been getting unruly. and that's just the cabinet. try as it might to show us that there is a government getting on with business, the frame is always the same: cabinet debate out in the open, and a leadership campaign going on behind the scenes. so, for example, today, the education secretary promised extra funding for schools in england, but she could not promise new money. it had to come out of her own department's plans, which invites us to think she's been in a battle with the treasury and lost it. after a weekend of briefing at the chancellor's expense, we learned today that the prime minister was poised to tell the cabinet to behave. but she does not have the authority that she once did. right now, the brexiteers in the party are willing her to stay in place, believing that a new leadership election might lead to some backtracking on brexit. nick watt is our political editor. nick, what is theresa may going to say to them tomorrow? as you were saying, the prime minister will open the cabinet meeting with a stern warning to ministerial colleagues that what happens in cabinet stays in cabinet. now, on one level that

shows she's in agreement of philip hammond, the chancellor. he believes this has come from within the cabinet. he's very unamused by it. at that point, the prime minister and the chancellor then part company. in downing street, the view is that the leaks were not prompted by a brexit plot, but by frustration at the chancellor's rather dismissive attitude occasionally towards colleagues. but the chancellor actually does believe that a brexit colleague or colleagues were behind the leaks. he believes that his talk of a reasonable transitional period after we leave the eu has upset colleagues. he was talking over the weekend about how it could be two years, possibly it could even be five years and i'm told, he would like to have agreement within government on this by september. on the transitional arrangements? that's right, within government on that by september. of course, the longer the transitional period it is, the more difficult it is for the uk

to negotiate its own trade deals with countries outside the eu. many of the hard brexiteers don't want it to drag on that long. all this bickering, how's it going down? this afternoon i spoke to sir nicholas soames, the grandee, he reflected the frustration of many tory mps when he told me, "i feel deeply ashamed that there are elements of my party who are behaving in a way that is beyond contempt at a time when the country is facing the most difficult negotiations since 1940." important to say, he was a remainor. but 1940 is the year that his grandfather, sir winston churchill became prime minister. there are many tories saying all this sniping is explained by the prime minister's weak authority after the election and they wonder whether she will make it through the autumn. but other figures are saying, theresa may is slowly recovering her authority and one seniorfigure said to me, "i hope the prime minister

comes back rejuvenated with lots of authority after the summer holiday and gets rid of, sacks the trouble makers." why is it the brexiteers who are keen on keeping her? what do they fear would happen? probably the conservative party would vote another brexiteer to lead them if it wasn't theresa may. there are those who say that when the prime minister said, after that vote, that brexit means brexit and she talked about the uk coming out of the single market, coming out of the customs union, because she believed that the vote showed that the british people no longer accepted free movement and no longer accepted the jurisdiction of the european court ofjustice, the feeling was that was what the so—called hard brexiteers wanted. but there are big remainers on her side, who's the effective deputy prime minister, damian green, big remainor. one of the big announcements today, concerned high speed two. details of the northern section of the route and some contractors for the first southern phase were published.

hs2 is not a new policy, but it was a perfect way of changing the subject from the government's troubles. yet even here, there are questions about money, and there are divisions in the cabinet. liam fox, for example, campaigned against it before he was appointed international trade secretary. earlier today, i sat down with the transport secretary, chris grayling, to talk about hs2, and the government's predicament. and i asked him whether he was 100% sure that hs2 was going to happen. yes, because the work has started already. on the first phase from london to birmingham, the enabling works are being done. the contracts we've let today are for the first full part of the work. this is going to happen. but it has to happen. people tend to misunderstand what hs2 is about, it's a capacity project more than anything else. look at the west coast main line, one of the busiest railways

in europe, congested with commuter trains, freight trains, if it can cope with the demand of the future we have to move the express trains to a different line, get more freight off the roads onto the railways, create more commuter space and do so by building a state—of—the—art new high speed route we can be proud of. you don't know the final cost and there are reports that the cost may be way higher than is currently being talked about. so in a way, by saying it's definitely going to happen, without knowing the cost, you are saying "we will pay whatever it takes." we know what it's going to cost. it's going to cost 55 billion. £55] million. billion. you don't know that until you've got builders to say they will build it and guarantee that price. we've got a pretty good track record in recent years. look at cross—rail, it's going well. it's on time. it's on budget. it proves that we in this country can deliver things. the reports in the last few

