Laura Kuenssberg (2:37)

So to help us explore this, we'll be joined by our Friend and colleague Gary o' Donoghue across the pond and a shameless pluck. I've also been talking to one of our former prime ministers about the impending terrible anniversary. People never thought we might reach the anniversary of four years since the beginning of the war in Ukraine. Newscast, Newscast from the BBC.

Gary O'Donoghue (2:58)

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

Laura Kuenssberg (3:01)

I was the tattletale in the class.

Paddy O'Connell (3:02)

Can I have an apology, please?

Gary O'Donoghue (3:04)

I trust almost nobody that daddy has to sometimes use strong language. Next time in mosque.

Laura Kuenssberg (3:10)

I feel delulu with no salulu. Take me down the Downing Street.

Tony Radakin (3:13)

Let's go have a tour.

Paddy O'Connell (3:15)

Blimey. Hello, it's Paddy in the studio and

Laura Kuenssberg (3:19)

it's Laura in the studio.

Paddy O'Connell (3:20)

And shortly we'll meet Gary in another studio. But before we get there, we've got to do some terms of reference.

Laura Kuenssberg (3:25)

We do. So tariffs. Tariffs are taxes on imports, and they essentially make the cost of doing business more expensive. But some people who like Donald Trump, and Donald Trump certainly does like tariffs because he says they protect American businesses from pesky, cheaper exports from other countries. So things like cheap Chinese goods that have gone all the way through the lifeblood of the Western economies in the last however many, many, many years, that's the kind of thing that Donald Trump has been trying to crack down on and to get rid of because he wants to make America great again. And that for him means more industry, more manufacturing on his own territory. So that's what tariffs are, but sort of freewheeling people who have a kind of global view of the economy, which has been the predominant economic theory in the Western world for eons. They don't like tariffs in theoretical sense because they make it more expensive to do business.

Paddy O'Connell (4:22)

And it's important to know where tariffs are paid in this story, as we'll shortly hear from Gareth. So it's not like the UK treasury writes a bill, writes a check or sends money to the U.S. the tariff is paid by the company concerned or by the importer. So if you were to change policy, you would have to pay that money back, say some, and it would be a giant stramash trying to do so.

Laura Kuenssberg (4:48)

And the criticism is if a business has to pay extra money, who is in the end ends up coughing up is the consumer. But this has been a big political strand of Donald Trump's thinking. He claims that it's been a big success. And I think it's also fair to say from a political, not an economic point of view, that the kind of tariff turmoil has not had the sort of destructive effect that some people thought it might. When Donald Trump sort of opened what felt like a sort of grizzly game show when he stood in Washington brandishing this board with the levels of tariffs that people were, that he was going to slap on all sorts of different countries, including an island that only had inhabitants that were penguins.

Paddy O'Connell (5:31)

Right, that's. That sort of detail tells me time to meet our, our chief North America correspondent, Gary o'. Donoghue. Gary Welco, welcome back to newscast.

Gary O'Donoghue (5:42)

Hi, Paddy.

Paddy O'Connell (5:42)

Laura, what has happened at the Supreme Court?

Gary O'Donoghue (5:45)

Well, what's happened? Well, the inbuilt majority that Donald Trump thought he'd created on the Supreme Court, this 6:3 conservative majority turned and 6:3 voted to strike down his signature policy, as you just been describing. You know, tariff is Donald Trump's favorite word. That's what he's always said, his actual favorite word. And they struck this down. And it's not, this is not just an economic thing. This is not just part of an economic policy. This is the tool of foreign policy. This is the thing by which he has beat friend and foe around the world to reshape the global economy. He believes in favor of the United States. So to all that extent, this is huge. And he was furious. I mean, he laid into everyone, including those Supreme Court justices who had been, you know, marvelous, supreme, fantastic people who he'd nominated. He said their families would be ashamed of them. He said it was totally ridiculous. He said, I mean, there were various points where he described people as sleazebags, scumbags. It wasn't very clear whether he was talking about the people who brought the case or the justices themselves. I suspect he meant both and he was furious. But, but, and I think there's a huge, huge but here. I think they saw this coming. I think you only have to go back to the oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court in the autumn to know they were pretty much gonna lose. And they have a plan B.

Paddy O'Connell (7:22)

Yes. So, Laura, this concerns, does it not, which route Donald Trump used to put the tariffs on. So if he told the world he's using emergency powers, then of course, that opens up the court to say, we the court do not judge this to be a wartime emergency. But it doesn't mean, does it, that the tariffs can't be reintroduced under another guise.

