around the children says there are around 350,000 children trapped in mosul as iraqi troops have started an operation backed by american air strikes to recapture the city from islamic state militants. president trump has attacked the media again at a rally in florida, where he defended his record in office, and labelled the negative coverage about him as "fake news." police in malaysia have named four north korean suspects who left the country the same day as the half brother of the north korean leader was killed at kuala lumpur airport last week. now on bbc news, dateline. hello and welcome to dateline london. the trump white house is running like a "fine tuned machine" and any other claim is fake news. how fine tuned — or dysfunctional —

is the trump administration? and israel and the palestinians — a one state solution? a two state solution? or no solution? my guests today are: marc roche of le point and le soir, journalist and author rachel shabi, janet daley of the sunday telegraph and henry chu of variety. us presidencies sometimes have a fairly rocky start — president harrison died after a month in office, bill clinton was notoriously late at first. the trump white house is a total shambles say the critics — fights with the media and rows with congress are common in us history — but a war onjudges, thejudiciary, and us intelligence services in the first month is unprecedented in living memory. how bad is it — or is it, truly, a fine—tuned machine? i mean, there really are two views about this... are there? i don't know many people who adhere to the second, except donald trump himself. well i think he's got some supporters outside the mainstream media. is unfit for the presidency.

question is, what happens now? his vice president and secretary of defence are in germany. they are saying precisely the opposite of what he's been saying, both about nato and russia. is that meant to send out a signal that the world should ignore the lunatic we are locking up in the attic in the white house and we are running the government, we are running the foreign policy of the administration? so we are 100% absolutely supportive of nato. we have absolutely no doubt russia is a serious threat to world law and order, in the ukraine, etc. listen to us, not him. that's dangerous. it's a possible solution to the problem but it's dangerous, on two counts. one is that someone foreign leader perhaps unscrupulously or cynically could decide to take donald trump at his word and could decide that he is the real voice of this administration and therefore go on that premise.

and also, trump is inflaming national opinion within his own country. what happens when it becomes apparent he's been sidelined? what happens to the rage and frustration he has stoking up against foreigners, muslims, the world generally. that is a terrifying prospect. he did promise to drain the swamp. it may be that those people in the swamp in washington have been knowing what to do in recent years even though they've not done it very well. expertise sometimes counts in foreign affairs. in terms of foreign policy, what we've seen with trump is he's gone back on his own words. he said he possibly would not adhere to the one china policy. well, that'sjust took a phone call from the chinese leader to berate him and he kind of capitulated in the end. in terms of your point you made earlier of whether this administration is in a shambles already, we need to keep in mind a couple of things.

one, by any measure, it is in shambles. people have been ousted, people have resigned, some have had to withdraw from their nomination. you had an ill thought out travel ban. not in the least planned. it has already been suspended by judiciary, etc. on the one hand you have that objective reality. but this is a president who is still as he was as a candidate who isn't interested in objective reality. he is trying to create an alternative reality that he is selling to his supporters and using to rally his base. we saw that. alternative backs. exactly. that may be very effective. mainstream media, as we know from polls in america, is less trusted than politicians, good grief. it is very calculated. why was his press conference in the afternoon? that is because his base are often people watching television in the afternoons. he's gone over the heads of the media. then he can berate the media on tv. they are witnesses to their own suicide.

and then communicate his version of reality to the people who support him. rachel? i think that's right and we need to be mindful of that. we would be watching that press conference and seeing a complete car crash. and also seeing really dangerous displays of racism and anti—semitism. and then his reactions to a free press, you know... one of the most important things in an american democracy, the way he has called them out as liars and betrayers of the people, like the judiciary, very dangerous for a democracy to have its elected leader saying things like that. at the same time, look at the reaction in things like fox news, and it is favourable. not all of fox news, to be fair. some of it.

you are right. even fox news has gone off. you are right. it is only a section of it. but that section of it is about look at the way this man faces down hostile, lying, nagging media who keep hitting him over the head with useless details. and look at how masterful and in control he is. it's interesting, that same audience is attached to the second amendment of the us constitution, which is guns, not attached to the first amendment, the right to freedom of speech and for people in the media to comment on the executive branch. that isn't the frame it is being viewed with. the frame is, it is the fault of the media. the media is respecting the first amendment because it is habitually lying and trying to undermine our democratically elected leader. i think that view clearly has a lot of traction. when the media is thinking about and talking about how to respond to trump and how to deal with trump, what do you do when you are basically being trolled in a white house presser?

