there's got to be some downside to having a woman president, right? something, something that may not fit with that office. correct? hmm, i'm going to say no, bill! we'll hear from the lawyer taking on fox news in america. and this: music: mother of god, putin put! by pussy riot five years on and their punk prayer is yet to be answered. we speak to pussy riot‘s masha alyokhina. good evening. just four months ago, that ominous phrase dominated the conservatives‘ election campaign. there was no magic money tree, we were told, over and over again. it was the response to nurses, to teachers, to everyone whose pay had been capped for seven long years. don't ask for more, there isn't any.

yet, today it seems there was. baby steps for some sectors were announced, the rest, we're told, will follow. so, is this the beginning of the end of austerity? prison staff will see their average salary go up. with today's 1.2% rise, they can expect to take home an additional £706. police officers receive on average £41,500. today, they were told they would get a 1% pay rise, and a 1% bonus, meaning they could take home an additional £830 a year. now, if we look at this graph from the ons, we can see that public sector pay a decade ago largely matched private pay — that is, until just after the financial crash of 2008, when we saw a dramatic drop in private sector pay. since then, private sector pay has remained lower and more turbulent than the public sector, although it has been narrowing in recent months. so, is this a change of heart,

a change of tactic, or was it always the plan? we'll debate in a moment. first, to nick watt at the tuc in brighton. it's been a relentless political pounding they have withstood for nearly a decade. now buffeted on all sides into a general election setback, theresa may finally announced a change of heart on one of the defining characteristics of this government. the wind is howling here on brighton beach, and 50 miles north, in london, the winds are changing too after the cabinet agreed to lift the public sector pay cut. it is all a far cry from that general election moment. my wage slip from 2009 reflects exactly what i am earning today. how can that be fair? we have had to take hard choices across the public sector in relation to pay restraint.

there is an a magic money tree that we can shake. there isn't a magic money tree that we can shake. downing street regards the announcement as a significant step. the cap has been an important weapon in balancing the public finances. a series of factors came together in producing today's position. first, cabinet ministers felt liberated to speak out after theresa may's poor performance in the general election. the dup are no fans of the cap. and finally, the prime ministerfelt that under george osborne, the government failed to show enough appreciation of servants of the public realm. it's great news that after seven very difficult years, recovering from labour's financial crisis, we are now in a position to end the 1% public sector pay cap, which is great for public sector workers. it is great remembering that although the cap is set at 1%, the vast majority of public sector

workers have been getting more than that. in the nhs, nurses have averaged 3% as they progress through the pay scales. no doubt the government hoped that today's announcement would lead to a less hostile start of the conference season at the tuc in brighton. public sector workers had other ideas. ijoy that 18, so ijoin to become a firefighter, something i always wanted to do, so money wasn't necessarily the issue. now, i literally lived month—to—month, and so do my colleagues. ijoined at 18. we are feeling the pinch and we are in a situation where we're looking at payday loans, food banks, and especially in education, we are notjust feeding ourselves and providing for our own families, we're providing for the children who are being impacted by this long—term austerity measure. you know that something is deeply wrong... the guest of honour

in brighton was unamused. today, as inflation rises to nigh on 3%, they try to deny people on the cheap. a pay cut is a pay cut. we must be united in breaking the pay cap for all workers. warm applause forjeremy corbyn there as he pledged to break the public sector pay cap for all workers. he today's announcement by the government as another climb—down after labour's success in the general election. but he also believes that pay rises substantially below inflation will create continuing political pain for the government. 0ne trade union leader was unimpressed. in reality, this is a pay cut. inflation runs at 2.9%. my members will be angry and devastated at this. everybody knows that our members

have come under a permanent injunction because of section 127 because of the 1994 public order act, which makes it illegal to induce prison officers to take industrial action. but we have within our membership 4000 operational support grades who do not come under that restriction, and the national executive committee of the poa will look at that closely, and we may well ask our members a question as to what they want us to do next. today may well be remembered as a seminal moment for this government as it relaxes the pace of austerity. ministers know only too well that changing the political weather may not pay dividends at the ballot box. nick is with me now. is the government happy, do you sense, with how this has gone down today? i spoke to one cabinet member who it is fair to say has been pressing for this.