Laura Kuenssberg (7:48)

That's right. He does have other options. As Gary says, they have a plan B. So this does not mean the end of his big, beautiful tariffs as he sees them. But what it is, is a big rock in the road and it's Also interesting, not just because of the tariffs. And Gary, I'd love to know what you think, exactly what you think the Plan B is going to be, but. But it is also a real moment where you see the extent of Donald Trump's presidential powers, have a break put on it. You know, part of the kind of swirl around Donald Trump has been exactly how far is he going to go? How far is he going to go when it comes to elections, for example, how far is he going to come. Go in front when it comes to executive orders? Even some Republican senators have expressed some concern and distaste in the last couple of months about the amount of business that's being done by executive orders. In other words, decisions that Trump can make himself at the desk at the Oval Office without having to go through Congress, their equivalent of prime ministers here having to put business through the House of Commons. So in that sense, it's politically absolutely fascinating because you see a major American institution spoiling Donald Trump's fun and saying, sure, you can go that far, but no further. But, Gary, what is then, the Plan B? Because, as Patty was suggesting, there is a different route for him to go down here.

Gary O'Donoghue (9:07)

He has a few options, and one of the options has already been used. So there's a thing called section 232, which is a power the President has, for reasons of national security, to place tariffs and duties. Now, he's already used that when it comes to things like steel and aluminium in particular in his first term and again in his second term. Those that. That power and the use of it has withstood legal challenges. So that's one. The downside of it is that you have to conduct a bunch of investigations. They are sector specific. You have to go through a process that can take months in order to bring those in. But that is one option. The other option, which he immediately chose yesterday, was, again, here's another number for you. Section 122 of the Trade act of 1974. Please note that down

Laura Kuenssberg (10:01)

here. Hang on a minute. That allows him to trade out, what, 1974.

Chris Mason (10:06)

1974.

Laura Kuenssberg (10:07)

1974. Oh, this is going to be brilliant. In the publisher in the week, we're like, aha, section 122.

Gary O'Donoghue (10:13)

Yeah. That allows temporary, temporary tariffs to address trade imbalances. The maximum you can impose is 15%. He's chosen 10. But crucially, they're time limited to 150 days. After that, you have to get Congress to either legislate to put them in place permanently, and the chances of that are a big thing. Fat zero. I mean, there's not, that's just not going to happen. Okay, hang on, hang on.

Laura Kuenssberg (10:39)

There's one more.

Gary O'Donoghue (10:39)

There's one more, there's one more.

Laura Kuenssberg (10:40)

I've got my pen ready.

Gary O'Donoghue (10:41)

301, 301 of the same trade act that also allows tariffs for unfair trade practices. Again, you have to go through a process to bring them in, but that is also an option for him. But, you know, makes it much more complicated than just using emergency powers to slap a number on right now.

Laura Kuenssberg (11:01)

And if at the moment, sorry, Paddy, if at the moment you make widgets in Belgium or you make maple syrup in Canada or you make, you're running out now, plastic water pistols in China and you were paying tariffs until this ruling on your, on selling goods into America as we speak at 22 minutes past 1, before section 122 or 301 have been invoked, does that payment continue or is the whole thing on pause?

Gary O'Donoghue (11:35)

Well, the 122 stuff comes in on Tuesday. Okay, so if you can get your water pistols, you know, on a boat from Shanghai to, to the, the port of California in Long beach in the time, then maybe, but, but no, I don't think there's going to be any particular break. And there's going to be stuff in transit that's already been charged. I mean, charging this stuff is enormously complicated. But this 10% will happen from Tuesday. And as Paddy was saying at the start, this is not paid by, this is not government to government, anything like it. This is paid by the importers. They will then pass that on to various suppliers in the United States, you know, suppliers that use these components, and eventually consumers. So that is, that is the process at the moment. And those 10% tariffs will, you know, as I say, they will run out.

Paddy O'Connell (12:24)

So I spent some years as the Wall street correspondent and I'd just like to say that the answer to the question, is this going to be clear for business? Is absolutely not. This is going to be a huge mess for business and it's a huge political mess for the President. And I wanted to steal. The reason I was interrupting you is I just wanted to steal your thought and to ask Gary directly. This political red line is eternal in the US System, Wells. It's eternal in the republic. Where does the power lie between the executive and the legislature, which is a

Laura Kuenssberg (13:00)

difficult word to say to have another go.

