hello, i'm christian fraser. you're watching the context on bbc news. we will also provide the certainty that working people, businesses, and communities need. a clear direction — not the endless spinning around that successive tory governments have subjected us all to. this modern form of national service will mean that young people get the skills and the opportunities they need, which will serve them very well in life. it will foster a culture of service. if you vote liberal democrat, you get a local champion - who is going to campaign for your community, - for your families, stand up for them on the nhs, - and on the local environment. rishi sunak says his plans for mandatory national service for all 18—year—olds will "foster a culture of service" and "strengthen our country's security."

but what of the launch itself? one senior minister said today that candidates were not involved, and even relevant secretaries of state were taken by surprise. we'll get a response from conservative home. israel faces international criticism over an air strike on rafah that is reported to have killed 45 civilians. the white house says the pictures are heartbeaking — but will the president enforce the arms embargo he had threatened? and the nato secretary general calls for western weapons to be used inside russia. at a moment of high risk in the conflict, we'll discuss european defence and ukraine's use of arms beyond its borders. good evening. the labour leader keir starmer has today pledged to "stop the chaos" and "rebuild the country" in his first major speech of the election campaign. sir keir starmer appealed

to undecided voters, and urged people to trust him to deliver economic stability and protect national security. rishi sunak, who was also campaigning today, dismissed the speech as "waffle" and said the speech showed "not a single plan for the future". we'll have more on the prime minister in a minute — but first, here's our political editor chris mason. a man waiting — waiting for his moment, waiting, he hopes, to be prime minister. if you've ever wondered what this man is all about, today was his attempt to give you an answer. the leader of the labour party, keir starmer. applause this, the village hall in lancing in west sussex, as sir keir spoke of his own background. if you're working class, you're scared of debt. my mum and dad were scared of debt, so they would choose the bill that they wouldn't pay rather than go into debt, and they chose the phone bill. they would have the phone cut off

rather than pay the bill because it was the easiest one to do without. the labour leader is also acknowledging he has plenty of persuading to do. whatever the polls say, i know there are countless people who haven't decided how they'll vote in this election. they still have questions about us. has labour changed enough? do i trust them with my money, our borders, our security? my answer is, yes, you can. the challenge for him is, can he convert disillusionment from some with the conservatives into votes for him, even enthusiasm for him? do you accept that there is perhaps an enthusiasm deficit, a lack of enthusiasm for you? you have to ask why people are looking to labour, and i think they're looking to labour because they can see a changed labour party,

which is absolutely country first, party second. they might be looking, but are they enthusiastic? are you concerned about a lack of enthusiasm for labour? i do think there's an underlying issue here, which is, over the last 14 years, i think the government has probably beaten the hope out of many people, and i want to restore the idea that politics can be a force for good. would you describe yourself as a socialist? look, yes, i would describe myself as a socialist. i describe myself as a progressive. how would you describe your socialism? because that word to some people might be scary, off—putting, but you're happy to answer that question directly. let me just explain exactly what i mean by that, because for me, this is about — politics is about — putting the country in the service of working people. there are only two people who can be prime minister after this election. here is the verdict of his opponent. there's a clear contrast in choice at this election. it's another day, we've had another speech from keir starmer, who you've just asked me about.

another half—hour speech, not a single new idea. he's taking the british public for granted. keir starmer talked today of this road in hurst green in surrey where he grew up. he claims its about as english as it gets. those who seek to govern us seek, too, to attempt to personify — however imperfectly — the country they seek to lead. biography, background, beliefs — it's all under scrutiny. while keir starmer was setting out his stall, rishi sunak was defending his plan for mandatory national service for 18—year—olds. during a visit to a football club in buckinghamshire, the prime minister said it was a "bold" proposal which would foster a culture of service and strengthen the country's security. the plans would involve one week of volunteering a month, or a year—long military placement. we will talk about that in a second.

