Adam Fleming (3:06)

Newscast, Newscast, Newscast from the BBC.

Adam Fleming (3:10)

Fat Boy Slim and me in the.

Henry Zeffman (3:11)

Classroom doing our violin lessons.

Adam Fleming (3:13)

I was the tattletale in the class.

Ray Winstone (3:14)

Can I have an apology, please?

Adam Fleming (3:15)

I trust almost nobody that Daddy has.

Adam Fleming (3:18)

To sometimes use strong language. Next time in mosque I feel the.

Listener Jill (3:22)

Lulu with no salulu Take me down.

Shopify Advertiser (3:24)

To Downing street let's go have a tour.

Adam Fleming (3:26)

Blimey.

Adam Fleming (3:27)

Hello, it's Adam in the newscast studio and we're going to start off by talking about Donald Trump's threat of legal action against the BBC. And this is around that episode of Panorama, which was broadcast in October 2024, but which included an edited speech that Donald Trump gave on 6 January, 2021, before the riots at the Capitol. We've talked about it a few times on newscast. This is the speech where he started off saying one thing and then Panorama joined the end of the speech to the start of the speech and it looked like he was saying something else. And since then, the chair of the BBC, Samir Shah, has apologized and said it was an error of judgment for the speech to be edited in that way. But Donald Trump's lawyers have sent a letter to the BBC making a whole load of demands and ultimately saying they're prepared to take the BBC to court in Florida and potentially claim $1 billion in damages from the BBC. Now, that all sounds very dramatic. It sounds like quite a big threat and it sounds like it could have some pretty huge consequences for the BBC. But actually, what is the legal position here? What does the law in Florida say? And what calculations will both sides be making as they work out what to do about this? The person who Knows is the BBC's home and legal affairs correspondent, Dominic Casciani, who's here. Hello, Dom.

Adam Fleming (4:50)

Hi, Adam, how are you?

Adam Fleming (4:51)

Very well, thank you. A busy week for you, as always. Right, give me some tools for thinking about this legal action that Donald Trump has threatened. Where do you want to start?

Adam Fleming (5:01)

Well, I think I'll start by saying we. I think we should be circumspect about this and I'm so circumspect about this, I haven't even started thinking about what kind of X's I'd need to toss up on covering a mega trial in Florida. You know, I'm being flippant, but the point is we are a long, long, long way from this being a full on crazy media circus of a trial in, you know, whichever part of Florida this would be.

Adam Fleming (5:28)

Okay.

Adam Fleming (5:28)

And the reason being is just because the President's lawyers have sent a defamation letter full of fire in brimstone to the BBC chairman and the top lawyer in this organization, it doesn't mean it's going to come to pass. I mean the letter is actually a bit of a classic of the genre of the defamation genre. It does all the things it alleges, really serious damage to the President caused by false, defamatory, disparaging and inflammatory statements to use the wording. There it is. It makes a series of demands of retraction and an apology and appropriate compensation to the President. It sets a deadline to comply which is basically 10 o' clock UK time, 5 o' clock Eastern Standard Time in the US on Friday. And as with many defamation warnings, it comes with a consequence which is if you do not comply, will go to court and seek $1 billion. I mean it's just an unfathomable sum. I mean what's that? The budget of Strictly or something a lot more?

Adam Fleming (6:32)

No, I worked out Yesterday it's about 700 million ish pounds or 750 million pounds which works out as the equivalent of 3 or like 4 million license fees.

Adam Fleming (6:43)

Well there we go.

Adam Fleming (6:45)

BBC ever had to pay.

Adam Fleming (6:46)

Although interesting, interesting. Sorry, real nerdy trivia. The letters actually sent to the chairman, Samir Shah as chairman of BBC Studios, the commercial arm. Yes.

Adam Fleming (6:57)

Which is a subsidiary of the BBC. That is. Yeah. Works, makes, makes money.

Adam Fleming (7:02)

So you know, maybe the money wouldn't come from the license fee paid, who knows.

Adam Fleming (7:07)

But that's hypothetical and we should just say, I mean that you, you working on controversial stories, you must have received letters like this from other people throughout, throughout your career, threatening legal action that are a sort of tool as opposed to actually a genuine start of legal action.

