Katja Adler (2:35)

Newscast, Newscast, Newscast from the BBC.

James Landale (2:39)

Fat Boy Slim and me in the classroom doing our violin lessons.

Adam Fleming (2:42)

I was the tattletale in the classroom.

James Landale (2:44)

Can I have an apology, please?

Joe Pike (2:45)

I trust almost nobody.

James Landale (2:47)

Then daddy has to sometimes use strong language.

Katja Adler (2:49)

Next time in Moscow I feel Delulu with no Sululu.

Joe Pike (2:53)

Take me down to Downing Street.

Adam Fleming (2:54)

Let's go have a tour.

Joe Pike (2:56)

Blimey.

Adam Fleming (2:57)

Hello, it's Adam in the newscast studio.

Joe Pike (2:59)

It's Joe pike at Westminster.

James Landale (3:00)

And it's James also in the newscast studio.

Adam Fleming (3:03)

And joining us from the road is Katja Adler. Hello, Katja.

Katja Adler (3:06)

Hello.

Adam Fleming (3:07)

Right, we're gonna have a bit of a security themed conversation because what they did in Munich over the weekend we're gonna do in the newscast studio a day later. Katja, you were there. You've written a very long and very interesting piece for the BBC news website about some of the things that you picked up. We'll go through a lot of them. But what's the number one thing you have come away from Munich thinking about European and global security?

Katja Adler (3:31)

That's a great question, Adam. Do you have a few hours? I think what Munich was really important about is if you think back to last month and the Greenland crisis and a lot of talk of our transatlantic relations over and all the rest of it, you know, that Europe has relied on Western Europe at least in the last 80 years since the Second World War. I mean, that's always very much black and white thinking, isn't it? Realistically speaking, you know, there is no way that Europe can tear away from the United States, even if you just think about security and defence, which is obviously foremost in my mind right now. After Munich, Europe, even though most countries have pledged to spend a lot more on defense, we are still massively reliant on the United States for intelligence, for example, for command and control, for all sorts of, you know, Air Force capabilities and all sorts of things. So an immediate overnight breakaway is just impossible. Anyway, I think what Munich was key to see was where we are in the more nuanced future because I think, you know, there is a before and an after. Donald Trump's return to the White House last year, the US Vice President spoke at the Munich Security Conference. JD Vance and it was just one of those moments where Europe froze because he basically insulted Europe. You know, he talked about, you know, the culture wars. He said that there was a lack of freedom of speech in Europe and so on and so forth. He didn't meet any German leaders except the, the AFD on, on the hard right. That caused a big shock this year. The White House. White House chose to be represented by Marco Rubio, the US State Secretary. Now that was a definite intentional choice because J.D. vance had been literally just down the road from Munich at the opening of the Olympic Games in Italy just a couple of days before. But he was sent home. Marco Rubio came to Munich seen as more softly spoken, somebody who understands international diplomacy a lot more. And I mean, it was the most eagerly anticipated speech of the conference. It is very speechy. And Adam, of course it's really easy to dismiss these things as kind of like wind baggy talking shops. But the fact is that in a time of turmoil that we now live in, they are quite useful, especially the behind the scenes in the corridors or just sort of in little huddle meetings that you have between leaders and policy makers and security experts. But yet everybody was waiting to hear from Marco Rubio. It was far more softly spoken. It was very much about kinship between the United States and Europe. But if you listened, and you'll laugh at this, because I was trying to tune in, I couldn't get in the room. I was trying to tune into the live feed just before I went on the Today program and I could only find it in German translation. So I was listening to Marco Rubio in ger. Anyway, if you're listening carefully, this was clearly a very conditional offer of partnership going forward. He said the US did not want allies who clung onto the old status quo. And he painted a picture of the future of a new Western kind of Christian civilization based on very specific values. And the essential message is we, the United States want to go this path with Europe, but you have to share those values and if not, we are able and willing to go it alone. Thought it was so telling in that room which was stuffed full of top European leaders, diplomats, policymakers. So many people got to their feet to applaud. I think they were just so relieved he didn't berate or threaten Europe that I'm not sure they were listening. It was almost like willful misinterpretation initially and it's only then after time it's really sunk in what he was really truly saying. Under the niceties, we can no longer.