days, utterly spurrious. the argument this is going to cost five times as much as hs one, coming from people who have no involvement in the project, i don't take that seriously at all. you are saying, on this issue, there is complete clarity at the heart of government, treasury, cabinet, policy makers, civil servants — this is going to happen, it must happen and everybody is on board. not only that, it is happening now. is it your contention in other areas, the government is as decisive and clear about the direction it's going to take. my answer to that is yes. what people look at is — does the cabinet ever have discussions and debates. of course we do. we're not clones. we have different views. we argue the case. we put forward our views. we reach consensus and move ahead with it. that's the way government should work. i have been confused on quite a few areas as to what the policy is. let's start with one of yours, not rail — third runway at heathrow. is that definitely going to happen? yes, we are in the middle of what is a i2—month process that leads to what is effectively

outlying planning permission. it's set out in statute. set out in the 2008 planning act. it involves a period of public consultation, we're going through that at the moment. we just completed that. there's a period of parliamentary scrutiny, slightly delayed because of the general election. the transport committee has to be reconstituted. we will bring this to a vote in the first part of next year. we'll table those proposals formally for parliament to approve in the first part of next year and as long as parliament approves it, i believe it will, the project will go ahead. no back tracking on that. no back tracking. you've sorted out my confusion on that one. public sector pay — the policy as expressed was a 1% cap through to the year 2019/20. does that remain the government's policy? as of today, that is the case. i know that we've had debates and discussions in the public arena politically about this. we have to find the right balance. one of the things i'm proudest of,

that our economic policy in the last seven years has led to the lowest unemployment since the 1970s. youth unemployment has pretty much halved. i don't want to lose that progress by letting go of the policies that have delivered it. but at the same time, all of us want to spend more money on public services. all of us want to spend more on public sector pay. government is about getting the balance between the two right. as to what we do — we've had a number of messages from different circles in the last few weeks, as to what we do, we will see when the budget comes. as of today we are determined to see through the policy which brings down the deficit. we will carry on with that focus of bringing down the deficit. not quite the clarity on that one as hs2 and the third runway, what is the policy, the aspiration or the expectation on a transitional arrangement with the eu? we've had liam fox saying well, it might have to be a few months. the chancellor saying it's not going to be a couple of months, we're talking about something more

like a couple of years or more. what is the policy on transitional arrangement? well, the exact detail of the transition from in to out will come out of the negotiations. i can tell you clearly what the government's policy is on brexit. just the policy on the transitional arrangement. are you saying we basically don't know whether we are seeking a transitional arrangement of two months or two years? is that — we don't even know what our starting point is? all of this will depend on the position of the european union and how the negotiations go. it is perfectly plausible that we could leave without a transitional arrangement, if the agreements were in place for future trade, if the agreements were in place for the art partnerships in the future. you can't really answer the question. nobody is expecting for there not to be a transitional arrangement. we don't know what it's going to look like. we have a philip hammond verse and liam fox version, they're completely

different to each other. it's quite possible we will end up with a transitional arrangement. so there's a third position, that we won't have an arrangement. this is a negotiation. can you see why the world feels the government is, perhaps, less clear about its policies than you are about hs2? that in all these areas, there has been a confusion on the part of public and business as well. i don't accept the principle of confusion. we have a clear objective — to leave the european union but to leave it on good terms, with good friends and neighbours, with as close as we can possibly secure the current trading arrangements. let me ask you one last one, how is theresa may — i know she's a friend of yours, you were an early supporter in the leadership campaign last year — how is she faring through all this? is she coping with the stresses of being buffeted around by so many different pressures? if you sat around the cabinet table before the general election, and you sat around the cabinet table

after, you would see the same person sitting there and the same exposed personality sitting there. yes, we've had some changes around downing street and changes to some of the ways in which government operates to reflect an understanding of some of the things that went wrong a few months ago. i see someone who's in control of her brief, who is very much doing thejob of prime minister and will get on with that and deliver a successful outcome to brexit as well as the other things we need to do as a nation. thank you very much. there was an announcement on schools funding today. an extra one. £1.3 billion a year paid for in some arcane ways of taking money out of the capital budget of the education department and the budget for free schools. now this should ensure there's no real terms reduction in per pupil spending on schools. with me now is angela rayner, the shadow education secretary. very good evening. thanks for coming in.

