but at some point, if the chancellor is to match the aims set out by his party, he'll have to find a way to get borrowing down. more public spending cuts are already written into the government's projections, just as article 50 is about to hit us — for good or ill. now helping out is the fact that the economic news has been good since late last year. but unfortunately he can't rely on bags of money falling from the sky, and that means this is not an easy time to be chancellor. sometimes you want a safe pair of hands at number 11, a man who does not try to steal the limelight. just gets on with the job. this is probably one of those times and in the last few days, he has been out and about, sensibly managing expectations of this week's budget. if your bank increases your credit card limit, i don't think you feel obliged to go out and spend every last penny of it immediately. it depends on your temperament. i regard myjob as chancellor as making sure that our economy is resilient, that we have got

reserves in the tank, so that as we embark on the journey that we take over the next couple of years, we are confident that we have got enough gas in the tank to see us through that journey. there are two kinds of budget, those that have a specific problem to solve, normally a crisis in the public finances. and there are those where there isn't much to do, chancellors just have to stand up and look like they've been keeping busy. well, this one is more in the latter category. part of the reason for that is that brexit is looming over everything at the moment. the old slogan used to be, you must fix the roof while the sun is shining. today might be, there is no point in fixing the roof if you think a great big tree might come toppling down on top of it. you should wait to see what happens. until brexit, getting the deficit down was the main goal, and it slowly came under control.

the idea is it carries on going down but the basicjob is farfrom done. it's fair to say that a lot of people, perhaps ourselves included, were sceptical about the scope for the scale of public spending cuts experienced over the last parliament, but those were essentially delivered as promised without everything falling apart. we don't need to panic about the level of public borrowing at the moment, but we do, broadly speaking, need to get it down rather than let it go up. so we can't expect to borrow more as an answer to all our prayers. yet, when you look at the public sector, it's beginning to scream that it needs more money. so if you are a chancellor at number 11, you look out there, it doesn't look like there are any easy answers to the long—term problems. finding public spending savings now, after a period of six or seven years of efficiency savings, is a much more challenging job to do without hitting front line services

or significantly increasing poverty. imagine you were chancellor. where would you go for further cuts? defence? just as nato is being told to raise spending? prisons? amid the current violence and disorder? police? just last week the official inspector said they were in a perilous state. in transport, we are meant to be getting brexit ready by spending more on infrastructure. in business we are trying to launch a new industrial strategy and it's already on the cheap. health? good luck with that. social care? you need to find money and not cut it. you have to go a long way to look for low hanging fruit nowadays. most of that was plucked in 2011 and 2012. there was probably a lot of low hanging fruit there. if you want to go foraging for some more, the places to look are presumably, and this isn't what i am suggesting you should do,

but you could look at overseas aid where spending has risen very fast over the last five or six years, but we have commitments in that direction. secondly, spending on pensions and pension benefits, all of which have been more than fully protected over the last five or six years in contrast to most areas of spending. inside the treasury, they have got a lot on their plate. getting to the next two years is hard enough, and then the long—term beckons thereafter with some difficult decisions to be taken. our political editor nick watt is here. a little bit of news on education spending is out as we speak. theresa may and philip hammond are saying they want to move on from the era of george osborne where we had big political announcements surrounding a budget. these are serious and earnest affairs. tomorrow's front—page headlines

on all the papers are a big announcement that will allow theresa may to say she is pressing ahead for plans for grammar schools. speculation that was on the back burner. the chancellor will plough £320 million into expanding the government's free school programme. the key point is that will create extra spaces and those schools would be able to select on the basis of academic ability. that is obviously the big headline they want to get out tomorrow. the important thing to remember about this budget is that it is the last spring budget. in the chancellor's mind we will have the first autumn budget later this year. in his mind, that's the big moment where you would make any big tax changes. and you would have a bit of news about brexit by then. what would you look out for as the things he will be interested in either in this one or autumn? the key thing to remember about autumn is that brexit negotiations will be underway for several months by then.