they said, this is a moment. so they are happy, but not exactly overjoyed. talking to others there's frustration about the announcement. so they are happy, but not exactly overjoyed. talking to others, there is a feeling that it has not quite hit where they wanted it to land. they are saying is that for prison officers and police, that is for this year's financial settlement, and in the future, it will be a different system. there will be a lot of work to look at the problems of recruitment and retention of teachers and nurses, and do you need to increase pay to keep the workers you need? i asked, does that mean it will be more generous? this member of the cabinet said, there will be a lot of work done on this. it is a different system. wait and see. i don't know what that means.

you mention the dup in your piece — a little more on the kind of role they are assuming. the government made its own decision today, but it is clear the dup played a pivotal role in this decision today. the agreement between the conservatives and the dup injune, a confidence and supply agreement, not a word in there about removing the cap that we had today. but the dup made clear during their negotiations that it would have to go. this says the dup will support finance bills, budgets, and i think it is clear that unless we had got this announcement by the 22nd of november, the day of the budget, they would not support it. what do we have tomorrow? a vote on the pay cap in parliament, and the dup are still saying they reserve the right to vote against the government tomorrow. nick, thank you very much. joining me now, lord maude, former paymaster—general. francis maude was an architect of the austerity agenda under david cameron. also with us from parliament, where she's been voting

in the chamber, is anneliese dodds, shadow financial secretary to the treasury. welcome to you both. lord maude, if i could start with you, is this a move that you yourself would have made? well, i think there is no sense that a i% pay cap has to be in place for all time. this is a limited decision today, applying only to two sectors. it is sensibly not built into the baseline for the future. it is 1% additional, not consolidated, as a one—off payment. what we sometimes lead out of account is the fact that many public sector workers have not been subject to a strict i% pay cap anyway. they have been getting automatic increases from year—to—year. and of course, when you look at total reward, notjust the page, but everything that comes with it, pensions, terms and conditions that public sector workers have,

on average, they are and have been for some time better paid than workers in the private sector. i think chris was making that point in the film, butjust to steer as a little bit with what you're hearing today, for an architect of austerity, does this seem like the right time to now be moving ahead, to say, ok, the deficit is under control and we can do this now? know, the deficit is clearly not under control. so, should they be doing this? we are in quite a long period of sustained economic growth, and yet, we still have a budget deficit that is too big. we should be, at this stage, in a place where the budget deficit has been eliminated and we are getting towards a surplus. we're not. so, the idea that there is suddenly lots of money around is complete fantasy. my concern is, we need to be more focused on what we're getting for the money we spend.

we showed in the coalition from 2010—15 that you could get more for less. this was regarded as impossible, and yet we cut the running costs of government by cumulatively over £50 billion in five years, and that quality public services, if anything, improved. i know that anneliese will have a lot to say about that point. i will come to you in a second, but let me get that sense, if this opens the lead, as nick suggested, to all public sector workers... which it clearly well. and that is a good thing? whether it is good or bad, it is inevitable. you can't lift it for a couple of sectors. and all the signals have been... are you happy? i am not happy we are giving the impression that we can suddenly spend money to alleviate a political pressure point. your party built a reputation on saying, we have got to get this right. you financial, economic stability before anything else — does that risk...

pay rates are not the be all and end all. what matters is how much you're spending and what you're getting for it. the treasury have always pay rates as an important regulator of public spending. what they should be much more focused on is what we are getting for the money. and that drive to efficiency that i was happy to lead during the coalition government, the foot has been taken off the accelerator on that, and that is where the focus needs to be — getting back the drive to efficiency. there may well be a case... let me bring in anneliese. increasing pay in areas where there is a recruitment and retention pressure.