it seems like the government is listening and is responding to what it has probably correctly perceived as a dissatisfaction with funding for schools. well, there was an amazing campaign led, extraordinary campaign, led by the parents of pupils concerned about the school funding cuts and the head teachers, which was unprecedented in the way that they've written parents and said we can't afford to provide school books and carry out the curriculum. they led the campaign. the government have took heed of that. of course, they've cut school budgets by two. of course, they've cut school budgets by 2.8 billion. those cuts are happening now. these are cuts that were further planned in future years. they're putting money in. it's churlish to complain, particularly, you didn't like the free schools budget, did you? well, i felt that some of the money that was spent, if you look at the national audit office and the public accounts committee that have said about the money wasted on free

schools that weren't in the places we required them. i can't understand why you don't see this as a good news day and say theresa may, justine greening, thank you very much. unfortunately it's not new money. 2.8 billion is still missing from that. the teachers have written to parents saying we haven't got the money this year, they aren't getting extra money this year. come september, that money will still be gone from their budgets, those teaching assistants will not be in theirjobs. right. but they are on course to be by 2022, spending 4 billion extra on schools. they're saying they're not going to cut budgets any further. we have to look at the detail. there's no new money. that's the important thing. they've taken it out of one hand — and put it into another. they're not clear about where the money is coming from. that's a concern. we know that we need school places. we know that there's a crisis in terms of our class sizes are increasing. if they're not creating free schools, which i prefer actually local authority schools, then they need to be putting the money in there. what's interesting and people have argued this against your party's policies, if schools are in need of so much money,

why would you have a policy of spending twice as much than you were planning to spend on schools on wealthier university graduates by abolishing loans, by abolishing fees. that was the most expensive thing in your manifesto. it was going to do nothing for schools. over 50% of the money that we raised in the manifesto went on our national education service. you put six billion on schools, including school meals. we put six billion... the government are putting four billion. but 11 billion on university students. yes, because we didn't feel they should carry that burden. we put money into early years. that's important. saving the sure start centres... was that part of the six billion? no, it wasn't. it was half a billion on top of that, which was to protect sure start centres, we've lost 1200 of them. they've been lost since the coalition came to power. i've been clear, if we had an extra £1 it should go into early years. i think the early years stuff...

just to come back to the point of tuition fees, we've got a crisis in our country of skilled workers. we're coming out of europe and we need skilled workers. if we don't start investing in young people and giving them those opportunities and saddling with that debt is not the way to do it. we have to start tackling that crisis. you broadly speaking accept the analysis of the office for budget responsibility which last week gave a warning on fiscal risks basically. it came out with some interesting lines, in many recent fiscal events giveaways today have been financed by takeaways tomorrow. the risk is tomorrow never comes. new unfunded giveaways would take the government away from fiscal targets. do you accept that or not? our manifesto was funded. we talked about investment in ourfuture and in our regions, the regional banking structure, about skills that our regions require. businesses tell me, when i go round to business is, they say to me, angela,

we don't have the skilled workforce that we require. that's why they go to europe and other places. one thing in your manifesto, in the election that was not costed was the promise to students who have already graduated and paid £9,000 — retrospective debt. yes, presumably that has gone then? no, it was an aspirationjeremy said, that he would want to look at, but it was never in the manifesto. so don't bank on that happening if you're one of those people? it is not a case of banking on it. that £100 billion of debt is what this government have saddled current students with. if we were in government we would abolish tuition fees, and we would look at that as an aspiration. we have not made any promises on the £100 billion of debt this government has created on these students of today. we have said if we get into power we would abolish them from that day forth, and we would look at what we could do but not make uncosted promises. angela rayner, thanks ever so much. thanks. well, we've discussed today's politics, but how we got here is, of course, the result of one of a spectacular

political misjudgement. theresa may wrongly thought she'd win big and called an election. but in her defence, she was not alone. the mainstream media thought the same, as did most of the pollsters, the psephologists, most tory and labour mps, the bookies, uncle tom cobley and all. a second election in a row with a result we didn't call right. you can add brexit and trump if you like too. so the question for the political class is: does anybody understand the new rules of our volatile politics? if they do, what are they? if they don't, where are we? we are all pondering on this at the moment, none more than newsnight‘s editor, ian katz, who has been spending some time trying to find out what went wrong with the forecasts. a warning — there is a little bit of late night bad language. these are disorienting times for those of us in the business of covering, and practising, politics.