political editor of politics home, adam payne, joins me now. good to have you with us. it was sir keir starmer really trying to place himself at the centre of the political spectrum today? at times it was quite a personal speech, what did you make of it? it it was quite a personal speech, what did you make of it?— did you make of it? it was an attem -t did you make of it? it was an attempt by — did you make of it? it was an attempt by keir _ did you make of it? it was an attempt by keir starmer - did you make of it? it was an attempt by keir starmer to i did you make of it? it was an - attempt by keir starmer to introduce himself to the public. as we know, the labour party as a party, as a collective has enjoyed big double digit leads over conservatives for a long time now, well over a year. i think that lead is about 21% on average. but there have been questions about public enthusiasm for keir starmer the individual, keir starmer the leader, and keir starmer who at the moment is likely to be the next prime minister, although things could change over the next five weeks or so. there's an effort in the labour party to get voters, the public to know more about keir starmer to warm to his

back story, to who he is. and i think we're going to see a lot of that between now and the 4th of july. that between now and the 4th of jul . ~ ., �* ., that between now and the 4th of jul . ~ ., �* . . that between now and the 4th of jul. ., ., ., july. we don't have a manifesto yet, so there is criticism _ july. we don't have a manifesto yet, so there is criticism from _ july. we don't have a manifesto yet, so there is criticism from the prime l so there is criticism from the prime minister that it's so there is criticism from the prime minister that its light on policy — we will wait to see what the manifesto looks like. but what we've had from yvette cooper today is this announcement of a 100 a security review, something akin to what was done around the time of 9/11. —— eight 100 day security review. let's hear what she said. the strategy is setting out that we need is, just as we had at the counterterrorism strategy that was drawn up actually under the last labour government but has endured ever since, what we need now is a new similar strategy around these different hostile state challenges and threats, and to make sure that we've got that same coordinated, high—level, strategic approach that takes immensely seriously those threats. because we're not seeing that from the government at the moment. it's like they've got their eye off the ball.

what will puzzle people out a little, adam, this is a second time she's announced a review first on borders, second the general threats the uk is facing. does that sort of liaison between mi6, border security, police, does that not go on day today anyway? is she saying there's not been enough liaison between the various agencies? i think what it reflects is the defence security, the things and yvette cooper was talking about in the context of international geopolitical instability and precariousness — it is something labour feels confident having a row about. now historically, defence, national security, particularly in recent years has been a weakness for the labour party, an issue where the conservatives have felt very confident and bullish to attack labour. the fact that it yvette cooper, the shadow home secretary, is talking about this, the fact that labour is putting this issue of

defence right at the centre of their pitch to the nation — it reflects i think labour's confidence on this issue, the confidence which, to be honest with you, hasn't been there for most of the party's history. i wasjust going to for most of the party's history. i was just going to ask, for most of the party's history. i wasjust going to ask, is it was just going to ask, is it confidence or a recognition that, post corbyn, this is where they are exposed on national security? i think pat mcfadden, the campaign chair, said, "you don't have anything unless you can prove to voters that you can defend the realm." i voters that you can defend the realm. " ~ voters that you can defend the realm." ~ �* , voters that you can defend the realm." ~ �*, ,., voters that you can defend the realm." ~ �*, ., realm." i think it's both, you are riaht to realm." i think it's both, you are right to point — realm." i think it's both, you are right to point that _ realm." i think it's both, you are right to point that out. - realm." i think it's both, you are right to point that out. after - realm." i think it's both, you are right to point that out. after the | right to point that out. after the defeat of 2019, that crushing defeat, one of the pieces of damage done to the labour party's brand was this idea that you couldn't trust the party to defend the country. keir starmer and his team, as well as repairing the party's to economic competence, has been very keen and

determined to tell people you can trust the labour party to defend the united kingdom and what is a very uncertain time in the world. look at how many headlines at the moment are dominated by conflicts in horror abroad if labour does when injuly, that the international context it will be inheriting, and it's very keen to reassure voters — perhaps voters who aren't fully convinced yet, they are still not convinced they can trust labour, it's about convincing those people that they don't need to worry about them when it comes to defending the country, its people, its borders, etc. yes. its people, its borders, etc. yes, but what we _ its people, its borders, etc. yes, but what we need _ its people, its borders, etc. yes, but what we need to _ its people, its borders, etc. yes, but what we need to hear - its people, its borders, etc. yes, but what we need to hear is - its people, its borders, etc. yes, but what we need to hear is the defence, we still don't have a policy on that. i defence, we still don't have a policy on that-— defence, we still don't have a policy on that. defence, we still don't have a oli on that. ~ ., policy on that. i think a theme will be reoccurring _ policy on that. i think a theme will be reoccurring in _ policy on that. i think a theme will be reoccurring in this _ policy on that. i think a theme will be reoccurring in this labour- be reoccurring in this labour campaign is a reticence when it comes to making spending commitments, because as i said a few moments ago, as well as the effort