Adam Fleming (7:22)

Yes, I mean it happens all the time to lots of journalists in this business. They, they, they have a form. I remember one actually I received from a far right type about 20, almost 20 years ago. And it absolutely put the willies at me and really, really scared me being quite young at the time.

Adam Fleming (7:38)

Yeah. And I remember lead to legal action.

Adam Fleming (7:40)

No, no, I Sat down with our duty lawyer, he said, calm down, it's going to be fine. And he explained the law. So I think what I need to do is explain really actually why I suspect the BBC's lawyers are saying to the chairman at the moment, I'm speculating here, obviously what they're saying. These are the things we need to think about and why this isn't necessarily a slam dunk.

Adam Fleming (7:59)

Yeah, so let's go through that list then.

Adam Fleming (8:01)

So the first thing is, Donald Trump cannot sue here in the uk. He's out of time. You have a year to bring a defamation case in the UK that ran out effectively at midnight on 27 October, which was effectively the year since the defense documentary first went out in the uk. And it doesn't matter that the documentary was available every day for a year on the iplayer. What matters is first publication.

Adam Fleming (8:24)

Right.

Adam Fleming (8:24)

So that's out of the picture.

Adam Fleming (8:25)

And also you can be an American person and come to the British courts and use our legal laws for a British program.

Adam Fleming (8:32)

For sure.

Adam Fleming (8:33)

Theory.

Adam Fleming (8:33)

Yeah, for sure. Because I mean, look, he clearly you've got to argue that the words are defamatory in their meaning, that they, you know, that they cause damage and then you got to prove that damage in, in, in, in some shape or regard. But in effect you can bring that case in the uk.

Adam Fleming (8:50)

Yeah, but that's all theoretical anyway because the deadline passed. Yeah.

Adam Fleming (8:53)

So that means if he's going to bring a case, he's got to do it in the us so he's trying to do this in Florida where there is a two year deadline to start a case. So clearly he's within the period for that. The bar he faces initially though, there is, he'll have to show to the Florida judge that he or she, that judge has jurisdiction over the BBC, which means showing that the Panorama was available, was accessible, was broadcast, was clickable or something in the United States so that US consumers could watch this content and probably in suitable numbers as well. There's lots of ins and outs and law about how many people need to have seen or watched or, or consumed a piece of content for it, for it to pass a defamation bar. Now, we've been trying for 24 hours to establish whether or not the offending Panorama, the allegedly offending Panorama, actually went out to U.S. audiences. And I know this might sound frankly bizarre to, to listeners on the outside world, but we as BBC News at the moment can't actually work out for sure whether a BBC News product definitely went out to those audiences and that's because of the kind of like, weird, complicated tentacles of the BBC. We produce a piece of content, it could be syndicated to other networks. We can sell it. It can appear on niche services in one part of the world and not on others. It's a very complicated exercise. As of this evening, we still got no evidence to point to that the program went out. Now, the BBC officially isn't commenting at all on this. They've got nothing to say about this. Now, I suspect that's for two reasons. The first is that they've got a team of people trying to actually answer this question themselves. I really wouldn't be surprised if that's what's going on in the background, based on things I've been picking up today about this question. But secondly, if they did know something which suggested it had been broadcast in the United States, they're not going to want to give that away at this stage because that will form part of a negotiation on how many people saw it and potential harm. Okay, so that's the first thing. Yeah. Let's just say that Donald Trump has got jurisdiction and he can show to a Florida judge this was accessible in the US And I've suffered untold harm because of it. He's got two problems of that. The first is he has to prove there was actual malice by the BBC, in effect, that the BBC knew what it was doing when edited these clips together or was completely reckless to the consequences of that.

Adam Fleming (11:29)

Because Florida libel law requires some kind of motive on the actual malice part of the person that did this.

Adam Fleming (11:35)

Yeah, yeah. And it's really, this test of malice is really important for public figures in the US Because US Defamation law comes with really strong free speech defenses under the first amendments of the US Constitution, which basically says the media can say what they want, broadly speaking, compared to here, where the restrictions are completely different. So as a public figure, he has to convince the court to a much higher standard. And that is quite helpful to a defendant in this situation. Okay. Because they can go to court and they can say, yes, we were wrong, yes, it was a mistake, but there was no malice. And that means this is the second issue, improving the actual malice. He's then got to have some clear, really, really clear and consistent evidence of what that malice was. Now, in simplest terms, his lawyers will say, well, we want discovery of all emails and communications in relation to the building of this.