Marco Rubio (quoted) (7:22)

Place the so called global order above the vital interests of our people and our nations. We do not need to abandon the system of international cooperation we authored and we don't need to dismantle the global institutions of the old order that together we built. But these must be reformed, these must be rebuilt.

Katja Adler (7:43)

How Europe then reacts. You know, it's looking far more divided than it was when there was the possible threat of the US Taking Greenland. You know that that territory of Denmark's by military force. Now that there were a few more softer words, you see European countries going in different directions. Those like France under Emmanuel Macron who say de risk, de risk, de risk from the United States, and others who say, well, maybe this is more softly approached by the Trump administration.

Adam Fleming (8:11)

And we'll zoom in on Germany in a second because there's some interesting things to note there about what Germany's doing. But James, over the weekend, Laura and Paddy and Joe were talking about the prime speech on Saturday. He sort of dropped a massive hint that the UK Might go further and faster on its defense spending plans. You've got a scoop today about what that could look like.

James Landale (8:30)

Yeah, this is one of these things where, you know, clearly the government is talking a lot about defense spending internally at the moment. And that's because last year it made a lot of big commitments. It had a big strategic defense review. There were lots of spending commitments at the NATO summit in the Hague. And, and the problem is that since then, the government, government hasn't really spelt out fully how it's going to afford this, pay for this, where the cash is going to come from, how it's going to be spent. And it's still having that discussion. There's a thing called a defense investment plan that's long awaited, supposed to be published last autumn. We still don't know when it's going to come out. And that's because this is really, really difficult, because I think what they've suddenly realized is they're not just facing a bigger threat from Russia with less defense underwriting from the United States. There's not that, just that geopolitical thing. There's also the nitty gritty bit, which is they're suddenly realizing that defense spending on existing commitments is going up. Defense, you know, inflation on defense procurement, the price of having wage to stand.

Adam Fleming (9:36)

Still, all of that.

James Landale (9:37)

So there's a sort of gap. And, and anybody in the military world will tell you they're running out of cash. And I think what we, I picked up remotely from Munich was that other allies are beginning to notice that now that the UK Is falling down the list of defense spenders in Europe, it's not coming. It's coming pretty late to a lot of NATO projects and commitments, and people are noticing it. So there's a very live debate. And basically what I've discovered is that one of the options that the Prime Minister and his team are thinking of looking at is basically taking one of the spending targets and, and bring, saying we're going to meet that earlier. So at the moment, to give you some numbers, the current plan is that the UK would have defense spending up to 2 and a half percent of national output by 2027 and then 3% in the next parliament. They want to bring that 3% ambition left on the timeline. So they meet it in this Parliament. But sounds like a few, you know, half percent here and there. It means billions.

Adam Fleming (10:32)

Yeah, because it's as a percentage of the whole economy. It's not a percentage of the government's existing budget. Yeah.

James Landale (10:37)

I spoke to a very clever person at the IFS who said that it would cost the government about 13 to 14 billion pounds extra per year on top of their.

Adam Fleming (10:46)

Per year.

James Landale (10:47)

Per year on top of their existing spending plans.

Adam Fleming (10:50)

Well, and Joe, we know how hard it is as people who watch politics and the politicians trying to get tax rises or spending cuts through Parliament, that that level of money is a very big sum. Think about the, the savings that the government wants to make to the welfare bill which was what, a third of that?

Joe Pike (11:06)

Absolutely. And it's interesting that already some in the union movement have responded to James Scoop trying to put pressure on the government to relax the so called fiscal rules. Sharon Graham, who leads Unite, the union, the second biggest trade union in the country, has said that treasury quotes bean counting must be abandoned. Now this is partly because of course Unite has various defence. This is partly because Unite represents many people at defence companies, including Leonardo. But the fact that they are so quickly intervening I think adds to pressure on the Prime Minister to try and get his Chancellor to maybe find a way of finding the cash. It does look very, very difficult. And of course there are many Labour MPs who maybe don't have defence manufacturers or defence companies in their constituency who will have other ideas of where those billions could be spent. And certainly historically there are some previous Labour leaders who would have a very different approach to investments in the military.