anneliese, you have been very patient. from what the other, you believe this is something that has been achieved then you can move on because of the efficiency the conservatives managed? absolutely not, and i think the situation at the moment is of extreme shortage in many areas of the public service — nursing and teaching and other parts of the public servers. the independent pay review bodies are able to look at factors and producer recommendation when there are shortages. they had been straitjacketed at 1% for the last few years, which hasn't been good of recruitment and attend —— retention. with many of these services, there is no fat left and we are cutting out the bone, cutting away essential services. we have patients who aren't being treated properly, potentially in dangerous situations because of low staffing levels. we need public sector workers to have the pay they deserve. isn't the difficulty of labour that you have bodies like the iss accusing labour of pretending everything can be paid for by the same plans to tax the richest? it can't keep going round and round, that money.

labour has been very clear in this regard about whether funds would come from. even if you use the conservative government was my own figures on what the pay cap would save. they said it was safe £1.5 billion per year, and they have decided they could give £1 billion to the dup for their deal. labour has set out at the election exactly how we would pay for this, and we used pretty conservative figures to set out what the cost would be. i wonder why the conservatives have done this. the unions aren't happy. as you said, a lot of public sector workers will assume the gates are open and they can ask for more. you are trying to move on to labour territory, where you have already heard jeremy corbyn say today that labour will be breaking the pay cap for all workers. you won't do it politically, so why would you... isn't it a massive risk? yes, it is a risk, i'm not so sure

it is worth a risk for the party. it is a risk for the public finances. and the end of it, you have to learn the money to pay wages. anna lise was talking about the pressure on the staffing levels in some public sector, this was said to be within the existing budgets, so any extra money spent on pay levels... unless you find savings. so more money for your members in staff, is that an equation you accept? no, and i'm concerned about the claims coming from government about paying from existing budgets. people will be watching and will be aware that in certain areas, policing by example, it is incredibly stressed. take the police and prison service, if they choose to strike, that is technically illegal, would you support them?

i don't think anybody watts to have a strike. the point is that people have been pushed so far they are starting to talk about it. labour have said that we shouldn't have industrial action, we shouldn't be pushed into this situation because the government should be listening to the public sector workers. as the party who would break the cap on workers, if they aren't getting those rights, you would support them? industrial action, where it has been voted upon properly, if the workers decide that is the right thing and when they have been consulted, that is their right, ultimately, but i don't want us to have that strike. i want a situation where workers are paid properly and the government must listen to them and the public, who are calling out for the change too. thank you forjoining us. sexual harassment, firings, and multi—million pound payouts — the stories coming out of fox headquarters have seemed as sensational as the headlines that often dominate their news channels. the company has undergone a large—scale overhaul of its management structure,

but there are some who are clearly still nervous about the compa ny‘s soul. one of those, it seems, our own government. today, the culture secretary said she was likely to refer rupert murdoch's £12 billion bid to take full control of sky to the competition regulator, pointing — among other things — to "weaknesses in fox's corporate governance arrangements". so does the culture secretary fear the fox culture will end up here? there's got to be some downside to having a woman president, right? my question is, when she looks in the mirror, doesn't she want to crawl out of her own skin? when you're president of the united states, you've got to deal with people like putin, kate, you've got to deal with real ornery, the mullahs in iran. they think women are like subspecies. i used to think that women just shouldn't be able to vote but now i think at least liberal women shouldn't be allowed to hold office. a taste of fox news.

i'm joined from new york by douglas wigdor, a lawyer who represents dozens of clients who have taken lawsuits against fox. with me here is paul connew, a former newspaper executive who was deputy editor of murdoch's now—closed news of the world. douglas, you think that was the right decision? i do think it was the first step in the right direction. there is a lot more investigation that needs to be done. i referred to 21st century fox as 19th—century fox because i represent over 20 former and current employees in all sorts of sexual harassment, retaliation, race dissemination claims and the fact is that there is a lot the british government doesn't know because so many people are bound by gagging orders, confidentiality orders, that the government should ask 21st century fox to let people speak, to speak freely, so they can make an informed decision as to whether they meet the broadcasting standards that the british people deserve. tell him he is wrong? i'm not here as a cheerleader