the french and german elections will be out of the way. and the belief is the negotiations will be bumpy. they say to eurosceptics, who say all those treasury warnings from george osborne were overstating it, they were based on the assumption article 50 would be triggered immediately. we are about to trigger it, so we will see what happens. in the autumn budget, when the funding of social care is addressed, the chancellor is wary of taxing inheritance. no death tax is the cry that is evidently going around the treasury at the moment. he's more interested in an idea from baroness altmann, the former pensions minister, who says it's like an isa for social care. the chancellor likes that idea, the responsibility is put on working people. the other thing he is alive to is criticism on the tory backbenches that stamp duty reforms from george osborne are slowing down the housing market and not yielding

the revenues talked about. the chancellor will hear that, but he needs to see more data. if the concerns are true, he will be happy to respond. labour mp helen goodman was a minister in the department for work and pensions and now sits on the treasury select committee — as does conservative chris philp. a good evening to you both. helen, what would you cut at this point? as we have seen, and as your package showed, i think it's extremely difficult to cut public service now. adult social care in crisis. three quarters of nhs trusts in deficit. i would be amazed if they would spend money on grammar schools, because across the country individual school budgets are being cut in real and cash terms now. i think that's very surprising as a development. i think it's necessary now to go back to some of george osborne's tax cuts.

it's sensible to help people to save for the long term for their care, but an inheritance tax cut that enables people to leave £1 million home? that is costing the chancellor £800 million. capital gains tax, again reductions made by his predecessor are costing him £700 million. i would have thought he would look there. you are saying, we have done enough on the spending side, we have to look at taxes next. chris, do you really believe, because we haven't cut this year very much at all, there has been a pause, can they do it and get the spending down? putting the figures in context, in 2016 real pounds, total government spending between 2010 and 2020 is about the same at £760 billion per year in real terms. people talk about the austerity of cuts, but in real terms the government budget has stayed the same.

in helen's term, putting up taxes willy—nilly, the way to clear a deficit is creating jobs and growth. you help that by cutting taxes. one of the reasons corporation tax receipts has gone up is because we have cut corporation tax down from 28 to 20 and shortly 17%. that encourages businesses to create jobs. it's not about government hand—outs ortax and spending, it's about encouraging the economy to grow, which is what we have done. would you agree there is enormous pressure in many public services at the moment? you see the headlines and you don't dismiss that? of course not. social care is an obvious example. there is the better care fund. £3.5 billion more. your government didn't manage to make cuts this year, but the next three years it's intending that real spending in departments, not welfare, but departments like health and home office and so on, real spending cuts of 2% per head

of population per year. the fact is, the population of our country is growing quite fast and that has put pressure on public spending, as the public has told us. the population is growing at about 0.4% per year. you believe that after six years of austerity, 2% cuts per head in real terms spending is possible? population is growing at 0.4% peryear. if you are freezing it, i think we can reduce public spending per head after inflation by 0.4% per year and maintain services. your chart a few months ago showed how the government has progressively reduced the labour deficit from 2010 all the way down. the plan is to continue that trajectory for the next few years until the deficit hits zero. there is nothing responsible about raising more money and sending the bill to our children.

that's not what i suggested. you need to take into account we have an ageing population. the population is not what we had ten years ago. we have more old people, they are older and more frail, so we have more nhs needs. there are more adult social care needs. i think it's very hard in a situation where we have food banks flourishing around the country, to say, people must be allowed to inherit without any tax at all, £1 million inheritance. the inheritance tax will not be enough to put money into the health service and pay for social care and get the prisons and police and defence to levels people want. you have to do have some proper tax increases on the average person as well as just picking off a few... not necessarily. as chris says, for example, we have already had £6 billion of cuts in corporation tax

with another one in the spring. it raises more money. maybe we could leave corporation tax rate at i9% and not go to 17. chris, what would you actually cut? give us a suggestion of something that would save £2 billion, which is the figure we sort of talking about. the government is controlling spending in all areas. the biggest line height is the welfare budget, and we have to get people off welfare and into work. we have been successful. we have record employment, wages are rising and we have record female employment as well. that's ultimately the way you reduce public spending. we will have more of this discussion on wednesday, i'm sure. now one of the more intriguing suggestions that has been trailed as a budget possibility is an increase in national insurance for the self—employed. it kind of makes sense at one level as the self—employed people do pay less national insurance,

and the government thus loses revenue when people switch from employment to self—employment, which has been happening more and more. but does it make sense to kevin green, the chief executive of the recruitment & employment confederation — the professional body for the recruitment industry in the uk — their members place self—employed contractors into jobs. good evening. just explain to everyone, what is the difference between employment and self—employment. in relation to national insurance, if you're self—employed, you pay 9% and if you are employed, you pay i2%. that is what the chancellor might go after. the much bigger gap, is that my employer is paying 13%. you do not have an employer if you're self employed. if you look at some of the business models like cooper, they will not be paying national insurance contributions for the people who work for them are self—employed and that is a significantly bigger number.