Paddy O'Connell (13:02)

And there's the judiciary involved, so there's the separation of powers. And what's happened here, Gary, is a rare naked example of the judiciary saying, as Laura, I'm stealing Laura here. I'm Laura. Splaining the judiciary, saying, oi, White House, get back in your box.

Gary O'Donoghue (13:21)

Yeah, but look, this is how America is meant to work. This is, this is what the, you know, the, the fabled Founding Fathers decided that the separation of power was the way to prevent overreach by any one part of the polity. You know, this is what, this is what you do. You know, the, the judiciary, the Supreme Court, are the guardians of the Constitution. The Constitution is written down, as we know, and amended, et cetera, et cetera. And it constrains what people can do, and they get to decide what is constitutional and what isn't. And they've decided this was an overreach. Ultravares. This was the President doing what he's not allowed to do. Now, the crucial thing, of course, when it comes to the strains on this system, and I don't want to be too blunt about this, but there's only one branch of the government here that has control over a great big army, and that's the executive. So to some degree, you know, the power is increasingly seated in the executive. But there are key things. I mean, one of the things the Supreme Court said is, look, by the way, you know, right at the beginning of the Constitution, Congress has the power to raise taxes. This is a tax. You can't do that without Congress to say so. And by the way, Congress is not allowed to cede that power to you under, take another note here, the major powers doctrine.

Laura Kuenssberg (14:45)

The other thing that's interesting about this and having, you know, worked in a bit in America, but nothing like your level of experience, Gary, we in the UK and newscasters, if you're listening to this in the States, please let us know what you think. And if you think that we're talking absolute bananas, but the power and the sort of mythology around the Supreme Court in the US and the fact that you have political picks for the Supreme Court, you know, it's chosen and balanced based on the sort of broad ideological and the political position that justices are coming from in a way that is completely alien to us in the uk. I mean, of course, in the last few years, we had, you know, the conservatives and let's trust and other people went after the judiciary. But it's a completely different game in America. The power and the myths of the Supreme Court and how presidents try to queer them to their way to their ideology, and it's all meant to sort of balance out over time. But, Gary, I just wonder, you know, what has the Public response been to this so far, if it's possible to tell. And obviously, everything in America, people have wildly differing views on it. But is there a sense how is this being seen?

Gary O'Donoghue (15:57)

Well, ironically, this in some ways could get the president out of a bit of a hole where the public is concerned, because, you know, if costs start to fall as a result of a problem with tariffs and them being imposed and perhaps them having to be lowered, then that actually might, you know, put some downward pressure on prices in a year when affordability is the big issue in the midterm election. So in some ways, they may have done him a favor. But you're right about the judiciary. I mean, and it's not just the Supreme Court. You know, district attorneys are elected and are elected on political platforms. This is something that Americans understand. They, you know, the politicization of the justice system is there and real. And ironically, you know, Donald Trump complained about the Supreme Court justices yesterday being political. Well, you know, I mean, if ever the pot called the kettle black, I mean, that's an extraordinary thing for him to do. But, you know, there is also still a reverence for the Supreme Court. I don't think the public has lost faith in the Supreme Court. There's a famous saying about the Supreme Court, which is that it's not final because it's infallible. It's infallible because it's final. And people still believe that here in the United States that what they say goes.

Paddy O'Connell (17:11)

What I, I love the architecture of Washington, D.C. and the Supreme Court looks like what you imagine a Roman temple.

Laura Kuenssberg (17:18)

Yeah.

Paddy O'Connell (17:19)

Looks like. So if we could go back.

Gary O'Donoghue (17:20)

Designed to.

Paddy O'Connell (17:21)

Yeah, well, and if you could go back to Rome.

Laura Kuenssberg (17:23)

Yeah.

Paddy O'Connell (17:23)

And stand at a Roman temple, now it would look like the Supreme Court looks now. So that tells you everything you need to know about what people wanted it, what role they. It's a temple, effectively, to the Constitution.

Laura Kuenssberg (17:36)

But who's trying to be the emperor?

Paddy O'Connell (17:39)

And what clothes is he wearing? What clothes is he wearing? Which section of the Emperor's Clothes Act? So we put it all together and we say it's a reminder of why the White House of Donald Trump is so endlessly disruptive, because it's very unusual to take on the, the judicial, whatever they are in this way to tell.