for wippert mode, i'm —— rupert murdoch, i'm here as a commentator who has often been critical. i need to be clear here, what is happening in america, which i agree is pretty scandalous and disturbing, but does it have to translate to the uk situation? sky news, an award—winning channel, i am one of the judges of the rts awards, like the bbc sky has some tremendousjournalism. as far as i can see and as far as 0fcom seem to agree, there is no evidence of any undue pressure or the sort of issues in the uk that surround the us operation. do you think sky can't defend itself? the decision that 0fcom originally made was before we filed a lawsuit on behalf of rud wheeler.

but they were aware. it involved a very complicated set of facts but the bottom line was that fox news was creating fake news. what you really have is you have the murdoch empire from top to bottom. this isn'tjust the new york post, everything that the murdoch ‘s touch, in your opening remarks before i came on you said that the fox organisation have claimed a complete overhaul. there hasn't. bill 0'reilly and roger ailes left with millions of dollars, they continue to fight the real victims of these cases, the head of the legal department at fox news is still there. we have a regulatory system here where the location of sky news in the uk becoming like fox news couldn't happen. i think it is quite correct that the government, and i'm sure that karen bradley ran this by theresa may.

i think because of the political sensitivities surrounding this, we have a minority tory government and either side on this one, when the cma report back in six months' time, whichever way they recommend, it's almost certainly going to be illegally challenged by one side or the other. so it's probably a wise move by the government to take this step. but you can't automatically saved because of what's happened in the states it's going to govern what happens in the uk. it's wise to do an investigation because they need a full set of facts. this isn't the first time that the murdoch family have been in the news in the united kingdom. millie dowell is pressure

on people's minds from 2011 when the investigation took place. and there will be more. i expect there will be more news about the murdoch family and fox news and how they control it and what is still going on at fox news and i think that the cma should take a close look at it. there's no reason to believe, frankly, that they will operate sky any differently. what will you miss if the deal goes forward? the media landscape in this country wouldn't benefit from having purely the excellent bbc and itn news. i think the loss of fox news... the loss of fox news? sorry, the loss of sky. freudian! fox news could not be replicated on sky. so i think the british media news landscape would suffer if sky news disappeared. i can't see anybody else taking it on. it's a lossmaker in its own right,

it is propped up by the commercial interests. the last word. i just don't see why you reach that conclusion, that they wouldn't operate sky the way they operate fox, to create divisiveness. personally, this divisiveness they create, that's what you must be concerned about. thank you forjoining us. we did ask fox and sky tojoin us tonight, but neither company had anyone available. in a statement sky said it was disappointed by the culture secretary's statement but would continue to engage with the process. he was the man who brought samuel becket to the english stage, the man who launched the national theatre on the south bank, the man who founded the royal shakespeare company. he was, in other words, a giant of the theatre whose shoulders launched some of the finest and best loved actors and dramatists this country has ever seen.

sir peter hall, whose death was announced today, is credited with transforming british theatre, and creating some of the most original, outstanding stage moments this country has ever seen. stephen smith looks back on his life. being the director of the national theatre is very much like being nelson on top of nelson's column. the pigeons pass by and you get it! # all or nothing at all # and it was like being nelson in other ways, too. not much doubt who was steering the ship when the young peter hall was directing the royal shakespeare company, which he founded. weep our sad bosoms empty. let us rather... yes. let's talk technically first before we motivate it. when i first came to work here as a freelance director, you didn't talk to actors about their text. i mean, it was an infringement on their technique. they knew theirjob. of course they didn't!

because there were at least four different ways of handling a shakespearean text. as far as shakespeare goes, yes, i think fashions have changed. peter was known as an iambic fundamentalist. he put the rhythm, really, the iambic meter right at the top of his agenda and i think now quite a lot of people like something more supple, more overtly naturalistic. but you could not dispute peter's mastery of shakespeare. could not dispute his bone deep knowledge of the elizabethan repertoire. in the 19505, hall directed the english—language premiere of beckett's waiting for godot. we should be prepared to do things which the public won't yet like. we should be prepared to lead or to guide or to take soundings on where we think the public taste is going. the national theatre was conceived in the post—war spirit of homes and recreations fit for heroes. i declare this stone well and truly laid.