do you boycott it, not air it live? that has be one of the considerations. some journalistic organisations are saying we should not air some of these things live. because there are so many factual errors. let me put it to you that the media is an easy target, whereas the court and intelligence services are things that are much more dangerous for any politician to attack. it's true. it is a great danger for any politician to attack the court, the institution which make a state. i have agreed with everything that has been said. but in europe you have the same situation. if you see the way francois fillon and marine le pen have coped with the problems of illegal funding, of misappropriation of public funds, they have used the same as donald trump, going above the media

because they are liberal, perceived as liberal, biased, against them. they've gone directly through social media to the people. that has allowed them to get away with, at the moment, with murder. i think trump is doing the same. does it work for them in the same way? twitter seems to work very well for trump. it is working for fillon who hasn't resigned. it is working for le pen who is ahead in the polls. i think there are two groups who are extremely unpopular. it is the journalists and the seasoned politicians, those who are perceived as the establishment. although i agree with you that his attacks on the intelligence service and the judiciary represent attacks on the state, the very workings of our democracy in america, i'm not sure that this is exactly what resonates with his base,

with the people who are trying to give him a pass and support him. you can talk all you want about russian interference. it's not having any traction with the people coming to his rallies. he will have another huge rally in florida which isjust a continuation of his campaign. why is that? would that not have sunk any other american president? it is bizarre because it is contradictory to his own friendliness to russia. he won't have a bad word said about putin. the whole thing is incoherent. it is a succession of facile and absurd self contradictions. yet nobody seems to be worried about that. he has this "america first" refrain, which he is selling to impoverished parts of the country, which really have been locked into depression for a very long time. the rust belt of america, the terrible unemployment blackspots. he's inciting those people to believe he can cure their problems. won't that be the test? whatever people think about the performance we saw this

week, the test will be will there be morejobs, are people more better off, will taxes be cut? what will happen when those things fail? exactly. they might not. he has an administration that doesn't seem to be equipped to deliver those things. neither does it seem to be the agenda of a free—market fundamentalist to be able to... you know, it isn't their economic ideology to deliver that. we are talking about infrastructure, as well. what will happen when that fails? against whom will there be rage? the main problem, aside of the political, is the economic. his electorate will be disappointed. his government, where bankers are an overwhelming presence, will dismantle all the bank regulation. which could create a new financial crisis. and they will suffer from that more than anything.

control of immigration, protectionism, investment in infrastructure, that means inflation. inflation means higher interest rates. higher interest rates, it's his electorate that will suffer via mortgages. everybody describes him as a far right character. the infrastructure spending is straight out of franklin roosevelt's new deal. public spending on a massive scale. republicans in congress don't like that. this is a peculiar political package. the post—industrial nature of the economy means he isn't going to be able to restore the heavy duty manufacturing jobs that have disappeared in the rust belt. these people will be just as unemployed. unless they are somehow employed on these great infrastructure projects which america cannot afford. because it would exacerbate the national debt. that coming with tax cuts. that leaves the republicans with a big problem. they have got a guy who is elected

to some of them do not think is a republican in many ways, oi’ a conservative. do they stick close to him until the next election? do they distance themselves? what do they do? they would certainly cut and run if they saw his poll numbers plummet. they are first and foremost politicians. this goes back to a point we were making earlier both about the economics being the important part of the election. people who were feeling disenfranchised economically and not having their lives improved. assuming that doesn't happen, it also goes back to the control of the message that donald trump has been putting out. who will they blame? he will blame an obstructive congress. a media attacking everything he does. or a judiciary who are banning the things he does. that will still appeal to his base. they will feel he is being obstructed. it is about keeping that narrative under complete control. the democrats must wonder, how on earth, if the analysis we've heard around this table is anywhere near correct, how on earth

could you lose this election? how can you be such a shambles, and they are. we've heard about the french left, the british left isn't in great shape, either. it isn'tjust an american problem. it isn't. that is what is staggering about this. the capacity for self reflection amongst, you know, the left, the progressives, in the us, as in the uk and across europe, seems to be sorely lacking. to be able to look at the situation in which the far right is resurgent and has been enabled. and to not understand what those factors were. and actually how the centre—left was complicit in that. and enabled it and allowed it to happen. the fact that it is not the success of the far right, so much the loss and failure of the left. i find it disturbing that we don't even seem to have

started that conversation by which the progressive left looks at how can we learn, and how can we move? there isn't an obvious answer. what happens to the political voice in the post—industrial age of what used to be called the industrial proletariat? what happens to the employee interest when the employer and employee dynamic fails? when fewer people are employed because robots are doing mechanical stuff? or foreign labour is? this is a crisis for the left because it doesn't speak for anyone. but there are new faces on the left that are doing well. justin trudeau is doing well, macron in france might do very well. the guy in germany who might do well. same with renzi coming bck iin italy... bck in italy... but they are countries who haven't tried it yet. we had a centre left success in tony blair which cameron emulated.