Laura Kuenssberg (18:01)

Judiciary.

Paddy O'Connell (18:02)

Yeah.

Laura Kuenssberg (18:03)

Aside from the executive and the legislature.

Paddy O'Connell (18:05)

Yeah. So, Gary, we're going to have your final thoughts before we lose you on what could happen next.

Gary O'Donoghue (18:13)

One quick addendum to the sort of whole constitutional settlement thing here, I would say is that what you're Seeing here, and of course it happened in the first term and the second term, the use of executive power, executive orders. It's a symptom of part of this constitutional arrangement not properly functioning. It's a symptom of the sclerotic nature of the legislature here where nothing gets done, where the ultra partisan behavior means you can't really enact anything. I mean, they barely do anything. And so in some ways, Trump is driven to executive orders. And of course, the stroke of a pen can be undone by the stroke of a pen. And that is something that creates a huge amount of uncertainty. And if you take it to the tariff's argument, his whole point has been about rebuilding, turning back the clock some more day, creating new manufacturing jobs. That could only ever happen. If it could happen, could only ever happen with medium long term sort of stability and the political system at the moment. And with these tariffs going up and down, you know, creates no climate for any of that to be possible.

Laura Kuenssberg (19:29)

It was interesting when we spoke to Speaker Mike Johnson, who's the number three in the Republican Party a month or so ago, and I'd sort of asked him about executive order because there are a few Republican center senators around the edge starting to kind of raise their concerns about the way in which Trump is doing things just off his own bat. Speaker Mike Johnson, of course, said that it was all marvelous and it was all working brilliantly and he had no qualms at all about how it was all working because of course he has to be loyal or he chooses to have to be loyal to Donald Trump in public. But I just wonder if in the coming months and years as they, and especially if the midterms are bad for the Republicans, if that environment around how Trump is using his power might start to shift. I would like to bring you some news because as when we get things wrong or slightly wrong or misleading, we're very happy to say them on weekend newscasts. I didn't mean to worry. Any consumers of maple syrup. Canadian maple syrup is mostly exempt from tariffs under producer Chris's excellent research. The United States, Mexico, Canada agreement, the USMC ca. So there we are. Don't worry about yourself. Your pancakes. It'll all be fine, Gary. It'll all be fine. Go and have as much syrup as you like.

Gary O'Donoghue (20:35)

Bananas and coffee.

Laura Kuenssberg (20:36)

Oh, bananas and coffee, they go. Can coffee in Canada. What?

Gary O'Donoghue (20:40)

No, no, no. I mean, bananas and coffee aren't tariffed either in the United States.

Laura Kuenssberg (20:44)

Oh, I see. Oh, the Mexico bit of the agreement, that will be that. Not the frozen wastes.

Paddy O'Connell (20:48)

There's a podcast title there, Gary. Thank you so much.

Gary O'Donoghue (20:53)

Pleasure.

Paddy O'Connell (20:53)

Bye bye. What a way for Gary to start his Saturday. Poor man.

Laura Kuenssberg (20:57)

What a good egg for coming in on a Saturday morning. I hope he does go and have syrups and pancakes now.

Paddy O'Connell (21:02)

Exactly.

Laura Kuenssberg (21:03)

Do you like syrup and pancakes?

Paddy O'Connell (21:05)

Yeah, but luckily I have them so rarely that I'm only mildly overweight rather than obese.

Laura Kuenssberg (21:10)

Do you have them with that really crispy, crispy crispy, extra crispy bacon. I don't approve of that. In a normal fry up or a normal sandwich, if you're having pancakes and syrup, that's really what you want, isn't it?

Paddy O'Connell (21:20)

The Americans can't do bacon and they can't do chocolate, I'm afraid so. I wouldn't normally have that sort of thing.

Laura Kuenssberg (21:26)

Do you not that really make a crispy bacon?

Paddy O'Connell (21:28)

I know it's offered. I tend to have one. But you can ask for Canadian bacon, can't you? Which is more like British bacon.

Laura Kuenssberg (21:34)

Right, let's go to our next main subject then, shall we? And stop talking about Our

Abercrombie Advertiser (21:39)

Abercrombie's new spring collection has every outfit you need for the season of long weekends full of linen shirts, sweaters and coastal shorts designed to go from your desk straight to days off. For me, the collection's a must have are the baggy trousers with the casual fit and tailored look for endless versatility. Get your closet ready for spring plans. Shop Abercrombie in the app online and in stores,

Donald Trump (quoted) (22:09)

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

BBC World Service Announcer (22:15)

Undercover. In the furthest corners of the dark Web, US special agents are on a mission to locate and rescue children from abuse. Move in now 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 (22:40)

breakfast.