and after it moved to a new brutalist home on the south bank of the thames, peter hall succeeded 0livier as its director. we have tonight begun an adventure which will carry this theatre through many decades, indeed perhaps many centuries, for you will observe that it is built of very thick concrete. hall had the guile and powers of persuasion of an actor manager and he needed them, as a champion of subsidised theatre in the days of mrs thatcher. i think we're now having a dose of monetarism and i think perhaps it's very healthy but there are certain things which will not exist without subsidy, like drains, like libraries, like education, and like theatre. if you say, why will the theatre not exist without subsidy, it is because it is no longer possible to pay for it. it honestly isn't. at one time, hall would work

on a film at his home in the morning with the help of his enthralled editor, before going off to the dayjob. i wonder if we're losing her eagerness to be an amateur psychologist. he regretted he didn't make more films after akenfield in 197a. he gets to here, somewhere, he trips, right, he's going to fall in this lot. so you will appreciate we can only do it once. it was set in his beloved suffolk and starred a cast of locals. hall also directed opera at glyndebourne and elsewhere including the met in new york, as a proper newsnight arts reporter noted. i asked sir peter hall what happened as the curtain came down. there was a riot. i've never, in 30 years, actually seen an audience hit each other and yell at each other. about 50 people disliked the production very much and booed, whereas everybody else cheered. a great operator and he essentially cornered me into asking him to do a production here at the national to celebrate his 80th birthday.

i wasn't really given a choice. he said what he'd really would like to do is twelfth night, shakespeare's twelfth night. and the person who he'd like to play viola, the central role, was rebecca hall. great, great, actor. happened to be his daughter. and i heard myself saying to him, oh, oh, gosh, rebecca hall, do you think you can get her? and yeah, he did, he got her, and it was a great occasion. i do it because, two or three days on each production, there is real creativity in the air, where people do things they didn't know they could do, where they surprise themselves and each other. and insofar as i like power, it is because it gives me the opportunity to create conditions in which that might happen. sir peter hall. ten years ago tomorrow, the bbc revealed the bank of england had stepped in to bail out northern rock.

the move sparked a run on the bank, and then came the rest of the financial meltdown. this week, newsnight is looking back at what happened a decade ago and trying to work out where it leaves us now. we sent our business editor, helen thomas, to ask whether current regulation would protect the economy from similar shocks in future. and sirjohn vickers, who led the government's inquiry in the wake of the crash, told her thinks he thinks we're only halfway there. here's helen's report. should we have seen it coming? debt piling up, loans repackaged into an alphabet soup of investments, sold widely to... well, game investors, who bet that a aaa badge meant a sure thing. then, a tremor in the us housing market. and the slow realisation that one knock in one place could set off a series of calamities around the world. most people, most intelligent,

thoughtful people in positions of power in the financial authorities believed that they had things under control. that the world had become a safe place, that, through a number of policy initiatives, the problems of the past had been dealt with. and they weren't stupid but they turned out to be wrong. financial crises weren't new in 2007, of course not. we've been borrowing and lending, crashing and recovering for centuries. and there are common features. a build—up of debt, a sense of exuberance or invincibility. and often, an innovation or change that enables or accelerates things getting out of control. but what was unusual in 2007 was just the scale of the thing.