the old indicators don't seem to work any more. every election seems to bring another surprise. it's easy to feel a bit lost. it feels a bit like the instruments, the instincts we've used for decades to navigate the political landscape, are broken or obsolete. has politics changed in some profound way many of us have yet to fully grasp? or have we just been through a series of freak political storms that will soon blow over? for me, the challenge facing the media and political establishments was brought home rather brutally, and quite literally, by my 18—year—old daughter the morning after the election. remind me what you told me the day after the election. that i'm not going to believe anything you say about politics ever again because you've got everything wrong. fortunately, i wasn't the only one

feeling a little sheepish when big ben struck 10pm on june 8th. david dimbleby: and what we're saying is the conservatives are the largest party — note, they don't have an overall majority at this stage. 0h, myjaw dropped. there was a little cry of despair, and my head hit the table. i nearly swerved off the road. were you driving at the time? laughter i was driving at the time! you can't rule anything out in today's politics. when you've been wrong about something, it's always a good idea to go looking for someone who's been, well, wronger. when it comes to the 2017 election, the highly respected pollster marten boon got it spectacularly wrong. in its election poll, his company icm predicted a 12—point tory win. that's ten points more than they achieved. we were bamboozled by the turnout, which we predicted wouldn't happen in the way it did.

and i have to hold up my hands and say that — you know, i made a call and it was the wrong call, and the result was a poor poll performance. why would anyone take the polls seriously again? it's a very good question, and we have to move things on. the problem for me is that the techniques which didn't work in 2015 — ie we undershot the labour score, as historically we've done as pollsters going back almost forever — did work in 2017. and indeed the techniques which the likes of myself applied in 2017 wouldn't have worked retrospectively in 2015. if you were in the schedule and you are a politician or a ceo of a company which had failed in this way, we'd be saying, are you thinking of resigning? have you? i thought about resigning publicly, after 2015 actually — i openly considered whether it was worthwhile subjecting my company icm

to the brickbats of misfortune associated with this. we in icm and we in industry do need to think seriously about whether classical orthodox polling techniques are something that we want to continue doing. another person on the long list of those admitting, through somewhat gritted teeth, that they underestimated corbyn is the mpjess phillips. back in april she said corbyn staying on as party leader would be the "ultimate selfish act." i was definitely wrong. there's no two ways about that. and do i have to re—evaluate the way that i am about politics? yes. after shock election results, news organisations like the bbc tend to say, "if only we'd listened more carefully to what was going on on the ground." the trouble is, sastess, what she was hearing was very different to what happened. what we potentially missed

in classic campaigning and classic polling — i imagine this is how they do the polling — is the people we're talking to. and still i'm driving around my constituency thinking, did you vote for me? did you vote for me? like, i want to find those people and know exactly why they went out and voted labour, because there are definitely people who'd never voted before, younger people — we just weren't talking to the right people. we always go back and talk to the labour promise, we always talk to the same houses. you talk to the people who vote. you wouldn't waste your time in an election campaign bothering with people who have no voting record. someone who isn't reaching for the sackcloth and ashes just yet if itv‘s political editor robert peston. he may not have seen the election result coming, but he can claim to have been more upbeat about corbyn‘s prospects than most. the old rules have gone, and we've got to try and make sense of how politics works.

and the truthful answer is that, you know, we are all feeling our way a bit. millions and millions of people in rich countries are saying that the way things worked in the past cannot go on. their interests are not being served by the establishment. now, that doesn't mean that jeremy corbyn definitely becomes prime minister, but it absolutely means that the old rules are useless in making an assessment about whether he's going to be prime minister. where were you when you heard the exit poll for last month's election? i was at home, watching the election. did you shed a little tear like theresa may? laughter no. the man who, perhaps more than any other, could claim to have divined the rules of modern politics was tony blair. his tory successors david cameron and george osborne revered his political judgment so much they called him the master.