Adam Fleming (12:32)

In other words, the BBC handing over everything to them.

Adam Fleming (12:35)

Yeah. And if. And that's standard in all court cases. It's called discovery, and you have all this disclosure and it goes over to the other side and it allows them to, you know, basically both sides to check the veracity of the case and whether it's worth fighting. His lawyers at that stage would be looking for literally a smoking gun email where you've got, hypothetically one person involved in production saying to another person in production, let's do him over. That's the kind of thing that's right. So you've got to deal with those two things. Have they got jurisdiction, have they got malice? You then start to realize this isn't actually that easy to take to court. In that context, it's actually quite hard to do. And this is one of the reasons why defamation becomes actually quite a high stakes game. It's really expensive, it's really, really complex. And both sides are trying to make calculations about their chances of winning, but also not just their chances of losing, but actually what the costs really amount to, the actual costs. So in the BBC's mind, you mean.

Adam Fleming (13:46)

The costs of financial fighting the. And then paying for the other side's lawyers if you lose, or do you mean the actual damages that could be awarded?

Adam Fleming (13:53)

Just put the damages to one side. Let's let the pure financials of this now, the BBC could conclude by Friday it's got a very strong case. It could go down the route of Privati, you know, our wonderful satirical magazine, which is traditionally and historically for years use very robust Anglo Saxon language to people who've tried to take it to court in a way of saying, basically bring it on. If you really think you've, you've got a case and willing to fight. The BBC could take that approach. But if it took that approach, it's defamation lawyers. And you would imagine by Friday they would have instructed some quite serious people in the United States with real expertise of what would happen in Florida. Those lawyers would say, well, that's all very well, you've got a very strong case here, but this is how much it's going to cost, right, Just to actually start fighting this. Let's say I'm making these figures up here. It's going to cost us $3 million to get, you know, just to get past first hearings, right. If we win, we might be able to recover some of this from the President, but we might not be able to recover all. So you're probably going to be left with a bill or you might lose and then you've got his side plus damages. However, the calculation is if you settle, offer him, I don't know, $1 million a third of those potential early stage costs would the whole thing go away. And that's how defamation very often plays out. There's a calculation there on how much the trial would cost, how much you would stand to lose financially if you were to lose, and how much are you prepared to offer in terms of words of settlement and apology, plus if necessary, some kind of financial payout in order to make it go.

Adam Fleming (15:36)

Hence why people pay for things to go away. And it in no way suggests whether they agree with it or disagree with it or admit to it or acknowledge it or whatever, it's literally just a payment because paying is cheaper than fighting.

Adam Fleming (15:49)

Yeah, yeah. Now the difficulty the BBC faces in that calculation is where does the public interest lie? Being effectively a quasi public bodies as a public service broadcaster, they're not a private organization that can literally just write a check without really thinking through the consequences to the, to the audience. A good example being how Rupert Murdoch did, you know, all the way to the final case with Prince Harry, settled time and time again and agreed payments without admitting liability to people who are alleging hacking. There are no consequences there other than to Murdoch's bottom line as a effects. He's a private media owner. The BBC is in a different position because it's potentially in a position of actually having to write checks involving license fee payers money that may have an impact on the service to the British audience. So that's a calculation in there as well. There is another issue in here and I think this has been pushed. A couple of lawyers I've spoken to today are saying, you know, the BBC should fight this because in their view, you know, the President is overreaching here, he's got a weak case and, and someone needs to actually say stop. You can't keep doing this to media organizations. As we know there have been other.

Adam Fleming (17:03)

Cases happened in the States.

Adam Fleming (17:05)

Yeah, but is it really the BBC's role to, you know, effectively be a champion on the steed given it's. It. It has already admitted that there was a problem with this program. So it's a very, very difficult matrix of decisions to get right there.

Adam Fleming (17:19)

And I suppose big organizations have insurance that covers them for things like this as well, don't they?