James Landale (12:10)

I think what Joe said is really interesting because actually on one level this isn't just a technical discussion about targets and NATO and defence. Increasingly more important, people are saying this needs to be a whole of society argument that ultimately whoever's in government over the next decade is going to have to increase defence spending to a point that stretches the social contract in a way it hasn't for years because it will require ultimately less being spent on welfare, less being spent on Health less being spent on education, pensions and all. Pensions and all of that. That will require political leadership. It will require, you know, preparing that, rolling the pitch, taking people with you. All of these things have not been in huge presence on the British political field for quite a long time because the change is so immense. And so I think that something that, that I think there are one or two people in government beginning to realize the scale of the task.

Adam Fleming (13:05)

And Katja, I'm thinking of countries you've been to where they, they sort of do that already because the threat of Russia feels much closer or because historically, for a country like Finland, defense of the homeland has been a thing that everyone has chipped into, as opposed to it being something that's done by a government department.

Katja Adler (13:23)

Yeah. And you can see the rift opening up across Europe. Of course, critics in the United States and Donald Trump is far from the first US President to say that Europe has to do more to invest in its own security. But, you know, in the US you have many voices that say the only reason that Europe has been able to enjoy such a generous welfare state in its society for so many decades is thanks to the US picking up the security bill no longer. So Donald Trump is saying this, but as his predecessors, but in a lot more of a. Of a forceful manner, but yet you can definitely see a rift opening up across Europe. So even though all NATO allies except Spain in the last NATO summit in June, under pressure from Donald Trump, said, yeah, we're going to massively increase our defence spending, you can see those countries close to Russia you mentioned Finland, the Nordics, the Baltics, but also increasingly Germany and the Netherlands. They are digging deep into their defence pockets. Southern Europe, much less so. I mean, Spain, you had Pedro Sanchez, the Spanish prime minister, who was in Munich this weekend, absolutely unapologetic about the fact that, that they do not intend to vastly increase defence spending. And then France and the uk, I mean, verbally, they've totally committed to increased defence spending, but they have this problem about levelling up with the voters because traditionally, you know, unless voters feel Russia breathing down their neck, for example, like when we talk about the Nordics and the Baltics, then they're going to put the cost of living crisis ahead generally of defence spending. So, you know, there's talk about how do governments find the sticking plaster and how do they level up with the electorate, that either there's going to be less welfare or there's going to be higher taxes, or you're going to have to do more borrowing. Now, for most European Countries, the coffers of the government are pretty empty already and overstretched and borrowing for countries already in debt like the UK or I mean really look at Italy for example, or Greece, that's going to cost so much more. Germany is in a very different situation. So what Germany has done on defense now is it has, and this is revolutionary for Germany. We've talked about it before, Adam. It has lifted its debt break B R A K E which for years has been in place like don't borrow, don't be in debt as a country. We just cannot do it. There is no ceiling now on defense spending. And when I was talking to the NATO Defense Secretary, Mark Ritter this weekend, he was saying, you know, it's astonishing how much Germany is now going to spend. It wants to spend 152 billion euros on defense by 2029. He said that is double what the UK and France intend to spend. Why 2029? Because the German defense ministry, as with NATO, reckons that by then Russia will be in a position to invade a NATO nation. And you have the authorities in Germany who are saying, look, this is still a safe country, but advising Germans to stock up on food for three to 10 days and saying that the possibility of war is no longer unlikely. And this is for the first time since the Cold War. So I mean there was just a poll out by Eurobarometer and It suggests that 68% of Europeans across the continent feel directly threatened. So these are the times that we're in. And that threat perception suggests that people are much more open to increased defence spending. But of course, if you say, well, would you rather longer waiting lists in hospital or more spending on defence? I mean those are the difficult questions that the governments have to tackle.

Adam Fleming (16:57)

And James, just to sum up, the different world that this Munich security conference was held in, there's one thing that really jumps out at me. The idea that Germany might like to have a nuclear weapon or at least be allied with the nuclear programs of other countries like France and Britain. That just sort of for me sums up what a different world it is now and joins the dots with what Katya was saying there. But massively increased defence spending by Germany.