you've obviously reflected quite a lot over the last month on the election result. was there anything about it which made you question what you thought you knew about politics? erm, yes. in the sense that, and notjust this election result, but brexit, the trump victory in the us, what's happening all over europe. did you see any of the other two coming, by the way? nope. so you've had three surprises? exactly. i feel a bit better. for most of my political life, i've been saying, i think this is the right way to go, and what's more it's the only way to win an election. i have to qualify that now. i have to say, no, i think it's possible you end up with jeremy corbyn as prime minister. so you except that he could possibly win on the platform he is on? i think you can't rule anything out in today's politics. but it doesn't stop me believing that if we deliver brexit and at the same time are delivering the programme that he has at the moment, unreconstructed,

unchanged, we will be in for a very very difficult time as a country. i still believe the surest route is through the centre. but not the only way? but i think you can't say in today's politics, particularly if you've gone through three things — the election of donald trump, brexit, jeremy corbyn doing so well — and if you're in my position and you haven't got those things right, you've got to accept it's possible that that programme wins. but, no, i haven't changed my basic view, and why should i? it's what i believe. that the best... but that's a really interesting thing, because the events of the last years haven't challenged any of your beliefs. i mean, ifind myself looking at some of these things, thinking, gosh, ijust don't know... i don't know what i thought i knew about politics. right, but... you don't. your beliefs still stand. no, no, you've got to distinguish between two separate things. one is accepting that there is something going on in politics that you didn't get and don't fully understand. we are completely on the same line with that — i agree. that's why i'm studying it, very hard.

the other thing is to work out what you believe in. does the fact that the british people voted for brexit mean that i think brexit's right? no, i think it's a disastrous mistake for the country. not everyone is flagellating themselves are getting yet another political event wrong. a few, like the columnist rod liddle, are feeling quite smug. when the election was called, he wrote that the result would leave us roughly where we were. i think the westminster commentators got the corbyn effect wrong. don't believe that because you might think thatjeremy corbyn is a jackass that everyone else in the country believes he is a jackass. because quite clearly they didn't, and they didn't up north either. a natural contrarian, liddle's advice for reading modern politics starts with not following the herd, but even he admits his record is not entirely unblemished. i got brexit wrong. much as i voted to leave, i thought that probably in the end we would vote to remain,

and i think most people thought that. and you got your own patch wrong in kent as well? yeah. my wife and i changed our vote so we could vote in middlesbrough south because it was marginal, nd we knew canterbury was a safe seat for the tories, so we got that one wrong. locking students. ah, yes, those pesky students — assuming they would prefer to stay in and watch love island rather than going out to vote is another reason we got it wrong onjune 8th. matt turner was helping to run evolve politics, one of the handful of corbyn supporting website that claims to have their fingers closer to the national polls than the mainstream media. he has ventured into the heart of the beast to explain what he could see that we couldn't. sites like ours, the canary, evolve politics, we had ourearto the ground. we give a more accurate reflection of what people

were actually feeling. the same could probably be said of the new up—and—coming right—wing press sites. people accused us of being in a bubble when we accurately predicted a hung parliament. if anything, the rules have changed. perhaps two years ago when we started we were living in a labour supporting bubbles, but certainly not now. the week before the election we reached 70 million people on facebook. —— 17 million. over 1 million unique hits to our site. if anyone i think it is the westminster media who are now in that bubble. i never knew an election where i saw such a gap between what was in the newspapers and what people were talking about. i mean, you know i spend way too much time on social media, but what people were talking about on social media... the whole debate was going on, on social media, different forms of people interacting with each other, particularly young people, that really does not hit the mainstream media at all,

so that is a lesson learned. so how should we navigate our way through this new political landscape? acknowledging that we did not see jeremy corbyn‘s success coming is not the same as saying our coverage was not much good. in fact, there were lots of indications in newsnight‘s reporting that he was doing much better than the polls suggested. the trouble is when so many voices are saying the opposite, it is hard not to doubt the evidence in front of you. for example, getting these enormous crowd of enthusiastic people coming to listen to him and,, you know, you would routinely be told, well, of course, that is not a representative sample. it is stage—managed, you know. there are millions of voters and these are best a couple of thousand. the enthusiasm he was generating was real. right? and yet almost nobody believed it. so we have just got to get better at having slightly open minds and saying, i am seeing something quite extraordinary here and it is different from what we saw in previous elections.