Paddy O'Connell (22:41)

So not for the first time, we have a scoop at the weekend from Laura Kuenssberg. What has the former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the former head of the armed forces Admiral Sir Tony Radican

Laura Kuenssberg (22:53)

said so this week coming it is four years since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, which is surreal, I think to say it out loud because it's incredible to have imagined at that point when it broke with this huge shock that there was conflict on our continent. Four years later, the length of the World War I, this conflict would still be raging and we'd still be discussing it. And most importantly, of course, civilians in Ukraine would still have missiles dropping on their heads in the middle of the night we brought together Boris Johnson, who was the Prime Minister at the time, and the former head of the military, Tony Radican, as you said, they worked together very, very closely at this time and led the UK response. But what was very arresting in our conversation was that Boris Johnson said that the UK and its allies shouldn't hang around, they should send troops to Ukraine. Now, very importantly, not to fight, but troops should be sent to the safe areas of Ukraine right away to break the log jam, to, as he said, flip a switch in Putin's brain to show that the west has genuine resolve and to try to find a way to break the stalemate and make Putin realize that actually, for the west, allowing Ukraine to be a sovereign, independent country is the only outcome that they are willing to accept in the long run.

Tony Radakin (24:16)

If we're going to have a plan for boots on the ground, I may be going in advance of a lot of thinking in the UK at the moment, but if we can have a plan for boots on the ground after the war, after Putin has condescended to have a ceasefire, then why not do it now? Just to make this point that it is up to the Ukrainians? I mean, these people wouldn't be there in a war fighting capacity. Right.

Laura Kuenssberg (24:44)

To be clear, you're saying that right now that UK military forces and from other European countries should go to Ukraine, to safe parts of Ukraine, to make a statement, to flip that switch, as you said in Vladimir's. Putin's head, showing intent.

Tony Radakin (24:57)

Yes, I think we're willing to do it in the context of a ceasefire, which of course puts all the initiative, all the power in Putin's hands. Why not do it now? There's no logical reason that I can see why we shouldn't send some peaceful ground forces that to show our support, constitutional support, for a free, independent Ukraine, that this is a political thing. It's about whether Ukraine is a free country or not. If it's a vassal state of Russia, which is what Putin wants, then obviously it's up to Putin to decide who comes to his country. If it's not, then it's up to the Ukrainians.

Paddy O'Connell (25:42)

Wow. And it takes you right back to what people made of Vladimir Putin for years and years and years, including when Boris Johnson and his fellow conservators were running the United Kingdom.

Laura Kuenssberg (25:56)

Absolutely. And he says in this interview that the west, the UK and its allies, including during a period when he was Foreign Secretary and including during a period when he was Prime Minister, emboldened Vladimir Putin by not taking strong action when he annexed Crimea back in 2014 by not, in his view, punishing Assad when he used chemical weapons in Syria, by withdrawing from Afghanistan in 2022. And he goes through what he clearly sees as various sort of foreign policy mistakes, but chief among them, not cottoning on to Vladimir Putin's increasing aggression and not making clear before the war that if the war came, there would be incredible punishment by very tight sanctions, there would be Western resolve to stand up against Ukraine. And he accepted. You know, I said, well, do you regret that you were a leading politician during all of that time? Although in 2014 he was mayor of London, but for much of that time, he was in a big, powerful political position. And he said, well, yeah, we. We should have done more. Which, you know, to hear that, as you look at the pictures day after day of terrible things still happening in Ukraine, and of course, huge loss of life for Russian forces, too, it was, I thought, quite powerful to. To. To hear that. Essentially, he sees what's happened in Ukraine as a product of many years of foreign policy failure, but he also thinks that that failure, in a sense, is still continuing because the west is not doing what he sees as enough as Ukraine. And talking to Tony Radican as well, maybe picked his words a bit more carefully. As somebody who's only recently stepped down from being head of the armed forces. He said that support that's been given to Ukraine has been what he described as incrementalism. It's been too slow, it's been too cautious. That means that lives have been lost unnecessarily, and they're both calling for more military support, more economic pain in order to bring what ends to some degree. Is this really sort of horrendous stalemate to a close? You know, neither of them believe that Putin is remotely interested in peace, so therefore, they're both saying it's for the west to change this, to crank up the pressure. But, of course, saying you'd send boots onto the ground is. Is one thing to say, but of course, there could be very grave risks to doing that.