James Landale (17:21)

Nuclear weapons used to have a certain sort of taboo about them. And you know, there are various, you know, treaties and commitments and non proliferation treaties and things like that. But now increasingly countries want a slice of the action. They want some kind of COVID Yeah, look, if the, the Americans are beginning to pull away from underwriting European security, more people are saying, well, you know, can we Get a slice of the French or the. Or the British nuclear umbrella. You've got countries in Asia, South Korea, Japan. Also looking at those, we know that Polish politicians have started saying we need to start thinking about having our own independent nuclear capability. You know, they're all hearing, you know, the Ukrainians saying repeatedly over the last four years, if only we had had the nuclear weapons that the Soviet ones that they gave up in the deal that they now bitterly regret relying on, on the gas security guarantees of the Russians, European allies, which came to naught. So, yeah, so there is now a space now where countries are beginning to think, actually, yes, we need to think differently about this in a way that is. It's fascinating because just that taboo is just disappearing.

Adam Fleming (18:35)

James, thank you very much and thanks for your scoop.

James Landale (18:38)

Thank you very much. Always happy to provide.

Adam Fleming (18:40)

And Catcher, good to catch up with you too. And well done for getting the correct name for the Winter Olympics, because it is the Olympic Winter Games, not the Winter Olympics. Phil Marks.

Katja Adler (18:52)

Adam, thank you. It was lovely to talk to you.

Adam Fleming (18:54)

The gold award for pedantry goes to me.

Joe Pike (18:57)

Thank you.

Adam Fleming (18:59)

Right, Joe, just while I've got you a few things to catch up on, Westminster wise, just the news is broken as we were recording this episode of newscast on Monday early afternoon, that the plans to postpone some of the local elections in England because the local authorities might not be ready for the new governance structures in their patches. The government government's U turns. Those elections are going to go ahead.

Joe Pike (19:20)

After all, they are all 30 of them. After government legal advice and of course a legal challenge from Reform uk, The argument for delay had been, look, if we're going to reorganise the councils and maybe this district council won't even exist in a year or two, why have an expensive election for it? Of course, the sort of democratic deficit that that would have left some areas with wasn't great. And if you look at the 30 different councils where the delay has now been scrapped and the elections will go ahead, 15 of them were Labour controlled, 4 Tory, 1 Liberal Democrat, and 10 with no overall control of any different party, none of them Reform uk. So it's perfectly possible that Reform UK will be optimistic about their chances if there are an extra 30 possible councils they can contest in a matter of months.

Adam Fleming (20:13)

And the official statement from the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government says, following legal advice, the government's withdrawn its original decision to postpone 30 local elections in May. And I just think the first three words there, following legal advice is so interesting, I would love to see that legal advice, because that would then shed some light on whether they're actually going ahead with this in the first place, was actually completely barmy and actually a terrible lapse of judgment or assessment of the situation by the ministers at the time.

Joe Pike (20:42)

Yeah, I mean, it always seems slightly bold, but others have raised eyebrows, including the Electoral Commission in recent days. And I think what the government have realised is this could be even more expensive in the courts if they plough ahead. Did the legal advice change as well? I mean, it is embarrassing, it doesn't look good. But I suppose by slipping it out one afternoon at the start of the half term holidays, they may be hoping that it doesn't get as much coverage as it would if MPs were getting angry in Parliament. All of this.

Adam Fleming (21:14)

Joe, one of the other stories you were discussing with Laura and Paddy at the weekend was about these reports that Labor Together, which is a sort of think tank slash campaign group, was being investigated for a report it had commissioned from a firm looking into the work of two journalists on the Sunday Times who'd been writing stories about Labor Together, which I think is a fair summary of what the story was.

Joe Pike (21:37)

Absolutely.

Adam Fleming (21:38)

Where has the story gone today or Monday?

Joe Pike (21:41)

Today the Prime Minister has announced an investigation is underway within government into all of this, which might confuse newscasters because why does is Labour Together anything to do with the government? Well, our understanding is that because Josh Simons, the now Cabinet Office minister, but then chief Executive of Labour Together, because he's a government minister, the propriety and ethics team are looking into all of this. It might be quite a quick process, but that is the team that's named it's names that often pops up when there is a minister in some form of sort of ethics or propriety tangle. They are there to maintain high standards across government. And what Keir Starmer has said today at a public appearance is that it's quite right this investigation is underway. But he did not know that this lobbying and PR firm were looking into journalists or their sources in 2023. The first he knew of it is when he read about it. There is a separate investigation into the lobbying firm itself, APCO Worldwide, being undertaken by the trade body for PR firms, the prca. So that communications trade body has a member which is apco, and therefore it's investigating its own member to see if it has adhered to its code of conduct.