it is about i6% gap. would it make sense to do something in this budget to deal with that? the way it has been positioned it looks like he will go after the worker rather than the business and i think some of that is because it is much more complex when you get into the business. we have a number of neets that we are waiting for decisions on like uber... they do not seem to have done anything wrong. there is a definition about whether they are workers... employment tribunals have said that they are self—employed. no, they said they were workers. we have got a fundamental problem between employment regulation and taxation policy. employment regulation you have three definitions, self—employed, employed and worker and taxation is self—employed or employee. fundamentally, is there a good case for charging self—employed people, basically 15 or i6% less tax overall on the value of their labour

at the newchurch employed people? clearly in relation to self—employed there is pension contributions, holiday pay... the key is how do we, but the system which recognises some of the risk about being self—employed, gives them some kind of tax advantage but creates clarity and at the moment we have huge grey areas in relation to tax for employers, employees cover the whole thing is a mess and what we are looking for is the government to come up with a systemic way of coming up with a fair taxation policy for businesses and for employees, which actually aligns these things so that we get the right tax for people. you're not against aligning them will stop at some point over time. if you are this government, you're not going to put 3p or 3% national insurance on the poorest

least secure workers who are driving a cab for uber least secure workers who are driving a cab for uber or working for deliveroo, you will not say you will be paying more tax. they are the ones they're trying to help! the chancellor is clearly looking for ways to raise tax. the issue at the moment is is this fair or transparent? if you're employed, should you be paying more tax than someone who is not employed? you are right, if the government is looking at the tax from self—employment, it should go after the businesses and really look that their model as well is looking at the workers because the workers take more risk, they need to have some kind of incentive to continue and we do not want to undermine our labour market which has been hugely successful. kevin green, thank you very much. president trump news now, and he has formulated a new executive order to replace his old travel ban. remember, that was struck

down in the courts. this one takes effect in ten days time. the executive order signed by the president earlier today, protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the united states is a vital measure for strengthening our national security. it is the president's solemn duty to protect the american people. and with this order, president trump is exercising his rightful authority to keep our people safe. professor stephen legomsky was president obama's chief counsel for us citizenship & immigration from 2011 to 2013. good evening to you. do you think this new executive order will get through the courts? very difficult to say. there are two kinds of provision in this executive order and some of them deal specifically with refugees and others deal with immigrants generally. on the refugee site,

the two main changes are eliminating the indefinite ban on syrian refugees, all of whom are still subject to the 120 day moratorium and all refugees and the other thing they did was to eliminate what had been an exception for people who are persecuted because of their religion but only if their religion was a minority religion. this was widely derided, as a back door attempt to save christians over muslims and my guess is that the courts will not be fooled by it. the religious discrimination claim is still there and the evidence and pre—tax will still be a stroll. why do you say that? now, it is a country discrimination, it is not a religious discrimination. he surely is entitled to say no immigrants but this country or that country, legally? absolutely and we do that all the time. what makes this different is that the plaintiffs are arguing that even though the document is neutral on its face, it is motivated by a different pre—tax

and to back up that claim they cite multiple statements from president trump about his intention to institute a muslim ban, there is a statement by his closest adviser, a former new york city mayor, rudy giuliani to the effect that the troubled campaign reached out to him to find a way to package the muslim ban and then there are also the comments indicating a desire to protect persecuted christians. thejob for the plaintiffs will be to convince the court that although the order has changed, it is nonetheless religious discrimination and since those statements were made in the past, they really cannot be taken back. the question will be whether the courts by the argument or not. the courts surely look through his words, they do not listen to what he said, they look at whether it is a muslim ban and they will look at this and say it is

pretty different to the previous one. the differences are fairly cosmetic foot, it is true that the syrians have been eliminated as a separate group and it is true that they have eliminated the religious minority exception but on the refugee site, everything stays the same and on the general side there is still a 90 day ban on entries from nationals from six countries, iraq is off the list and the questionnaire again is whether this is motivated by religious pretext or whether it is a genuine national security measure. —— refugee side. just a quick one: the process this time, it has been a few weeks coming, this executive order and it has a ten—day sort of lead time, are you impressed that they got the process side of this more in order than they did last time? yes. they have clearly made improvements, the 10—day lead—in is important and in addition, they have exempted very important categories, for example people who have lawful permanent residents starters in the uk —— us are exempted as are those who hold valid current visas and that will go a long way toward strengthening the government case on the question of whether or not due process or what