Paddy O'Connell (28:18)

Yeah. And it has always been said by the Russians that they felt it was understood that Eastwood expansion would be stopped. There's been warning signs of drumbeats of war going back for years and years and years. And it does help us understand why that the stakes now have got to be understood by the population in the West. That's what Johnson and Radican are saying. We citizens have got to understand the stakes.

Laura Kuenssberg (28:42)

That's right. And of course, people will say, well, look, if you did something as bold as sending troops, even just peaceful troops, to safe areas of Ukraine. Some people might see that as being a real escalation that could be seen as a real provocation to Vladimir Putin. One of the things, though, that Johnston Radiclan were saying is, look, every time Putin said there was a red line, actually, it's sort of gone away. So you remember, oh, well, if you get these missiles, then I'll do these terrible things, and if you give those fighter jets to Ukrainians, then I'll do these terrible things. And that's not necessarily come to pass. So just speaking to both of them was so interesting. And I do shamelessly recommend people really listening to the whole thing in full, because they also both go back to the moment where they both received a phone call, one at ten past three in the morning, one about four in the morning, saying that the invasion was on. They tell the story of what it was like that morning, those first few days of the conflict when Zelensky emerged safe in the world, walking around Ukraine. Do you remember he did that selfie video in the empty city saying, I'm still here. So they really take us inside what those moments of huge, important high drama were like. But I think in a way, if I kind of summing it all up, they're both going to say, look, everybody, as you say, has to understand this, not least to understand what the likely increase in how much we spend on defense might mean. We've talked about that again and again, but Radican is really clear that the government has got to hurry up and say where that extra cash is all going to come from.

Paddy O'Connell (30:14)

So I suppose if I could be clear about what I'm trying to get from your interview is that these people are saying this is existential, but both blocs.

Laura Kuenssberg (30:23)

Yeah.

Paddy O'Connell (30:23)

And I'm using the word block because Russia has allied itself with North Korea, with other countries around the world, who we've spoken about here before. And the west is being encouraged time and time again to be more unified in Europe, to stop bickering, having different sorts of arguments over different sorts of planes and tanks and who's sending what. Europe's got to pony up, say people from all quarters of the security services, and pay up. So this is a reminder. These two men have given you this interview. Some Radio 4 listeners have been writing to us saying, actually, it's not a done deal, that we want more defense spending. This argument is getting ahead of where some people in the British conversation are.

Laura Kuenssberg (31:09)

Sure. And if you think of Zach Polanski, in the Green Party, for example, you know, he's not someone who's going to be out there banging the drum for the industrial military complex. You know, there's certainly people in the Labour Party too who wouldn't necessarily want us to be careening down this road. It is the direction of travel that this government has now set responding to threats around the world. And you're right, it has become the sort of mainstream political conversation over the time. In fact, that we've been having these conversations at the weekend. But it's going to be seemed quite out there and now is absolutely mainstream.

Paddy O'Connell (31:39)

But it's going to be absolutely fascinating to see this unfold in a Labor led government.

Laura Kuenssberg (31:44)

Yeah.

Paddy O'Connell (31:44)

Oh, we're going to increase, you know, we said we were going to increase defence spending in three years. Well, we're going to increase defence spending in two years. There's still only the same non amount of money. And when you start carving up the non amount of money and giving it over here, that's a political decision.

Laura Kuenssberg (31:59)