Adam Fleming (23:06)

I just wonder if the Cabinet Office propriety and Ethics team can look into this as much as people might think they could do, because it's an Organization outside government, Labor Together, it's somebody who is its chief exec, who's a minister now, but wasn't a minister then. And so it's not like they're not like the FBI. They can't just march in and demand to see every old email that anyone ever sent.

Joe Pike (23:29)

Absolutely. It's tricky, it's difficult. But I suppose what they're trying to work out, and work out fast is, has he done anything unethical and should he remain in post? One thing the Conservatives have highlighted, which we spotted Googling his sort of portfolio, his ministerial portfolio earlier, is that one of his duties is that he looks after the government's inquiry policy. And, okay, this is not a public inquiry into his behaviour, but it is an internal investigation. The Tories and their chairman, Kevin Hollenreich, saying that he should step back from being in charge of that part of policy. Josh Simonds, though, has basically said that what this lobbying firm did went well beyond what he had requested of them. They were worried. Labour Together at the time. He argues that there had been some form of leak or some form of hack, and therefore they wanted to look into that. He has said that the company he ultimately commissioned, and we understand paid over £30,000 to do some of this work, went beyond what he'd asked for. And that included them looking into the personal life, the relationship relationships and even the religious views of one of the journalists on the Sunday Times who had uncovered some of the sort of controversial funding arrangements about Labour Together, because a key part of that story was that Labour Together hadn't registered on time more than £700,000 worth of political donations, although they have always said that was an admin error.

Adam Fleming (25:07)

And there's this word that's been bandied around quite a lot with tied up with Keir Starmer's fate, which is a word that you hear often in the Labour Party of the Labour Movement, factionalism. And sometimes it can seem very vague to an outsider, but actually there's an example here of factionalism. Labour Together was a faction that was a pro Starmer faction within the Labour Party. And now people who are members of other factions, for example, John McDonnell, former shadow chancellor, now Labour backbencher, he's a very prominent member of another faction in labor. And you see the fights that are ideological kind of playing out in a more sort of processy way here, can't you?

Joe Pike (25:44)

Absolutely, they certainly are, Adam. And I would say one thing that is vital to understand this particular faction, if you want to call abe, but is that or Part of that faction is that the way it operated seemed to be, according to some critics and some commentators, as a bit of a Trojan horse. The intentions of Labour Together was not clear at the start and the lack of transparency around the scale of donations they were getting was part of that. Because it is argued, Morgan McSweeney wanted to spend a lot of money working out what Labour members wanted in their next leader were Jeremy Corbyn not to win the 2019 election. They got all this data and they backed the person they thought would be able to fulfil that. And it was only later, once Keir Starmer was in control of all the levers of the Labour Party and tightening his grip on various internal committees, that it became clear what Morgan McSweeney had done. And of course, Keir Starmer's tacked the right, really, or tacked to the centre of Labour politics after, certainly during the leadership election, seeming to put forward a more left wing prospectus. Now, the views of people like John McDonnell and others on the left of the party is different to what they thought of Labour Together at the time. And that's perhaps one reason why that criticism is coming thick and fast.

Adam Fleming (27:20)

And Joe, a last word on this from the lobbying firm itself.

Joe Pike (27:23)

Yeah, they kept quiet initially on this story, but they have now said they are in the process of undertaking a detailed internal review of the project and they're cooperating with this trade body, the prca, that they're members of in their investigation into what happened here.

Adam Fleming (27:39)

And Jill, we're getting our money's worth. Because another story in British politics today is the government having another attempt at taming Big Tech, or at least the effects of Big Tech and social media on children and young people. Now, I have to confess, when I was coming back from my trip last week or this weekend and I was reading the number 10 press release about what Keir Starmer was actually going to do today, what was very clear was the rhetoric. It was clear he wanted to look like he was getting tough and protecting children. What was less clear to me was actually what's going on. And then as I read further, it's because there's a whole package of things going on here with different timelines.

