think it's shameless. People are dying in Ukraine because Russia's invasion. So look, enough from me. Henry, something to mark our diary for the week ahead.

Henry Zeffman (33:35)

Well, we've talked a lot about the Gorton and Denton by election. We talked a lot, of course, about the circumstances of Labour not letting Andy Burnham become their candidate there. Well, it is taking place on Thursday. I'll be there overnight on Thursday and on Friday morning. And I think the result will be truly fascinating, genuinely, whatever happens. And a lot of the parties privately are acknowledging that they really don't know what will happen, that it really could go quite a few different ways. So that's going to be fascinating.

Laura Kuenssberg (34:06)

It certainly will be hugely interesting and it might, you never know, have consequences for Keir Starmer's leadership. But that's all for the Sunday's newscast. Shall we say goodbye?

Paddy O'Connell (34:14)

Goodbye.

Jenny Bond (34:15)

Goodbye.

Paddy O'Connell (34:16)

Newscast.

Bridget Phillipson (34:17)

Newscast from the BBC.

Chris Mason (34:19)

Thank you so much for making it to the end of newscast. You clearly copyright Chris Mason ooze stamina. Can I gently encourage you to subscribe to us on BBC Sounds? Don't forget, you can email us anytime. It's newscastbc.co.uk and if you would like to join our Discord community to talk about everything newscast related, there is a link in the description of this podcast. And don't be scared, it's super easy to click on it and then get set up. Or you can WhatsApp us on 033-01-239480 and I promise you, we read and listen to every single message. Thanks for listening to this podcast by.

Paddy O'Connell (35:06)

We focus on the part of the Internet that most people don't know about. It's called the Dark Web.

Narrator (Dark Web segment) (35:12)

Undercover in the furthest corners of the Dark Web, US Special agents are on a mission to locate and rescue children from abuse.

Laura Kuenssberg (35:21)

Move in now, please.

Narrator (Dark Web segment) (35:23)

From the BBC World Service World of Secrets, the Darkest Web follows their Shocking Investigations list. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your BBC podcasts.