that centrist conspiracy, that coalition of metropolitan liberals, that runs for a while, and then working class people begin to say what about me? that is the stage the country has to reach before.. tony blair may be coming back in our politics. the majority of the voters today are not working class disenfranchised. the majority of the population are entrepreneurs, and people who are in the white collars. i don't think that's true. i think the reality of what you've been talking about, the thing blair corroborated as much as cameron, is the economic devastation that it has inflicted on people, it isn't a working—class thing any more. it is actually most people. most are struggling. the middle class. that is what theresa may keeps talking about. and ed miliband. not having a solution for that is a failure of centrism.

the trial of globalisation is dead. we've done well on globalisation. now we are in a retraction of it. now we have to find a balance between protectionism and globalisation. the globalisation of labour has been one of the big forces. the idea that there are migrating tribes of particularly young people who can move across borders, take on employment, it is the stable populations that want to buy homes, raise families, live in the traditional way, who feel they are being pushed out by itinerant labour. just a final point about the russia question. the russia question has been nagging for months. nobody knows quite where this is going. we know there is intelligence and other investigations, the house and senate intelligence committee, why has this not got more resonance? i think it is divorced from economics. economics was the key message in the election campaign. russia, when it was a cold war threat, it loomed large in people's imaginations in america. it doesn't do the same now.

had you changed this over and said it was china who was hacking into e—mails, china that was influencing the election, i think the reaction would be different. i think you would find people who are now rather passive about, in their response to russia, saying china, which represents a great economic threat to the us, is interfering in our affairs, it would be a different response and that is part of what is animating this lack of response to the russian question. let's move on. israel and palestine — and a two state solution involving land for peace — has been the core of the middle east political agenda for decades. now president trump has floated the idea of a one state solution, and also suggested moving the us embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem. in israel a "one state" solution means a jewish state. to some palestinians it means a secular state in which israelis and palestinians would live

side by side. but either way would palestinians be in the majority — making this no solution? you could say it's good to rethink the middle east peace because after 30 years of talking about two state solutions it hasn't gone anywhere. yes and no. certainly that's true, it hasn't gone anywhere, and anybody who has spent time in the region will be able to say, look, on the ground, in real terms, because of israel's settlement expansion, and the way it has expanded into palestinian land, has made the two state solution impossible. practically impossible on the ground. 650,000 jewish settlers in the occupied west bank and east jerusalem. and arranged in a way that makes a continuous palestinian state just impossible. and a lot of people will say that the two state premise, parameters that have been in operation for these decades in the international community, have given israel cover, that they have allowed this expansionist policy to take place under the cover of a supposed attempt to solve the conflict. but on the other hand,

when you have a us president quite clearly walking away from those parameters, then, of course, that's going to enable the far right, the expansionist right, in israel. and give them permission to be even worse. he did say, trump did say, look, basically if it's ok with israel and the palestinians. anything you guys want! i'll go along with it. look at the way that was read in israel. you have the far right of the coalition government celebrating a new era. you have the education minister under benjamin netanyahu's coalition government, and also the leader of the right—wing pro—settlement jewish home party, you have him

saying the palestinian flag has come down and the israeli flag has been replaced. given the israeli flag is already waving across israel we can only assume he meant that about palestine. or the land marked for a palestinian state. the fact they have been so enabled and given permission by this is bad. as is the fact that the palestinians, in a way, have been abandoned. as much as, you know, the occupation and the settlement project was carrying on they at least had some level of diplomatic protection that has now been completely removed. there was a good reason why there was never any resolution of the one state, two state condition, because nobody wanted to try and settle this. it was an insoluble problem. nobody would be happy with a single solution. that is why what he said

was ignorant and absurd. he said i've looked at the one state, the two state, whatever makes you happy, whatever you like i will go along with it. he seems to be unaware of the fact that there is no one solution that satisfies both sides. and to go back to what you said earlier, his own un envoy has said in contradiction, that the two state solution is the basis... is the only game in town. even if it is a bad game he is suggesting this. i'm worried about asking this... has he moved back from the idea of moving the embassy? yes. for today. he didn't understand the complexities involved. the sensitivities. yes, he puts out things that he then has to retract. i think it really puts us in a no solution camp. the two state solution in practice it is now impossible. the one state solution, in principle it won't be accepted by either side because it would destroy the jewish nature of that area that israel wants to preserve and palestinians would not accept being second—class citizens in a single state. what has definitely changed,

and i've talked to a lot of people in the gulf, there is a new mood because of iran and there is less, how can one put it, less overt hostility to the israeli state in some countries than there was before. clearly israel has played quite well in order to get rapprochement with saudi arabia and the common enemy, iran. to come back to the one state, one state is impossible because it doesn't work. we have seen it in yugoslavia, we see today in cameroon, you cannot put the people who are so hostile to each other in one state. so the only solution is the two state, even if it isn't working. but at least you can say it is containment for the west to have that solution. even if it doesn't work. were you surprised it came up so early?