to look trustworthy on defence, there is an effort to look trustworthy on the economy— and part of that, as far as keir starmer and rachel reeves are concerned, it's dimensioning to the public that you won't make public to the macro promises you can't keep when it comes to public spending. they won't make the mistakes of the liz truss government in making unfunded commitments when it comes to tax and spend, and while it may be frustrating for people who want to hear more details from labour as to what it'll actually do in government, i think throughout this campaign, there will be a general reticence from labour to tie itself to spending commitments. but of course, as you said, we'll be getting a manifesto soon, and perhaps in that document we will learn more about labour's plans. yes, they are again promising today that all of it will be fully costed. we first from various former defence

ministers and also from members of the defence staff who have questioned whether it can be fully paid for. the veterans minister, johnny mercer, has been on the radio this evening, this is what he said about the plan. anything that unites communities with a sense of service, _ awareness of what the other organisations do, it's great. | it gives people pride - and purpose and challenge, and often most needed in those communities that feel— most left behind. so, yes, the military is a part of it, 30,000 people, - if they want to, no one is going to be forced . into the military or any of the dark things i've read today. _ if they want to, they can go to the military, - which i think is fantastic, i think it's the best thing| a young person can do, is to join the military. i what's been the reaction from conservative mps today? they've been out on the campaign trail having to defend it. i’zfe out on the campaign trail having to defend it. �* , ,., ~' out on the campaign trail having to defend it. �* , ,., ~ ., out on the campaign trail having to defend it. �* , ., ., , defend it. i've spoken to a number of conservatives, _ defend it. i've spoken to a number of conservatives, and _ defend it. i've spoken to a number of conservatives, and a _ defend it. i've spoken to a number of conservatives, and a lot - defend it. i've spoken to a number of conservatives, and a lot of - defend it. i've spoken to a number| of conservatives, and a lot of them have said to me that the general

idea, the general gist of the policy, they quite liked. they think that something is interesting there and the tory party should be looking at social cohesion and breaking down barriers, etc. the issue for the tory party is that they've announced this bold, eye—catching policy in a bid to take control of the conversation, to get people's attention. but if you're going to announce something that's bold and eye—catching, if it's also not completely watertight, if you haven't fully thought it through, that will quickly become exposed — and what we've seen in the last 24-48 and what we've seen in the last 24—48 hours, questions about how this policy will actually work. for example, there are questions over if you're a parent and your 18—year—old child doesn't partake in this national service, will you be punished? and if so, what will the punishments look like? will it be financial? if so, will that mean

wealthier parents will essentially be able to buy their kids out of the programme? there are also questions about how this will work in northern ireland, because northern ireland has a particular context, particular ideas of identity which would make this policy challenging to roll out over there. so the issue for the prime minister and the tory party — it's not so much the gist of the policy, the direction they're going and, i think a lot of tories are probably with them on that. it's the specifics, the details of the policy, and that's where the prime minister has come under pressure on this bank holiday monday. imilli minister has come under pressure on this bank holiday monday.— this bank holiday monday. will come back to how — this bank holiday monday. will come back to how policy _ this bank holiday monday. will come back to how policy is _ this bank holiday monday. will come back to how policy is decided - this bank holiday monday. will come back to how policy is decided within l back to how policy is decided within the conservative party. just a quick word on the smaller parties, particularly of that liberal democrats — ed davey today making his claim that his party can become a third big power in westminster ahead of the si a third big power in westminster ahead of the s i was looking at the figures, and when you look at what they did in 2019, they were sex and

they did in 2019, they were sex and the microsecond and 91 constituencies in around the country, 80 of those to conservative mps —— they were second in 91 constituencies. mps -- they were second in 91 constituencies.— mps -- they were second in 91 constituencies. .. , ,., constituencies. exactly, so when we talk about liberal— constituencies. exactly, so when we talk about liberal democrats - constituencies. exactly, so when we talk about liberal democrats and i constituencies. exactly, so when we | talk about liberal democrats and the 4th talk about liberal democrats and the 11th ofjuly, we are mainly talking about seats in the south of england which people like me in westminster sometimes referred to as the blue wall — these are seats which traditionally, historically have been conservative seats, but over recent years have drifted away from the tories, in most cases the lib dems. now the most recent by—elections and local elections, we started to see that trend, and there are a number of seats in that part of the country which lib dems have in their sites, and most are home to some pretty high profile tories. we havejeremy hunt, gillian keegan —