how many things went badly wrong, in how many places. the regulatory response was sprawling and ambitious. it strengthened the system, forcing banks to hold more capital. it looked at structure, stopping riskier trading in the us and ring—fencing lenders here. it massively increased supervision, with stress tests and higher standards for the biggest banks, and it aimed to simplify, so that banks could fail without needing a bailout. the world of finance has bustled on, but regulators believe they have put the brakes on the banks. the bank of england's governor said as much last year after the vote to leave the eu. those economic adjustments will be supported by a resilient uk financial system, one that the bank

of england has consistently strengthened over the course of the last seven years. the capital requirements of our largest banks are around ten times higher than before the financial crisis. the man who carried out a landmark view of the banking system for the uk government says much has improved but he thinks reform is unfinished and that a lot more needs to be done. i'm really very disappointed that the bank of england does take the view that it now takes, very different from the one that mervyn king took when he was governor, thinks that we've built enough in terms of capital buffers. i'd say we were roughly, global level, halfway, of where we ought to be. i believe we'd be in huge trouble if a very large, very complicated banking institution got into trouble. there are tools, these

so—called resolution tools, which didn't exist ten years ago which i think shift the odds in a slightly more favourable place. but i certainly wouldn't bet on those working perfectly. but say the giants of banking are now stood on solid foundations. is that enough to ward off another crisis? one of the few economists to spot the last crisis brewing sees potential for instability elsewhere. a lot of the risks that previously existed in the banking system have migrated to other parts of the financial system which we're not paying as much attention to as we do to the banks. so this could include, for example, the way in which insurance companies work, the way in which pension funds work, the way in which shadow financial institutions, which do banking activities but aren't called banks. it's here that some of the risks might lie in the event of another economic downturn or if there is an external shock and people suddenly go to ground and they want their money back. the crisis changed society, economic slump, stagnant wages,

mistrust of elites. but to this former regulator, the financial system looks broadly similar. the philosophical building blocks haven't really changed. we had a view that the right thing was central banks acting through monetary policy to keep inflation under control. regulators, mostly separate, acting on individual institutions. a belief that efficient markets worked and could be relied on. that the banks' risk management, based on mathematical analysis, would give the right answers. now, all of those are things which we have to think about more deeply and we haven't done the creative work yet, a decade after the acute crisis. back where it all began, the us housing market was at the epicentre of the crash. and yet there is growing clamour

to roll back on post crisis regulation or what's known as dodd—frank, the 850 page financial rule book passed in 2010. we are doing a major elimination of the horrendous dodd—frank regulations. keeping some, obviously, but getting rid of many. much more aggressive intervention is needed. this veteran of us bank supervision is worried. in the crisis, she helped clear up hundreds of us bank failures. it's short—sighted. it may be politically expedient. ironically, i don't think it's going to help the economy. if you loosen up on bank capital standards in particular, what's going to happen is you're going to increase shareholder pay—outs, dividends and buy—backs.

it could make the system less resilient, more unstable. really won't help the economy. it will benefit private shareholders and that's not a good reason to do it. despite concerns, there is general agreement that the system's in better shape than a decade ago but there are always risks. could a big bank fail without setting off a destructive chain reaction? we just don't know. have we inadvertently created new dangers in how we reacted to the last crisis? that's possible, even likely. and are the scars of the crisis still fresh enough to stop us making similar mistakes again? i think there is a lot of truth in the argument that it is a generational thing. once the crisis passes and, you know, people get used to the idea of doing innovative things in finance again, which are usually the same thing that their parents and grandparents did, the products change, the names change but actually it's about greed and, you know, credit. it's a regular phenomenon which i think we need to try to control somehow.

tomorrow we'll hear from the former governor of the bank of england, sir mervyn king. it was february 2012 when the pussy riot collective shocked the russian establishment with their performance of a song — punk prayer — in a moscow cathedral, a feminist response to patriarchal oppression in russia. its members were convicted of hooliganism motivated by religious hatred, sentenced to two years imprisonment, and transported to a penal colony in berezniki, in the urals. one of its members — masha alyokhina — has continued her work as an activist and founded the independent russian news website, mediazone. masha joins me now. thank you for coming in. talk to us first about that experience, which sounds horrific and notjust in prison but in siberia. well... i'm not the only one person who was sent to a penal colony and sentenced for political views.