would be called naturaljustice in the uk has been observed but i do not know whether that gets them past the religious discrimination argument. thank you for talking to us. we've been talking a lot about france and its impending presidential election. but there are parliamentary elections in the netherlands next week. in the country often described as the most liberal in europe. they used to joke, "do you know what's illegal in the netherlands? nothing". but something big is happening. polls suggest many people will vote for geert wilders, a right—wing populist who wants to pull the country out of the eu and ban immigration from muslim countries. he might even win the largest number of seats. so what happened to the supposedly tolerant, easy—going dutch? we've heard from the populists on this programme, but newsnight‘s gabriel gatehouse grew up in amsterdam, and he's been back to try to find out what liberals there make of what's happening. european dance music.

the netherlands is having an identity crisis. what does it mean to be dutch? i don't remember people agonising over this question in the past. they are now. what are dutch values? we are all equal. we are all the same, and we're very tolerant. and we drink and eat and play and dance together. that's the good thing about carnival. right.

what about the rest of the time? well, it is a bit different. we are not so tolerant any more. why not? some people are not so the same as other people. i think the whole islamic thing means that we are more aware of our values. geert wilders, the netherlands‘ answer to donald trump, wants to ban the koran, close the mosques, and the borders. in defence of their tolerant way of life, many dutch people are apparently willing to vote for some pretty intolerant policy. when i was growing up here in the 1980s, the netherlands, and amsterdam in particular, felt like this sort of inclusive space, a place that was open and tolerant, where anything goes, and anyone, really, can come and be themselves. it doesn't really feel like that any more. something has changed. so i've come back here to try and find out what's happened

to that peculiarly dutch brand of liberalism. this feels like a country on a difficultjourney of self—rediscovery. a country that has suffered a sudden loss of faith in a set of truths it once held be self—evident. on the outskirts of the city, an abandoned shipyard has been taken over by squatters. adm, as it's known, is a community of artists and performers, the sort of people for whom amsterdam was once a haven. it used to be a town with a lot of empty spaces. it was a paradise for people who want to make things

or do things together. a sort of utopia? as 2253—3 egg-s: 3 gee # when i'm hungry, i eat out of the dumpster. # when i'm thirsty, is that your beer? # when i'm tired, i find an empty house to sleep in. # and if you don't like it, lock you! but the welfare state that nourished that utopia is no longer so generous. these days, there's less space for squatters, both physically and politically. under pressure perhaps, the collective now has a surprisingly strict membership policy. everyone is allowed in, but we should be able to send them out if it's not working, and close the gate behind. if that sounds like something geert wilders might like, well, he's not popular here, but perhaps the fate of the squat in some ways mirrors that of the country. the group is small enough

to control ourselves, and now we begin this fantastic, nonconformist little town. it's no longer a village. we have to to rearrange ourselves. squatters were once a defining force in radical dutch politics. the squatter riots of the 1980s are a vivid and sometimes surreal childhood memory. in an apparent attempt to defuse the situation, a policeman dressed as santa claus was lifted off the roof by crane. against the backdrop of reaganomics and thatcherism, the movement was becoming increasingly militant. these were battles over the concept of public versus private space. as the squatters fought the riot police on the streets, an architect specialising in school design was having a similarfight with the education authorities. i was in the first class of pupils to go to school here. the architect, herman hertzberger,

believed that buildings had the power to shape society. his aim was to foster a more egalitarian relationship between teacher and pupil. and i always had the enormous fight for every square metre, you know? and this is not necessary, because the classrooms, there is a teacher, a blackboard. the teacher is saying, this is the way the world works, and we are going to do it like this. but i said classrooms is one, but there's also the idea of doing things together, seeing what the others are doing. and so we must try to get space also for this communal thing. the idea of common space? the architecture of the netherlands tells us

about its political development. walk along the canals in amsterdam, you see not one or three or four palaces, no. you see thousands of small palaces, of citizens. at the heart of dutch liberalism lies a fundamental tension, between the sometimes competing notions of liberty and equality. of individualism versus the common good. these are all group portraits. they are not individual portraits of a king or a count or something. these are portraits of very proud citizens. we drink together, fight together, without a king, without a leader. we vote, we are egalitarian. when we talk about being liberal,

it was also economically liberal. yes, that's deep in the genes of the dutch. descartes, who lived for quite a long time in amsterdam at the beginning of the 17th century, said already, everybody is only occupied here with earning money, nothing else. money, money, that's the big go—to here. the bergers of the golden age turned the netherlands into the biggest maritime trading power in europe. this new prosperity was driven by immigrants — protestants and jews fleeing persecution in catholic europe. because we are a society full of minorities and groups, and we have to survive together. that creates a society which has to be tolerant, otherwise we cannot survive. tolerance. growing up, we were taught that tolerance was as much a part of dutch culture as eating mayonnaise with your chips. and that had less to do with the 17th century than with more recent history.