it means something. all those journalists and pollsters left feeling disorientated after last month's result can comfort themselves with one thing. most politicians, including those around jeremy corbyn, were just as surprised by it. in fact, one source told me that until minutes before the exit poll, senior labourfigures had been telling him they expected an increased tory majority of as many as 60 seats. in the two weeks before the actual day of the poll i was saying labour were going to do a hell of a lot better than most people thought, but did i think there was going to be a hung parliament? no! because in the way that i do as a normaljournalist, i spoke to senior tories, spoke to senior labour, half an hour before i got, you know, the exit poll. labour was expecting a reasonable majority for theresa may and the tories were expecting

a reasonable majority for theresa may, and the big mistake i made was costing them! for theresa may, and the big mistake i made was trusting them! do you think there has been a structural forever change that we haven't quite got our heads around? or do you think the normal rules will apply again and that was an accident? i think it is a really difficult question and i am not sure what the answer is, so what i am saying is sort of... it is a work in progress in terms of my thinking. firstly, i think that social media, its interaction with a polarised fragmented partisan conventional media is creating a very divided politics, in which populism of left and right can gain a foothold very easily. that is one change. secondly, i think after the financial crisis, there is a real feeling with people that globalisation just forces things on and many people feel

powerless and left behind, and that has got to be addressed. so those two things have changed. what in my view has not changed is that the only things that will actually work, i mean, whether people vote for them or not by the way is another matter, but only things that will actually work as a modern policy agenda that will be from a centre ground position. the fact that a man famously unencumbered by self—doubt is still struggling make sense of the political landscape is a measure of the uncharted territory we have found ourselves whether the terrain of politics has changed for good or whether we've been on an eventful detour, may be the most pressing political question of our time. whatever the answer, you'd be sensible to ignore political predictions for the foreseeable future. and i, for one, won't be making any.

ian katz. and you can see a longer version of that interview ian did with tony blair on the newsnight youtube channel. we're tweeting out a link. three years ago, an american admiral gave a commencement address to the graduating students of the university of texas at austin. it was ten tips for a better life, picked up from his training in the navy seals. the video of the speech went viral. this was part of the first tip — make your bed when you get up and start the day with a task completed. if you make your bed every morning, you will have accomplished the first task of the day. it will give you a small sense of pride and it will encourage you to do another task, and another, and another. and by the end of the day that one task completed will have turned into many tasks completed. making your bed will also reinforce the fact that the little things in life matter. if you can't do the little things right, you'll never be able to do

the big things right. the speech — which was full of stories of the brutal training of the navy seals special forces — became something of a self—help classic. so much so, that it is now a book, called make your bed. and i'm joined by the man who gave that speech admiral william mcraven, who is not only a retired admiral but was the man in overall charge of american special operations forces when they took out osama bin laden. very good evening to you. thanks. osama bin laden, one of the most important points in your career, any regrets? no, i think the mission went as we planned it, with one exception. we lost a helicopter on the compound. but having said that, you always plan for worst case scenarios. we had a plan a, b, cand d. plan a went askew. we immediatelyjumped into plan b. we got our man. was there ever any chance that he would have come back alive, captured as opposed to killed?

absolutely. a lot of people feel this was a kill—only mission. that was not the case. the strict rules of engagement said that if he is clearly not a threat, then you have to capture him, you can'tjust kill him. but conversely, i made sure the guys understood if they felt that there was at all a threat, that they had to make the right decision and they have to do that in a split second. so you know, you're coming up onto the third floor, people are moving around, you're on night vision goggles, a lot of things are happening. they made the right decision. you give them that license because they have to take the risk. they protect themselves first. quite a few special forces... after 9/11, the americans were accused of lawless, reckless behaviour. there have been cases here where there have been charge that's they have killed people, maybe in cold blood, rather than capturing them for various reasons. i believe the australians have had some issues as well. is there a culture, of course

you give these people discretion, can that turn into a problem where they abuse the power that you have given them? well, i think in any wartime scenario you have that potential for the soldiers on the ground to abuse the flexibility and latitude you give them. what i used to do, i routinely went out on missions with my forces, so i understood exactly what they were doing and so that they knew that i was kind of keeping a watchful eye over them. i travelled around on a weekly basis to meet with my units. i kept my ear to the ground. whenever we thought that there might be the potential for some sort of abuse, we investigated it quickly to make sure that there was no bad behaviour. and punished — and held people responsible, absolutely. let's speak more about general things. you were watching that film with tony blair in with me, what was your impression as you watched that, you could probably have run that