my story is just one of the stories which we have. but i believe that any experience, even a prison experience, if you are not afraid to go through it, it makes you stronger at the end of the story. so,... your book describes a prison system that hasn't moved on for centuries. my book describes a number of choices which i make through the whole story, from my first pussy riot action to the last day of prison, and i do not separate one time from another, because i believe that the most dangerous prison is inside your mind. because you say that people believe that if you have freedom

and democracy, they will be with you forever, you cannot imagine a time when they are not. foryou, clearly, it was. for me, freedom exists only if you fight for that. and this is not the only statement of russian activists. i think it is quite international, especially now, in this political time, during especially the last maybe two years, when all the conservative factors start to grow. putin is still in power, probably more dominant than ever before. we project a lot of thoughts on what he is like. he is a fascinating character for the west. what does he really think? from what you understand of america, of donald trump, of theresa may

here — do you get a sense of what he believes? i think not only putin is a problem now. donald trump was elected in the united states, and, well, this is not a good sign. it's a sign for, i think, all of us to unite and to stand for the issues which we believe in. does putin respect donald trump? does he use him, admire him? i think he admires him, but putin is the face of a huge system with a transition of oppressions. i am talking about stalin's system, which exists almost for a century. i would read into that, then, that if putin goes, the system continues anyway. it depends on us.

we should crash the system. is there enough of a voice of opposition in russia? it is not about opposition, it is about decisions which are made by every person who decides to change the country. in penal colonies, for example, i met girls who were totally out of politics. they were there because of drugs or domestic violence, but after some months, they start to the human rights activists inside penal colonies. fantastic to hear you and to have you on the programme. thank you for coming. thank you. that is all we have time for this evening, but we're back tomorrow. we will see you then. hi, good evening. some wet and windy

weather coming our way over night tonight. we've already had some pretty lively gusts around our most exposed coastal locations around england and wales, gusts typically into the 50s and sixties. the met 0ffice have an amber weather warnings out for this wind the spell across northern england, north midland and north wales and across to lincolnshire and norfolk as well. gusts expected to reach 75 mph topic this midnight runner, there's low pressure darting off towards the continent, a squeeze on the southern flank is where the strongest winds will be out to the north sea from storm eyeline. looking at the weather picture first thing, we will still have a swathe of strong winds affecting the northeast, yorkshire, lincolnshire and into norfolk and given the leaves are still on the trees we could get some branches

knocked down and we could have localised destruction and some power cuts. as the strong winds go out to the north sea, blustery conditions nationwide, heavy showers, some with hailand nationwide, heavy showers, some with hail and thunder, showers more frequent in the north—west, where it will feel cool, temperatures at best just 12 in glasgow, 18 in london but feeling cooler than that due to the strength of the wind. through wednesday night there will be these bands of showers pushing south across the uk. some of those could be quite heavy overnight. the wind is increasingly coming down from a north, north—westerly direction. despite the winds staying up it will get quite cool overnight, temperatures down into single figures for tomorrow night. into thursday, another day of sunshine and showers, showers most frequent in north—western areas with the prevailing north—westerly winds dragging them in but nowhere is immune to showers, we could see heavy ones into east anglia & these. temperatures, still disappointing for the middle of september, 12 to

17 -- for the middle of september, 12 to 17 —— and the south—east. any improvements later in the week? not really, this big area of high pressure to the west of the uk, the winds increasingly turning northerly, dragging in the showers and cloud to the north sea. tempo wise as we get into the weekend, not particularly special. looking at highs between 13 and 1a across the north of the uk in scotland and northern ireland. remember with the showers and the cool winds with feeding in as well. the big question as we look to the weather towards the end of the week and the weekend, thermostat wars in your house, too early to put the heating on? certainly not. certainly will feel like there's an autumnal chill this weekend. that's your weather. welcome to newsday. the headlines:

400,000 and they are still fleeing. now the un security council holds an urgent meeting on the persecution of rohingya people in myanmar. and new sanctions on north korea. pyongyang says it will make the us suffer greater than ever before. donald trump response. those actions are nothing compared to what will ultimately have to happen. also on the programme: how do you recover from all of this? the havoc and damage conflict —— from hurricane irma. the need to rebuild is urgent. everyone