i used to live in one of those buildings over there, number ten, just the other side of the canal. before i lived there some other people did, whose names are commemorated here in these plaques. seven of them, who were murdered by the nazis during the second world war because they were jewish. there were similar plaques all along the canalside here, and during the war one tenth of the population of this city were deported to concentration camps. the german occupation had a huge impact on how the dutch see themselves. discriminating against people because of their religion, their cultural or ethnic background, that was something that other people did, not the dutch. i grew up in a time when all of us in this country were still very much under the impression that we lived in the most liberal, progressive country in the world. i used to actually, literally say this to people — that i'm from amsterdam,

so i live in the best country in the world, the best city in the world, and anything goes, and you are free to be whoever you are. however, now when i look back i think, oh no, there was definitely a lot going on under the surface that just wasn't discussed. beneath the surface, many people felt uncomfortable with the effect of immigration. to speak of that was once taboo. not any more. fuelled by geert wilders, the debate has focused on islam. a lot of people think that islamophobia, or anti—semitism and racism, they are all different things. they are all the same thing. sylvana simons has set up a political party trying to highlight what she says is a hidden current of racism in dutch society. the reaction has not been good. death threats is what i have received just for simply voicing my opinion on this topic. that doesn't sound like the most tolerant, the most progressive

country on earth. we used to take pride in saying we are so tolerant. i think that's our biggest problem. we've been tolerant, we have been tolerating. and tolerating means accepting something that you really don't actually agree with, but you are just, you know, accepting. here's one thing that has definitely changed since i was at school. people seem to have stopped believing that the future will be rosier than the present. i am from a generation that was just thinking everything is going to be better, more, and that stopped now. and we feel that our next generation will have more difficulties to keep this level. it's still optimistic, but it's not an optimism of, tomorrow everything will be better. it's now an optimism of, when we do our best,

tomorrow will still be as it is now. so, conservatism and hard work has won out over progressive politics and anything goes. this really is a different country to the one i remember. at the squatters' camp, it feels like the party is almost over. don't be surprised if a crack in the ice appears under your feet. and that's what happens. right. because you are hippie and tolerant and everything is possible. even in adm, we had a problem, and i was one of the people always defending everyone, until i found out it's not enough to be tolerant. a hippie community can burst because everybody has taken too much drugs or everybody has went to sleep with everybody,

and the real feel has gone. perhaps the idea of the netherlands as free space was never anything more than an illusion. now, in an age of identity politics, the dutch are asking themselves some fundamental questions. what does liberalism mean? what are the limits of tolerance? and does the netherlands still want to be a place that is open and inclusive? "what are they thinking?", is a sentiment quite widely expressed. the idea that a person of colour might support him would seem even more inexplicable. well, two black women — siblings and keen supporters of president trump — have made a big impact on social media. they've even appeared at his rallies, as the stump for trump girls. they are lynnette hardaway and rochelle richardson, former democrats who style themselves diamond and silk for their videos. i spoke to them a little earlier. diamond on the left, silk on the right, and asked them why they thought that

african americans didn't, on the whole, vote for trump. african americans did go out and they did march to those voting polls and they voted for president donaldj trump. that is why he is the president. the problem that we have is the left. the democrats, the liberals, that keep pushing an agenda and they are not effective with it. right. they want the same old, same old. they love that people burn down their communities. president trump wants to build back these communities. that's right. president trump wants to stop the violence. he is going to be a president, a good president notjust for black people but for all people. you will know, he just lied about how many people were at the inauguration, everyone can see that it was not as big as obama's. let me stop you. let me go ahead and stop you and we will get you straight. you mean the very fake news lie. we were there, there were thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people there at the inauguration. we were there, we saw it with our own eyes. honestly, diamond, ithink it was easier to see it