so the lib dems, if they can make serious progress in that part of the country, they can have a strong election, and it's also worth saying that if the lib dems have a strong night, then that really helps labour, because the lib dems are taking on the tories in seats where labour can't really win. so if the lib dems can take it to the tories in those places i'm talking about, and if they can be successful, then that's another source of help for keir starmer.— that's another source of help for keir starmer. �* . ., ., ~ ., keir starmer. adam, good to talk to ou, keir starmer. adam, good to talk to you. thanks — keir starmer. adam, good to talk to you. thanks very _ keir starmer. adam, good to talk to you, thanks very much _ keir starmer. adam, good to talk to you, thanks very much for— keir starmer. adam, good to talk to you, thanks very much for summing j keir starmer. adam, good to talk to i you, thanks very much for summing up the day for us. around the world and across the uk, this is bbc news. let's look at some of the other stories making headlines in the uk today. cases of melanoma skin cancer are at an all—time high in the uk, with more than 20,000 people expected to be diagnosed with it this year. the charity cancer research uk is warning people to do more to protect themselves from the sun, and say there's been a particularly big increase in cases among older people.

a woman who was stabbed to death on bournemouth beach on friday night has been named locally as amie gray. another woman remains in hospital with serious injuries. police are still at the scene of the stabbings and a section of the beachfront remains cordoned off. the raf has grounded the battle of britain memorial flights following the death of one of its pilots in a spitfire crash on saturday. squadron leader mark long was flying near raf coningsby, in lincolnshire when the aircraft came down. a spokesman said a pause has been implemented while a formal investigation is carried out. labour has today ridiculed rishi sunak�*s plan to reintroduce national service. they claim it would require a 300% expansion of the military training pipeline, and would cost far more than £2.5 billion price tag the government has attached to it.

the desperation of this national service policy, a sort of teenage dad's army... laughter paid for — paid for, i kid you not — by cancelling levelling up funding, and money from tax avoidance that we would use to invest in our nhs. the conservatives say the plan will be paid for by taking money from the prosperity fund, money previously allocated for levelling up. that would translate into a £175 million cut across yorkshire, according to analysis from the northern powerhouse partnership.

what we do is we look at the prosperity — what we do is we look at the prosperity funding _ what we do is we look at the prosperity funding for - what we do is we look at the prosperity funding for the . what we do is we look at the | prosperity funding for the last three years, just over three in burnley, so we've taught it up all the figures from all the authorities on both sides of the pennines. in yorkshire, it comes to 175 million, and across the whole, 600 million. there is a black hole in these proposals. tax avoidance doesn't get you the whole way, and i think all the estimates that we've looked at from observers who understand the military side of this is the assumptions on how cheaply this can be delivered, 30,000 people a year, you have to pay them a stipend and house them, train them — that'll cost significant in more than the projections in the government's plan. so we assume we could lose up to all of the transparency fund from 2028-29, there'll to all of the transparency fund from 2028—29, there'll be nothing left over from 2028—29, there'll be nothing left overfrom mayors 2028—29, there'll be nothing left over from mayors and 2028—29, there'll be nothing left overfrom mayors and local authorities. that's problematic because the prime minister has talked all day about the opportunities for young people, but if you go to places like teesside where the mayor of the tees valley

in this three years has got almost £40 million from this budget, that's basically his allocation, a lot of that has gone on to pay young people who are unemployed into jobs. the previous funds that this replaced have already been cut by a third to places like tees valley, getting much more than other parts of the country. this'll equate to taking money from the areas of the country to basically pay for mandatory gap years for a small number of young people, then forced volunteering for the rest. bluntly, that doesn't feel like a good use of public money, but in reality some of those vulnerable young people won't get that support, because the money to pay for that will have been taken away instead pay for what is essentially election gambit. i think if it ever did happen, i don't think it would necessarily be very helpful to achieve much. but if you got up government who's been in powerfor five years promising levelling up,