in the united states. we had the same situation with our past election as there were concerns about the polls. clearly i think most of the polls suggested that hillary clinton would win. then we have donald trump as the president. but i don't think that there was anything nefarious amongst the pollsters. they weren't watching the meetings below the surface and got it wrong. the commander in chief is donald trump. america, in fact like the united kingdom, is pretty divided. does that make it harder for the armed forces, do you think, to serve the country? not at all. i served for both president bush and president obama and i didn't agree with them on a lot of things. but you have a responsibility as a man or woman in uniform to support the commander in chief. the commander in chief represents the people of the united states and so, i don't think the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have any concern about supporting this president or any president. i mean, he's been quite negative about certain things. you know, he mocked mccane's war record.

he picked on the khan family, whose child was, boy was killed in action. right. what is the army feeling about serving this man? i think the bigger issue for the soldiers on the ground, in the fox hole, if you will, are they going to get the resources they need to do theirjob. what the difference between president trump and candidate trump, he has said he is going to increase the military budget, so your viewers may not be aware, for seven years we've been under sequestration. the president has said he will open that up and give the military the resources they need. the other thing that gives the soldiers great trust and confidence is that we have, as the secretary of defence, former marine generaljim matis, a wonderful officer. most of the day—to—day decisions come to the secretary of defence. i need very finally to ask

you about why, it is basically a self—help book, why so popular? the ten lessons i talked about when i was trained, are universal lessons. starting the day with a task is important. don't back down from bullies. don't quitjust because times get tough is important. making sure that you understand that we all go through this. doesn't matter whether you've spent a day in uniform, doesn't matter if you're a guy or a gal, they are important lessons. thank you very much. just a quick look at the times‘ front page: we were talking about back biting in the cabinet. may urged to sack her donkey ministers. squabbling cabinet must unite pm will say. meanwhile, some of the back biting is continuing. the guardian, leading on the schools there. getting a little bit extra money. that is all we have time for today. i'm back tomorrow.

until then, good night. like the good evening. 27 degrees earlier on today. medium and high cloud in the south of the uk. not in the north. clear blue sky in some parts of scotland. tuesday, temperatures go ohio. 29 degrees for some parts of england and wales. by the end of the week, cool and fresh. temperatures averaging at 20 degrees. cool overnight. medium cloud in the south of the uk. clear skies further north. with those, temperatures dip down to 11 degrees. single figures in rural areas. 16

degrees for london and cardiff. a warm start to what will be a very hot day. humid and hot and coming warm start to what will be a very hot day. humid and hotand coming in from the near continent. medium upper level cloud will be warm. that is going north. a lovely day in much of scotland. the odd shower is possible. fine and dry into the afternoon. quite warm. 22 in inverness. always more fresh on the north sea coast. low 20s in northern ireland is be northern england, middle 20s. a breeze coming in from the north sea. southern england and wales getting to possibly 29 degrees. things are changing in the south and west with showers moving in with thunder. hit and miss. thunder and lightning going north tuesday night in the wednesday. a

lot of lightning around. torrential rainfor lot of lightning around. torrential rain for some. hail and gusty wind as well. it continues to move north. out west, and piling in. upper20s in east angliatemperatures are beginning to come down. that trend continues on into thursday. this weather front out west is a cold front and will go ever eastwards. behind that fresh air. temperatures down by several degrees across the board on thursday. 18 degrees for some of us. rain on thursday. some showers following. a wet day across a large part of the uk to end the week. if you want any more details, you can go to the bbc weather website. thank you. goodbye. this is newsday on the bbc. and rico hizon in singapore. the headlines.

these two diplomatic compounds in the us, retaliation if it doesn't get it. two weeks after north korea's intercontinental ballistic missile test. military talks with pyongyang. i'm babita sharma in london. also in the programme. australia says it will force tech giants like apple and facebook to handover in cryptic messages as part of theirfight handover in cryptic messages as part of their fight against crime and terrorism. and after a six—month battle, the