Adam Fleming (17:24)

They can do, but, but it's incredibly complex and insurance doesn't always cover everything that you want it to cover. It's a really, really, really difficult, complex thing to arrange and for it to work in a way you always want it to do. So that may be an issue as well. And if the BBC, look, if the BBC's got insurance. That's not something they are under any obligation to disclose to us publicly. Yeah.

Adam Fleming (17:51)

And looking at the notes from the Prime Minister's official spokesman's briefing to journalists at lunchtime today, the lo. It seems very much the government's being very hands off here and they're saying, well, independence of the BBC, nothing to do with the government. This isn't like a UK government intervening with the American government or Starmer calling Trump sort of moment for them. And I suppose, yeah, that's a reminder that the BBC gets its money from the license fee, not from the government's much bigger coffers.

Adam Fleming (18:19)

There's a really, really back on the letter from. From Alejandro Brito, the Trump's lawyer in Florida. It kind of really points to the fact that this is the. This is for the BBC to solve and no one else. It says the BBC is on notice. If the BBC doesn't comply with the above by the deadline on Friday night, President Trump will be left with no alternative but to enforce his legal and equitable rights, all of which are expressly reserved and not waived. This is classic lawyer language, including by filing legal action for no less than $1 billion in damages. Please govern yourself accordingly in capital letters. I mean, it is just a classic. Basically, we're firing a shot over your bails. Now we're serious about this. The question is, is whether the BBC is going to say, no, we don't believe this.

Adam Fleming (19:12)

Yeah, we're going to call you bluff. Yeah. Or whether the resignation of the Director General and the CEO of News and then the Chairman issuing an apology, whether that conf. To enough of the bullet points in the letter of the demands.

Adam Fleming (19:26)

Well, it's there.

Adam Fleming (19:28)

Then he could back down.

Adam Fleming (19:29)

It. It is. It is there. Yeah. The. So I think, I think it's a really, really, really complex moment. This is as a calculation. It's not like any defamation case I think. I think the BBC's ever faced. In, in. In some respects, it reminds me, I mean, it's a different area of law because this was around privacy. It reminds me a bit of what happened with Cliff Richard when the BBC was faced with a claim from Cliff Richard that we'd breached his privacy by putting a chopper up over his property, which has been searched by police officers wrongly, it turned out, after false allegations had been made against the singer. And that case went to court because the BBC chose to fight it, thinking, we can win this case. There are important issues around privacy law here which need testing, you know, and ultimately, in the day, the BBC ended up paying Cliff Richard an awful lot of money. Yeah. So these things, when you choose to fight, can actually go wrong.

Adam Fleming (20:27)

And also, I remember very early on in my career at the BBC and I wasn't involved with it at all, but the BBC lost the libel case and had to pay out £10 million in damages.

Adam Fleming (20:35)

So the Al Qaeda release.

Henry Zeffman (20:37)

Yeah.

Adam Fleming (20:37)

It was about accusations about a business funding terror.

Adam Fleming (20:41)

That was an extraordinary one, I think. I believe that is still the BBC's record payout. Or I can't remember the exact sum, but that, that, yeah, I mean, that was. That was a classic example of mistaken identity. Now, we don't have this here. It's very clear who we're talking about. The question is, I think it's fundamentally going to come down to these two questions of jurisdiction. Can Trump show this was available in the United States? And malice and whether or not the U.S. freedom of speech safeguards are sufficient for the BBC to receive advice that you can fight this and then choose to do so.

Adam Fleming (21:13)

Yeah, always so interesting hearing how the law actually works rather than how some headlines suggest it might work. So, Dom, thank you very much.

Adam Fleming (21:20)

Thank you very much. Cheers.

Shopify Advertiser (21:31)

Starting a business can be overwhelming. You're juggling multiple roles, designer, marketer, logistics manager, all while bringing your vision to life. But for millions of businesses, Shopify is the ultimate partner. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e commerce in the US from household names like Mattel and Gymshark to brands just getting started. Build a stunning online store with Shopify's ready to use templates Boost content with AI powered product descriptions, page headlines and enhanced photography. Marketing is easy, with built in tools for email and social media campaigns. Plus, Shopify simplifies everything from inventory to shipping and returns. If you're ready to sell, you're ready for Shopify. Turn your big business idea into With Shopify on your side, sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.com try go to shopify.com try shopify.com try.