It is. And it's a political decision to do it in the first place. And then it will be a political decision to decide where the cash is going to come from. And important to note, the government has not told us where it's going to come from after 2028. And if something ain't written down in a Treasury spreadsheet in black and white, it doesn't necessarily mean that much. Now, our excellent colleague James Landau was reporting last week that in number 10, they're looking at proposals of how they get to the 3% of national income going to defense by 2029. So that would be a bringing forward of some of this cashola. But our government's sort of been pushed there also because it's how Trump has pushed NATO. NATO's then pushed its members. So, you know, like it or not, that's now the mainstream of UK political thinking. We're not here on newscast saying it's a good thing or a bad thing. But if we spin back about two years ago, it wasn't sort of fashionable to accept that defence spending was going to have to increase. There are people obviously in the defence sector who would always say the defence spending is going to have to increase because they would like defense spending to increase. But it is now the sort of mainstream of political thinking in this country is that that money is going to have to come from somewhere. The billion dollar question, because that's what you talk about in defense, you talk about billions, not millions, is what is the government going to stop paying for in order to spend more on defence? Or are they going to come up with something wizzy like the Lib Dems have suggested a form of war bonds so you have it tucked away somewhere else on the balance sheet, doesn't count in overall government spending. Or are they going to find yet more tax rises when tax is already at historic highs in lots of ways in order to find the money. But this is all part of the kind of long term realization and the reality that what used to be called the peace dividend has gone, you know, and it used to be that defense, you spent more, more on defense than the nhs. It was some years ago that, that then flipped and spent for decades, I think a couple of decades you spent more on the NHS than on defense. But that, you know, these things are all kind of scales and balances and all the rest. And, and it's, it's a really big challenge not just for the UK government, for governments around the world.

Paddy O'Connell (34:12)

And for our newscasters who are political students studying and historic historians, there's some great questions which have been eternal in British public life. What happened to the North Sea oil money?

Podcast Advertiser (34:22)

Oh, yeah.

Paddy O'Connell (34:22)

What happened to the peace dividend money? And that's, that's a subject of a thesis of a newscaster for the future. But there we are, we scampered through. Well done, Laura. What else is on your program? There can't be any room.

Laura Kuenssberg (34:36)

Well, the full interview, if you want to watch the full thing with Boris Johnson and Tony Radican, which I do recommend, it's on the news channel tonight at half eight and it might be in your feeds tomorrow. Are we going to put the whole thing feed? Don't know. Looking through the glass at the producer. You should, you absolutely should.

Paddy O'Connell (34:49)

He's dropped his hip. It's a good sign.

Laura Kuenssberg (34:53)

Tomorrow morning we are also having the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, and as everybody listening knows, she is about to spell out reforms to special needs education in England. That is a conversation that has made a lot of parents and families really anxious. There's near universal agreement that the system doesn't work. But trying to change it is a very difficult and politically precarious thing as well as practically very, very difficult to do. So we'll be asking her all about that. What are you doing?

Paddy O'Connell (35:22)

We are doing more on Winter Olympics. How the unlikeliest fans have become the strongest fans and how the curlers, my goodness, tonight the curlers could, could go gold.

Laura Kuenssberg (35:32)

I'd be so happy if the curlers win. I've been watching the curling all week. I've got absolutely no idea what's going on, but I love it.

Paddy O'Connell (35:39)

Well, we, if the curlers win, we're leading our program on that.

Laura Kuenssberg (35:42)

Oh, tremendous.

Paddy O'Connell (35:44)

And we're going to the hotel in Stranrar where much of the curling success can owe its inspiration to a really fabulous family story. I don't know if you've been following.

Laura Kuenssberg (35:53)

It's a big Scottish thing, curling. I mean, what else do you do when it's freezing in the winter? But. And I love their. I'm going to sound really old. I love watching their wee faces when it goes well. It's hilarious. They're great. And there's Hammy and Lammy and all that. I mean, it's just, it's great.

Paddy O'Connell (36:07)

It is great. And so we're going to lean into that. And so we hope very much to all come together again on Sunday morning.

Laura Kuenssberg (36:13)

We certainly do. And if you've been curling this weekend or you are a curler, send us

Paddy O'Connell (36:18)

a voice note, preferably after the result tonight, Saturday, so we get maybe a watching party. Are you watching? We'd like noise from the watching party because this is Tonight is going for gold.

Laura Kuenssberg (36:29)

What time is it?

Paddy O'Connell (36:30)

I think it starts at 6:30. But no one's ever had me down as a curling expert before. So we'll just say.

Laura Kuenssberg (36:36)

Will they what?

Paddy O'Connell (36:36)

We'll say, have a look at the guides.

Laura Kuenssberg (36:38)

Have a look at the guides.

Paddy O'Connell (36:39)

Look at the guides.

Laura Kuenssberg (36:40)

Have a look at the guides. We will be back tomorrow for Sunday's newscast, but thank you for being with us this afternoon.

Paddy O'Connell (36:47)

Goodbye. Newscast.

Laura Kuenssberg (36:49)

Newscast from the BBC.

Chris Mason (36:51)

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.

Laura Kuenssberg (37:31)

Bye.

Donald Trump (quoted) (37:38)

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

BBC World Service Announcer (37:44)

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