what tends to happen with american presidencies is they don't do much about the middle east until the end of their term because they can't, effectively. many around him feel strongly about it. he wanted a great success. he wanted to launch something that would seem to undo previous foreign policy and would produce a miraculous result. he doesn't seem to understand why nobody has been able to produce a miraculous result in the past, even with the most painstaking peace negotiations. it is terrifyingly ignorant. a business deal, basically. no. but he thinks it is. that is why he says whatever you two can be happy i will go along with whatever that is. but there is a silver lining. is there? go on! and goodness knows we have to find them these days. one possible outcome of this is, you know, if the us is going to openly abandon what it has effectively abandoned in practice

for the last few decades, ie a commitment to the two state solution, because whatever previous administrations have said, in reality israel has flouted international law with regards to building settlements, and that has been the biggest obstacle to the two state solution. if us has openly has abandoned that it might make room for european countries that have for some time been disgruntled with the way the us has handled this process, and have a different take, it might give them scope, as a bloc, to step up and step into a field where the perception is that the us hasn't been the honest broker and the honest mediator. good news forjanet. i think trump, and i agree with you, will force europeans to go further in integration politically, economically, and thanks to trump we can face... in the mind of... janet, europe will do well, and you will be with the lunatics in the white house. no, no, no.

i think trump, i think he is actually, the disorder that trump is creating and the threat to eastern europe that he is encouraging with the russians will actually create rifts in europe which will be very serious and destructive. eastern europe is getting worried about the fact that western europe isn't interested in defending them. it depends where you mean, because of germany. do you really want to see germany rearmed? nato is there at the moment. yes, nato is there at the moment. it has been a funny month, janet, i wouldn't rule anything out at this stage. do you actually think that this could make the european union, britain aside, when it leaves, stronger? absolutely. because for the first time the european union is to take its destiny. the us is out. britain will be out.

it's up to us to make a better world. janet is making the point that they are very disunited anyway. hungary isn't going in the same direction as france, for example. the threat from russia is serious for these eastern european countries. but that is a nato threat. for us what will be important is that politically we have a voice. in the middle east we have a voice. a united voice on trade. that will make europe a much stronger. good luck. we will have to leave it there, on that happy note. that's it for dateline london this week — you can comment on the programme on twitter @gavinesler and engage with our guests. we're back next week at the same time. make a date with dateline london. goodbye. he low. the afternoon looking dry,

mild, but cloudy for the vast majority of the uk. the cloud thickening up all the while across the pennines, this was the scene a few moments ago in saddleworth on the tops of the pennines. a bit of mist and drizzle coming down, that will continue to work in as we go through this afternoon, turning damp in place, north—west england round oui’ in place, north—west england round our the pennines and fog patches developing on western coasts and hills. sunshine as a premium. the best in parts of north east england, eastern scotland but here there will bea eastern scotland but here there will be a tendency for things to cloud over. overnight a band of rain pushes southwards, staying cloudy and murky for most but a mild night on the cards, temperatures overnight between around nine and ii on the cards, temperatures overnight between around nine and 11 degrees celsius, that is higher than the temperatures should be in the middle of the day let alone during the night. the mild conditions will continue into monday where a band of rain pushing southwardsful ahead of

it gusty winds to the east of the pennines and scotland to watch out for a time. monday morning to the south, a lot of cloud, a few sunny spells but another mild day, temperatures as high as 14 to maybe i6 temperatures as high as 14 to maybe 16 degrees given a bit of sunshine across england and wales. that is your weather. good afternoon. thousands of prison officers atjails in london and south—east england are to get a pay increase of between £3,000—5,000. ministers have made the offer to try to boost recruitment and keep workers at prisons under pressure from violence and staff shortages. but there'll be no extra pay for senior officers. here's our home affairs correspondent, june kelly. they're the front line in ourjails, but there aren't enough of them. the shortage of staff is seen as one of the key causes of the problems in prisons. in somejails, officers are struggling on a daily basis simply to maintain control. now the government is putting in place a £12 million pay package

to try to retain existing staff and recruit new prison officers. this is wandsworth jail, in south london, and staff here will benefit. the offer is limited to prisons in the capital and the south east. ministers say they're under the greatest pressure. but this has been condemned as ‘divisive‘ by the prison officers' association.