Ray Winstone (22:30)

Hello, it's Ray Winstone. I'm here to tell you about my podcast on BBC Radio 4, History's Toughest Heroes. I got stories about the pioneers, the rebels, the outcasts who define tough.

History's Toughest Heroes Narrator (22:45)

And that was the first time that anybody ever ran a car up that fast with no tires on. It almost feels like your eyeballs are going to come out of your head.

Ray Winstone (22:52)

Tough enough for you? Subscribe to History's Toughest Heroes wherever you get your podcast.

Adam Fleming (23:03)

No, we've Got some politics and economics to bring you or economics that has political consequences because we've got new data out today which shows that unemployment has risen and of course, we're now in the pre two weeks before the budget period. So every little bit of economic and fiscal news contributes to the conversation around Rachel Reeves's decisions. So let's unpick what's been going on because here in the studio is Deputy Economics editor Darcini David. Hi, Darcini.

Darsini David (23:31)

Hi, Adam.

Adam Fleming (23:32)

And Henry Zeffman is at Westminster. Hello, Henry.

Adam Fleming (23:34)

Hello.

Adam Fleming (23:35)

Right, quite a few kind of numbers based economy based stories to talk about today. The big number that's grabbed a lot of attention, Darshini, is the unemployment rate, which, I mean, it doesn't usually garner a huge amount of attention on the news. I mean, obviously if you're unemployed and looking for a job, it's a huge thing in your life. But in our national life it tends not to feature that heavily.

Darsini David (23:56)

No, at this point in the day I'm normally fighting to get it on air rather than saying, actually, you know, we're talking about this non stop. But we have got to a point now where it looks like we've got the highest unemployment rate since 2016. If you forget what happened during the pandemic. Cause clearly things are very wobbly all over then. But yeah, and this is quite a moment because it's a case of the jobs market we had thought was settling down a bit, but it actually looks like it's still getting worse. And within that there are some very clear signs that it's related to what happened in the last budget. But also perhaps, and this is where the surprising element is perhaps to do with nerves ahead of the next one and what that could mean for employers.

Adam Fleming (24:32)

And how does it interact with the number of vacancies in the economy as well, because there's still hundreds of thousands of jobs unfilled, which sort of sounds like, oh, unemployment's not a problem.

Darsini David (24:41)

I know, and this is always the case, you always get that kind of mismatch that the thing employers are looking for are not the jobs they can necessarily get filled because of skills are not in the right place at the right time, etc. Etc. But when you look at where the jobs have gone over the last year, there's a very clear pattern, 125,000 employees, fewer in retail and in hospitality. Right. And when you talk to economists, when you talk to employers and you look at the sectors that are most vulnerable to what happened in the last budget, the increase in minimum wages and also Increase in employers, national insurance. They are the ones because they rely very heavily, of course, on labour and lower paid labour, put it that way.

Adam Fleming (25:20)

Labour with a small L. Henry, what are the political implications for labour with a big l?

Henry Zeffman (25:25)

Well, as Darsini said, there is an argument economically that this high unemployment figure is a consequence of the biggest call that Rachel Reeves made in her first budget just over a year ago to increase the rate of national insurance paid by employers. Now, clearly others will take a different view economically. But the political risk for Rachel Reeves is that it becomes part of the political debate here that this unemployment figure is a direct, if partial consequence of a big decision she made at a budget. And that is not the ideal backdrop for a budget two weeks tomorrow, her second budget, in which she's going to make a series more controversial political decisions, almost certainly also about increasing taxes.

Adam Fleming (26:11)

And Darshini, we've had this conversation a lot about what exact numbers does the officer budget responsibility put into its models, which then informs how much space Rachel Reeves has before she hits her fiscal rules. Does this employment figure figure in the OBR's projections for the economy this year, next year and five years hence?