and taking away its most resourceful spending, we are about to celebrate ten years since george 0sborne's speech on the northern powerhouse. it feels like the conservative party hasn'tjust rescinded on those promises made ten years ago, but also the promises rishi sunak made as chancellor under borisjohnson as prime minister. as chancellor under boris johnson as prime minister.— prime minister. obviously, henry, it's something _ prime minister. obviously, henry, it's something very _ prime minister. obviously, henry, it's something very close - prime minister. obviously, henry, it's something very close to - prime minister. obviously, henry, it's something very close to your l it's something very close to your heart as well as mine, and you question the point about the politics, i'm sure the conservatives's own supporters would question whether this is smart policy and redwall seats. burnley specifically is the number one target seat for labour at the selection, and as you say, a lot of the money invested in burnley since the money invested in burnley since the 2019 election has been about getting people out of unemployment and lifting out of the poverty track. —— poverty trap. are you

saying then that it's just another example here of the conservative party rating a fund that they said would make all the difference and help level up some of these constituencies?— help level up some of these constituencies? . �*, , constituencies? that's exactly the case, and constituencies? that's exactly the case. and i _ constituencies? that's exactly the case, and i think— constituencies? that's exactly the case, and i think it _ constituencies? that's exactly the case, and i think it was _ constituencies? that's exactly the case, and i think it was george i case, and i think it was george osborne in manchester giving a 0sborne in manchester giving a speech alongside ed balls before the election was called who said that political parties forever have sprinkled cash around seats they want. this fund was never like that because it replaced all the structural funds, because it replaced all the structuralfunds, it's been spent for decades seeking to address the fundamental cause of inequality, to raise productivity in northern towns and cities like greater manchester where andy burnham gets almost 100 million of this over three years. that's a huge cut to one of the cities that is driving the north's economy, closing the productivity gap in the last 15 years partly with london, using these funds to do that. so i think it's bad economics, which is why i'm on the programme — you got someone who is an expert on

the politics of this, and i wouldn't want to stray completely out of my field of understanding, but i think i know enough about the internal poles of the conservative party to know this will not go down well with those in the northern research group, those defending those redwall seats. they'll livid that labour candidates will be able to have angela rayner come to visit the project the prime minister says he wants to cut in the next five years. that's terrible if you want to hang onto your seat.— onto your seat. let's test that. there's been — onto your seat. let's test that. there's been complaints - onto your seat. let's test that. there's been complaints today| onto your seat. let's test that. - there's been complaints today from the likes of steve bacon, the northern ireland minister.

20 me know henry hill. you wrote when the premise or had to get their cabinet, they knew what they would be defending week to week. what concerns do you have about the way this policy has been drawn up? i don't know anything about how it was drawn up, i suppose that's got to be concerned number one. we've seen from rishi sunak over the past year a real problem of — he and his team have been making policy and downing street, a very small team, without either informing or consulting their party or drawing on their resources of government. we saw this showcased in october when his party conference speech led on three policies, all of which were a complete surprise, the cancelling of hs2, nobody told dft what they would be doing instead, the smoking ban, no one knew that was coming, the abolition of tea levels, no one told the minister who had to come out and do tea levels week — it's the same thing here. is a policy that's been formulated in a

bunker, as one source said to me today? is that the problem? that's exactly what _ today? is that the problem? that's exactly what it _ today? is that the problem? that's exactly what it is, _ today? is that the problem? that's exactly what it is, ministers - today? is that the problem? that's exactly what it is, ministers have l exactly what it is, ministers have not been consulted on this, candidates have not been consulted on this. there were huge amounts of confusion about the content of the policy. i was speaking to ministers yesterday who were jokingly asking me, are you ready to take up your ak-47 to me, are you ready to take up your ak—47 to do national service? i had to tell them there's not a combat component to this national service scheme because that had not been adequately communicated. i think in terms of the design of the policy, the problem is it'll please nobody. the prime minister's critics hear the words national service, labour gets to run a tiktok campaign saying he'll send all the 18—year—olds off to war. supporters of national service will discover the only 5% of 18—year—olds will actually be able to do the military component. there's no option for them to do combat roles, even if they wanted to, you simply can't be an infantry man on the scheme, you'll spend a year during procurement or cyber security. so it'll please no one.