Joe Pike (28:12)

Absolutely. I mean, I suppose what he wants to talk about or the message he wants to get across is that he takes all of this seriously. I think it's not happened particularly fast, but the government now are certainly aware that public interest and public views on this are pretty strong. Parents are interested in it, and the way Keir Starmer has framed. It is interesting too, saying, I know how you as a parent feel because I've got two teenagers myself. I suppose the key sort of timeline that newscasters should be aware of is that next month the consultation will start on various measures that could include social media ban for under 16s. That will last a few months, three months, we think, and then just before the summer. So what's that? Late June, maybe early July, the government will set up their proposals which could include a social media ban. One thing we found out today is what they want to do is amend the Children's well Being and Schools Bill, which would effectively let the government implement their proposals via secondary legislation. Maybe something like a statutory instrument. This is controversial because if there were to be significant changes, MPs would be able to debate it. The government says there will be a vote on principle, but with a statutory instrument, you either approve or reject it. You can't amend it. Now, these are normally used to sort of update bits of legislation. If there was a new substance that needed to be added to drugs that were illegal, that would be done with an si. But this is such a big bit of policy and it could have an effect on loads of people's lives. There are some MPs who are already murmuring that it could be problematic if it's. If it's just done this way. And there isn't enough debate in terms of two small things that have also been announced today. One is bringing AI chatbots into the Ofcom online safety bill crosshairs into that regime because there has been a concern and specific, really, really worrying cases of children having dangerous conversations with online chatbots which perhaps lead to tragic circumstances and therefore they're being brought into the regime. Also more details on data prevention. If a child dies, a coroner will now be able to contact Ofcom to ensure that accounts are kept and data is kept, because they could be really significant in helping parents or indeed the authorities understand if there's anything on those accounts which has contributed to a child's death.

Adam Fleming (31:04)

Joe, we've had a newscaster send in a very important question and it's a sort of a similar ilk to the Sound alike that I was starting today's episode with. But it's a lookalike and it's related to you.

Joe Pike (31:15)

Right?

Adam Fleming (31:15)

Okay, here is the question. Joe pike resembles Justin Webb. Are they related?

Joe Pike (31:21)

Justin Webb? I mean, I've had a lot of them in my day, but never Justin Webb. I'm not aware of a DNA match quite yet.

Adam Fleming (31:28)

Well, I mean, I'D be surprised if the there was. But then that's because I know you, not because there's anything more suspicious going on there. Something realized. I said that in quite a weird way. But anyway, that I just meant I know that you're not related to Justin Webb. It's what what I was getting at. Presumably people just see great analysis and suaveness and think, oh, they must be kind.

Joe Pike (31:50)

I mean, some of the same two are not quite as. I'm. I'm. I'm. I'm actually touched by the comparison. He's a legend. But I mean, they're a. There are not. There are other people who've compared me to. Yeah, people who are less. I'm less like who? I shouldn't say. Oh, but I'm touched.

Adam Fleming (32:09)

Keep your look alikes private.

Joe Pike (32:10)

Exactly.

Adam Fleming (32:11)

And that's all for this episode of Newscast. Thanks very much for listening. We'll be back with another one very soon.

Joe Pike (32:16)

Thanks, Adam.

Marco Rubio (quoted) (32:16)

Bye bye.

Joe Pike (32:17)

Newscast.

Katja Adler (32:18)

Newscast from the BBC.

BBC Newscast Outro Host (32:19)

Well, thank you for making it to the end of another newscast. You clearly ooze stamina. Can I gently encourage you to subscribe to us on BBC Sounds? And then, without having to do anything else, our meandering chat will miraculously make its way to your phone.

MyFico Advertiser (32:46)

A fresh financial you is closer than you think. With MyFico, you can get the right score for your credit goal, including your FICO scores used for mortgages, auto loans and credit cards. MyFICO provides your FICO score straight from the people that created it. And you can compare your FICO scores and credit reports from all three bureaus, Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax, side by side. Understanding your credit has never been easier, so use MyFico to get a clearer picture of your credit in 2026. Visit MyFico.com or download the MyFico app to get started today.