Darsini David (26:33)

I think the short answer to that one is no. And the reason for that is, as you say, we've been talking about this for a while, Adam, and we're going to talk about it. I can't believe it's still two more weeks to go until the big day. But we have been talking about it for a while and the OBR's forecasts have been in train for a while. So what we're at now is that stage where they are literally just plugging in measures and seeing how they fit into the backdrop of a forecast that's already been made, if that makes sense. So these numbers per se don't make any sense. What we should add is that when we look at where we were last autumn at that budget, at the time, the predictions, including official ones and the rest of it, did allow perhaps of some increase in labour costs. The big unknown was how would that play out? Was it going to play out in terms of higher prices? Was it going to mean, as we've seen, fewer jobs around, in actual event, it's actually come through in the form of lower jobs and also perhaps smaller pay rises for some parts of the economy as well. We're seeing a real gap open up between public sector pay rises and private sector ones, which has been quite interesting. So in some ways this isn't surprising. Economists just weren't quite sure which way.

Henry Zeffman (27:36)

It was going to fall just another extra couple of political layers to that, which again, figure out, or again relate to big calls that Rachel Reeves made very early on. We're seeing the Labour impact small L Labour get, to use your phrase, of that national insurance increase before the workers rights legislation that the government brought in has taken effect. And there's all sorts of interesting questions about how the government actually decides to implement that legislation. And then also we're seeing it before.

Adam Fleming (28:12)

Oh, my God.

Henry Zeffman (28:12)

I've actually forgotten what the other point I was about to make was.

Adam Fleming (28:14)

Sorry, this doesn't happen to be fun. You've done that. Classic. This is why I've stopped saying, well, I'm going to make three points about this, because you're then committed to making.

Henry Zeffman (28:21)

Three points for 10 hours in my defence.

Adam Fleming (28:23)

But what 10 hours? Is that all? Some of us are doing 25.

Henry Zeffman (28:25)

I'm so sorry, that's so embarrassing.

Adam Fleming (28:27)

No, don't worry, it's fine. I'm sure it was a really good point as well. I'm sure your thoughts will emerge naturally as the conversation.

Darsini David (28:32)

And it's reassuring as well, Henry, to know it's not just me.

Adam Fleming (28:36)

Dashini. What I was going to ask you next, though, is, if I can remember, is join the dots to interest rates. Because actually, there's an argument now that this jobs data means that a few people on the Monetary Policy Committee at the bank of England who set interest rates might go, oh, actually, we need to cut interest rates to get the economy going a bit so that we can hire more people.

Darsini David (28:58)

I wish you could get me a whiteboard in this year so I can literally join the dots and. No, totally. I mean, just a few days ago, I was sat in the bank of England talking to the Governor and it was interesting because they didn't change interest rates. It was a very close call. The Governor has changed his mind so much, he held out to keep rates where they were, but it was five to four on the committee. On the committee, there's nine people on that committee. And he said, I need to see more evidence that inflationary pressures are coming down over the rest of this year. Now, when you talk to him about what that means, he means, you know, things like what's in the budget, for example, but also crucially, what's happening in this monthly data. And we do know the bank of England have been concerned about things happening in the labour market. They have been saying, look, the labour market looks like it is cooling down. If we wait too long, there is a risk, obviously, we're penalising households too much and businesses too much, jobs aren't created, etc. Etc. You make things worse. So we've got this picture now of rising unemployment, but also, crucially, I mentioned it a bit earlier, the slowdown in pay growth as well, and private sector pay growth in particular now, because that is slowing down to this extent. Many economists are now saying this paves the way, leaves the door open for an interest rate cut in December before everyone who's looking to remortgage rushes out and says, right, this is what I'm going to do. Let's not move too fast because there are still some more numbers to come, crucially, inflation numbers and also the budget as well. But the way the labour market is looking at the moment, that could certainly tilt the Governor in favor of playing Santa when they next meet the week before Christmas.

Adam Fleming (30:31)

Oh, so it's that close to Christmas. I knew it was around about then. I didn't realize it was quite so close. And Henry, I mean, this government really likes it to take credit for decisions made by the bank of England on interest rates, don't they? In a way that sometimes politicians just don't go there because of bank of England independence. Rachel Reeves really goes there.