from the camera positions and you really could see, there were more people there under obama than there were under trump. ok, so, ok, why are you debating me with this question because the inauguration is over? i suppose i'm just interested in what you think, because you obviously love the guy. what you think... i absolutely do. he is our president. he sometimes on occasion just says stuff that is just stupid, what do you think? excuse me, my president, wait a minute, my president never says anything that is stupid. that's what's wrong with you left people. you always want to be so politically correct, well he is not politically correct, he is honest and we love him for his honesty! many people are saying he has had a slightly rocky start, he lost michael flynn, obviouslyjeff sessions, the attorney general, has had to recuse himself from certain things. lots of questions over the original travel ban,

do you think it has been a bit messy, who do you blame for that? do you blame donald trump for that or who you blame? i blame the media for taking and conjuring up a story about the russians and insulting the american people, the millions that got out and voted for our president, president donald trump, it was not the russians that hacked the elections, the american people hacked it, we went to the polls and we voted for him. is there anything this guy could do where you would not say you were on his side? you wouldn't get in a car and let him drive you over a cliff, would you? is there anything this bloke can do that is wrong? he don't do anything wrong! see, that is where you all mess up. you get it wrong. you think it's wrong because it's not your way. everybody makes mistakes! he is trying to secure the border to keep people safe. he is trying to keep people from coming into our country wanting to chop off our heads. the people that come from these certain countries that do not like americans, he is trying

to create the atmosphere where people are thriving again, where the inner and urban cities are being built again. that's what he's doing. so we, the american people we love it, so there is nothing my president could do to make me feel sore. he makes us happy, every single day. we love him. the thing is, everybody makes mistakes, it would be very odd if donald trump did not make some mistakes and i am just wondering if you can think of anything, can you think of anything he has done that was a mistake? if you can't, it probably tells us that you are, you know, you'rejust big fans and you're on his side, come what may. well you know what, the only mistake that i can think of is the mistake of not continuously every single day, all day, keeping the very fake news straight. he needs to do it on a regular basis, every day. tweet it out all day every day about the fake news and don't stop that. our president don't make mistakes. we are very loyal to our president, we trust his decision, we trust that he will make the right

decision and the way that it will affect american people, we trust that he wants to do things that are going to benefit us and not hurt us. we trust his judgment, that's why we voted for him and not a politician. that's right. can i ask, do you two ever disagree yourselves between the two of you or do you always agree on everything? we agree to disagree when we have a disagreement. that's right. diamond, silk, thank you so very much. nice talking to you. thank you for having us. some insight there. that's it for tonight. we've run out of time for anything except this, news of the official confirmation from guinness that german engineer albert beer and his robot, named sub 1, are now the world record rubik's cube speed champions. as a political side note, they beat ed miliband's 90 second personal best... by 89.11 seconds. so blink and you'll miss it goodnight. funky music.

we just about dodged some severe weather today and potentially damaging as well. rain across cornwall, devon and the channel islands. a gust of almost 120 mph in the south of that. low pressure whistling its way to europe. more snowfall to the alps and windy weather to the central mediterranean and potentially dangerous winds in the south—east of france. the wars in the night, showers fading. clearer skies, turning chilly — not

too cold. ground frost and a pinch ofair too cold. ground frost and a pinch of air frost too cold. ground frost and a pinch ofairfrost in too cold. ground frost and a pinch of air frost in the countryside. some sunshine in places. showers moving away. in the west, the weather changing. cloud increasing and rain moving in as well. for most of the day, mainland scotland will be dry. showers around shetland. cloud increasing and rain moving into northern ireland for the afternoon — light and patchy. through the midlands, likely to be dry. esther the sunshine in the morning, turning hazy in the afternoon. some light and patchy rain eventually. the rain turns heavy during the evening. it moves quickly across northern parts. snow in the scottish mountains. further south, low cloud, and rain drizzling

through most of the night. the risk is and chilly are further north. sunshine for scotland, northern ireland and perhaps northern england. best of late rain and drizzle in the south. temperatures could be 1a degrees despite the cloud in london. watch out for heavy showers in the north—west of the uk with gusty winds. windy across northern scotland. many places drying. a little sunshine. cloud coming back from the south—west are drawing in some wilder air. all the details online. if you wanted the latest on the severe cyclone heading towards madagascar you can find that online as well. hello everyone. i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines: president trump's signed a revised travel ban

against six many muslim countries. his team says it will overcome any legal challenge. the department of justice believes that this executive order, just as the first executive order, just as the first executive order, is a lawful and proper exercise of presidential authority. a retired police officer in the philippines testifies that president duterte apra the killings of nearly 100 people. iam kasia madeira in london. china promises to make the sky is blue again. it is at losing the battle