let me say goodbye to our viewers on pbs, thank you for watching. just wanted to say goodbye to those viewers, but i want to look at this in a little further detail, because henry raises some really important points — for those conservatives in redwall seats, the policy is not fully costed, it didn't seem to be that ministers yesterday knew what the punishments would be were 18—year—olds not able to comply with the mandatory national service. what do you think members and redwall seats will make of it if it becomes public knowledge that the money is now being stripped away, money promised for levelling up? in that sense, promised for levelling up? in that sense. it's — promised for levelling up? in that sense, it's almost _ promised for levelling up? in that sense, it's almost the _ promised for levelling up? in that sense, it's almost the antithesis i promised for levelling up? in that| sense, it's almost the antithesis of what you want of a decent campaign policy. because ideally with a campaign policy or pre—election budget, you want your mps defending redwall seats to have a nice number they can put on their leaflets. they can see if you vote conservative,

this is what you'll get. whereas if this is what you'll get. whereas if this reasoning pans out, and i've no reason to dispute the calculations of the previous speaker, that number has a negative, a minus sign in front of it. there labour upon it will be able to say rishi sunak�*s inscriptions scheme will cost this seat x — that's a really powerful campaign message. sol seat x — that's a really powerful campaign message. so i think again, even those mps and redwall seats and redwall voters who might favour national service as a headline scheme, they will probably be very disappointed with this scheme and they'll definitely not be pleased with how the prime minister is proposing to pay for it. it’s with how the prime minister is proposing to pay for it.- proposing to pay for it. it's a recurring _ proposing to pay for it. it's a recurring theme, _ proposing to pay for it. it's a recurring theme, though, i proposing to pay for it. it's a i recurring theme, though, this, proposing to pay for it. it's a - recurring theme, though, this, if you think back to the 2017 election, we had a scenario where theresa may had to pull a major plank of her manifesto because she was suggesting that the social care costs wouldn't take into account people's homes, the value of people's homes. it was deeply unpopular and ditched. i wonder if it's notjust this

government, whether it's successive governments who've taken policymaking away from cabinet and civil servants who can properly cost them for what reason? is there a concern or fear that things will be leaked and ideas might be stolen? leaking stephanie a concern, i think it is simply harder to have a consultant to process and keep secrets in an age into whatever anyone can whatsapp a journalist at anyone can whatsapp a journalist at any time. i'd draw a distinction between 2017 and now. the policy theresa may designed in 2017 wasn't badly designed, it actually made a lot of sense, it was about asking older people with a particular amount of asset wealth to contribute some of it towards their own social care. it was extremely unpopular, that was a political misjudgment, but is not the same thing as rushing out a policy that seems badly designed. but political parties and election have the right to set their own policies, they don't have to get

everything vetted by the civil service— labour can't because they are in opposition. the problem is not so much the lack of the state being involved, but rishi sunak has surprised his own party. remember, all those ministers and members of his cabinet who were bound by collective responsibility, meaning they cannot criticise the government or the party line whilst keeping theirjobs. the point of that historically is because things that went through cabinet, they had agreed. it was debated freely in cabinet and they stuck to their minds afterwards. but they've not had site of this policy before it was announced to the press, so it's hard to see how the prime minister can indefinitely expect them to keep pivoting left and right, defending policies that he comes up with in a small room of advisers that they've had nothing to do with. imilli small room of advisers that they've had nothing to do with.— had nothing to do with. will get reaction to _ had nothing to do with. will get reaction to that _ had nothing to do with. will get reaction to that in _ had nothing to do with. will get reaction to that in the - had nothing to do with. will get reaction to that in the second . had nothing to do with. will get i reaction to that in the second hour of the programme. henry hill, thanks for coming on the programme. 0n the other end of the break, we'll talk about the very serious situation in

rafah. hello, i'm christian fraser. you're watching the context on bbc news. president zelensky receives a royal welcome in spain and signs an agreement which promises ukraine1 billion euros worth of military aid. before we get to that, we will take a short pause and get an update on the sport. here's marc edwards. rafael nadal is out of the french open losing in the first round in what could prove to be 37—year—old's last match at roland garros. the king of clay, with a record 14 titles there, going down fighting against alexander zverev in a three—hour battle under the roof on court philippe chatrier, but nadal eventually falling short, losing in straight sets 6—3, 7—6, 6—3, zverev becoming just the third man after robin soderling and novak djokovic to defeat