Henry Zeffman (30:48)

Well, we saw it with Rishi Sunak as well, because one of his five pledges, I think that was the term. We've seen so many other things, missions and milestones under this government as well, that you kind of lose track. But he talked about getting the rate of inflation down and he was also sort of claim and credit, as you put it, for decisions of the independent bank of England. Though obviously the government creates a broader economic environment. I mean, I think the other thing. This, by the way, is the point I was going to make. I think the other thing just to pick up on is it's so interesting politically what Dulcini says about an increasing difference between what's happening in the private sector and in the public sector. Because one of the early big calls that Rachel Reeves made as Chancellor was to give big pay rises to public sector employees in different groups in order to avert the strikes which really did afflict the UK economy in various different areas during the final period of the Conservative government. Initially, that did result in strikes stopping. Now, clearly in various sectors of the economy, that's no longer the case. And it is always a political risk for a Labour government, one which Keir Starmer and Retiri spent years in opposition trying to dispel that the Labour government looks like it cares about public sector employees, but doesn't have much to offer to those working in the private sector. And so if that gap is beginning to become more noticeable in the economic data, I think there's a clear political risk for this Labour government, given the political project of the Prime Minister and his Chancellor.

Darsini David (32:18)

And that gap is becoming ever more noticeable because, as Henry says, you've got that gulf opening up between the pay rises in the public sector and the private sector. Now, last year, of course, we were told this is a budget with a purpose for the public services, we need to boost them. And there was a deliberate transfer of resources right, from one to the other. This year, as Henry says, we're now getting to a point where you're thinking, hang on a minute, if you are taxing it, and this time the burden, extra burden will fall, we're told, on households. Right. So you're seeing a much clearer transfer there. Questions are going to be asked. And it's interesting when you look at these jobs figures, one area where we have seen an increase in employment over the last year, public administration.

Adam Fleming (32:55)

Right.

Adam Fleming (32:56)

And Henry, just one other thing that's floating around this week. Oh, well, there's many things floating around, but one that we're going to focus on for the last few minutes of this conversation, other massive hint from the government that the 2 child benefit cap, which means people on universal credit do not get the child element of universal credit for more than two children, is going to be scrapped or changed in quite some big way at the budget.

Henry Zeffman (33:18)

I think scrapped. I think we can pretty well say scraps now, because Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, was interviewed by Our colleague on 5Live, Matt Trolley, yesterday, and she gave a very clear signal of intent there. And then Sukhistarm has done the same to, I think, Lorraine on ITV Today. I mean, it's just worth looking at the argument that Rachel Reeves gave for her opposition to the 2 child benefit cap, which was introduced by the Conservatives, by George Osborne when he was Chancellor, prevents parents from claiming universal credit or child tax credit for a third child or any children they have subsequently. Rachel Reeves said, I don't think it's right that a child is penalized because they are in a bigger family through no fault of their own. Now, that is not just an argument against a two child benefit cap, that's also an argument against a three child benefit cap, for example, which is what some people were suggesting she might do. It also, I think works as an argument against a taper rate because, you know, that is a penalty. She talks about a child not being penalised, but if you were to pay less in benefits for a third child and then for a fourth child, again, that would be penalising. So I think Rachel Reeves, and deliberately so, gave a very clear indication to Labour MPs who might be pretty anxious about what's coming in this budget, that they are getting the big measure on child poverty that they have wanted for a very long time.

Adam Fleming (34:30)

And I suppose the way Richard Reeves would argue why she's doing it is because they've had this child poverty task force of ministers and experts looking at what are all the levers you can pull if you wanted to reduce child poverty. And there sounds like they're recommending this is one of the biggest levers to pull.

Henry Zeffman (34:44)

Funny that it's ended up concluding its work almost at exactly the same time as budget, isn't it, Adam?

Darsini David (34:48)

Yes.

Adam Fleming (34:49)

Right, we've got to go because someone else wants to come into the newscast studio. But before we do, I'm just gonna leave you with today's nerdy point that I learned a column in the Financial Times from the former managing director and chief econom economists of the imf, and she is quoting a paper that says if Rachel Reeves was to only have one forecast for the economy every year as from the obr, apart from two, so in the spring, you just sort of like, talked about it in general terms rather than having some specific numbers, you would get rid of a whole lot of speculation about what's going to change. And these economists reckon that that would raise industrial production in the UK on an annual basis by 0.3%, which is around 1.5 billion pounds.

Darsini David (35:28)

Sounds great, doesn't it?

Adam Fleming (35:29)

Free money by just like getting the OBR to do less work.

Darsini David (35:33)

It's an interesting trade off, that one. No, I mean, there was a genuinely school of thoughts that is gathering pace. We should say that maybe one forecast a year would be less disruptive. This doesn't rule out speculation, but it makes for a calmer environment for which businesses can plan, but also the markets can act as well. And that, of course, does help smooth out things and could, as you say, increase productivity, but is it's an if we don't know and all these things, and as an economist you will know this, are underpinned by assumptions and assumptions are often wrong.

Adam Fleming (36:02)

And it would reduce productivity. On podcasts, talking about what's going to be in those forecasts if they did do that. So that would be definitely one negative effect. Yeah, exactly. Henry, thank you very much.

Henry Zeffman (36:12)

Thank you very much.

Adam Fleming (36:12)

And Darshini, thanks to you too.

Darsini David (36:14)

Thank you.

Adam Fleming (36:21)

Now, I told you, one of the ways you can contribute to our 25 hour podcast a thon is by sending us a voice note telling us a bit more about your relationship with Newscast. Well, newscaster Jill has done that and it's an incredibly powerful voice note to receive. So we're going to play you the whole thing and I'm sure you will be as moved by it as I was when I just heard it a couple of minutes ago.

Listener Jill (36:45)

Hello, Adam. I've been listening to Newscast just about every night since sometime in early 2018 when I came across Brexitcast. I still miss Katya. Every night I retire to bed with my iPad and tune in. And I'm not sure I could go to sleep now without hearing the latest episode. The addition which really moved me was, I think, sometime in 2020 when you were in conversation with Dr. Catherine Mannix, a palliative care consultant. It was during COVID As a result of listening to this newscast episode, I bought her book with the end in mind and cried through several chapters. Although I also laughed out loud too. It had a profound effect upon me. I read it on a canal boat holiday and our friends teased me for being so engrossed in a book about death and dying. But I soon caught my husband reading it as well. There were tears streaming down his face and he'd only got to chapter three. In September 2024, my lovely mum had a stroke and died four hours later, the last three of which I was lucky enough to be with her. Catherine Mannox's words and calm reassurance returned to me, and because I understood what was happening to my mum as she was dying, it was as loving, peaceful and dignified as anyone could have wished for both of us. I'm currently being treated for inoperable metastatic cancer, and whilst I'm very keen to carry on enjoying as full a life as possible with my family, I'm no longer afraid of dying. Had I not heard that episode of Newscast, I might be in a very different frame of mind. So thank you, Jill.

Adam Fleming (38:39)

Jill, I really don't know what to say other than thank you very much for sending us that voice note and thank you so much for your company over the last few years. And I'm very glad you picked that moment, because whenever people say to me, what's the best interview you've done? Is it with a Prime minister or a celebrity? I always say no. It was at the start of COVID when we were all trying to find the right way of thinking and the right way of talking about death and that moment on Newscast really helped me and kind of forced me to grow up as a person, actually, if I'm honest. So it was amazing to hear that that had an impact for Jill and lots of other people as well. Right, that's it for this episode of Newscast. I'm going to go and rest, rest my voice, rest my brain in preparation for another episode of Newscast. And then the 25 Hour Podcast podcast a thon, which I need to learn how to say, but it's coming your way very soon. Bye Bye, Newscast.

Adam Fleming (39:40)

Newscast from the BBC.

Newscast Outro Announcer (39:42)

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.

Adam Fleming (40:02)

Foreign.

Ray Winstone (40:10)

I'm here to tell you about my podcast on BBC Radio 4, History's Toughest Heroes. I got stories about the pioneers, the rebels, the outcasts who define tough.

History's Toughest Heroes Narrator (40:23)

And that was the first time that anybody ever ran a car up that fast with no tires on. It almost feels like your eye walls are going to come out of your head.

Ray Winstone (40:30)

Tough enough for you? Subscribe to History's Toughest Heroes wherever you get your podcast.