the new york times says it has obtained president trump's tax records stretching back two decades, which it says reveal chronic financial losses and years of tax avoidance. the newspaper reports that mr trump paid only $750 in federal income taxes in the year he won the presidency. the president has dismissed the claims as fake news. the united states hasjoined russia and the un in calling for an immediate ceasefire between armenia and azerbaijan in the disputed territory of nagorno—karabakh. sunday saw the worst clashes in the region for many years with deaths from both sides. police say they've detained around 200 people following a seventh consecutive week of anti—government protests in belarus. tens of thousands of opposition supporters took to the streets of capital in minsk to oppose the regime of president alexander lukashenko.

now on bbc news, dateline london. hello, i'm shaun ley. welcome to the programme, which brings together some of the uk's leading political commentators, bbc specialists, and the foreign correspondents who file their stories under the dateline london. this week, new pandemic restrictions in the uk as a sharp rise in infection heralds what borisjohnson says will be a difficult six months. in the us, donald trump hogs the headlines again, this time by suggesting he might not abide by the result if he doesn't like it. see you in the supreme court, mr president? well, in the words of rowan and martin's laugh—in, "here comes thejudge". judging the week's events for dateline london, two podcasters — steve richards

of rock n roll politics, and michael goldfarb of frdh — the first rough draft of history. and here in the studio, his hands sanitised but certainly not his journalism, mark urban, diplomatic editor with the bbc‘s newsnight programme. hello. and to both of you, michael and steve. good to have you back with us. we are going to begin with, of course, coronavirus. just as it's shaken up every aspect of daily life, so the pandemic has disrupted the pattern of british politics. the conservatives, the "party of business", instinctively sceptical of the state and, in the 2010s, champion of austerity, had, at one point this summer, half the nation on the government payroll. labour, traditionally more comfortable with spending taxpayers' money in times of economic crisis, has been chiding the chancellor for being "cavalier", of having "splurged" the voters' money, not spent it wisely. this week, just before the main scheme of state support — the furlough — was due to end, the british government cancelled november's budget and announced a fresh wave of public subsidy for private business for the next six months.

it's the most visible sign so far that the health of the nation is once again at risk. steve richards, a quarter of the uk population is either under additional restrictions or will be by the end of this weekend. is that a sense that the government has lost control of this virus, or was it always that we were going to find ourselves in this situation, come the return of autumn and eventually the potential health risks in the winter? a bit of both. the autumn was always going to be a challenge and one of the more bizarre sequences of recent days was some officials and ministers expressing surprise that the autumn was going to be such a challenge.

they have lost control in the sense that testing is still nowhere near as extensive as it should be, to give one example. london is now, you know, obviously, the biggest population centre in the uk. the mayor says he thinks it's raging, but we don't know for sure because there is inadequate testing for london. so they've lost control in that sense, but it was inevitable, too, that it would recur once the summer was out of the way and schools were back and universities were back. they have also lost control of the messaging. i think this last week has been bizarre. you began with the two senior scientists presenting a very bleak picture and then borisjohnson pops up to say pubs will have to close an hour early. it was a sort of bizarre, almost darkly comical response to the context set the day before, and then you have the chancellor saying we need to live with the fear and not in fact probably investing enough to protectjobs which are hugely jeopardised at the moment. mark, in terms of the challenge that the uk and indeed governments all around the world face, vast sums

of public money being spent to try and protect people from the risks of infection, encouraging a whole change in the way people's day—to—day lives are operated, and yet some unanswerable things that cannot be solved simply by money, not least the search for a vaccine. how are they kind of balancing these challenges? well, it's interesting just listening to steve there. this sort of desire to appear in control, which is quite understandable in a democratic system, it leads governments into taking all sorts of arbitrary steps, some of which there is no real scientific basis for. and i am wondering, looking as we are going into this new surge of coronavirus, really how many of those takes we saw in the first wave survive. you know, is it really anything to do with the complexion of the government, you know, ce ntre—left spain skyrocketing, libertarianjohnson's government also not looking in a great place, france also centre—left, centre—right, what are they these days?

but you know what i mean. and the sort of impacts that government policy can make, i really wonder whether they are just on the margins and whether the underlying epidemic factors are the real key drivers — population density, social customs. i was talking to an expert at the robert koch institute in berlin who said that there's a whole balance of epidemiology we don't really have, about how close people get to one another when they speak, how loud they speak in different cultures, various virological factors, things they have been exposed to in different years that other countries might not have. there are so many elements to this puzzle that are scientific rather than political but we all seem to want political answers to the situation we find ourselves in. and, in some ways, political answers contribute to the health challenge. anthony fauci, the us expert who is highly respected and in charge in theory of the us government task force on this.

he said we are not getting in the us a second wave of infections, we are still living with the first wave because the numbers were not sufficiently suppressed. and in a country where political power is so diverse and dispersed between states and the federal government, isn't some of that inevitable? i think some of it is inevitable. anthony fauci has been saying for months that we are still in the first wave and he is a specific case to america as the expert, who has a quasi—governmental role, is completely sidelined now because he disagrees with the administration of donald trump's approach, or rather non—approach, to dealing with the crisis. it's interesting to pick up on what mark was saying. you know, part of it has to do with how society has evolved, particularly in the really hard—hit, we used to be called first world, g7, gs economies. we expect everything instantly. we expect our gratification instantly.

we want our solutions to a completely new illness instantly and that makes, you know, the government'sjob slightly more difficult, but it also doesn't have to do with the great geographical spread, sean. you asked me about this huge size of america, there are so many different levels of government, butjust in madrid, for example, the national government in spain wants madrid to lock down. it's a tightly packed urban area. the central government is left—wing. the madrid government, the metropolitan government, is right—wing, and says no, we can't afford this, we can't afford to lock down again, so they are butting heads. you've got this terrible coming together of incompatible streams of thought. one is the gratification, let's get this solved right away, governments can't do it.

governments are not used to agreeing with one another these days because we live in times of hyper—polarisation. and then there is the science part and it is still, we have to remind ourselves all the time, it is a new thing, the coronavirus, it is called "novel" because it's new. and scientists are still trying to figure out exactly how it works and consequently the best ways to prevent it spreading, you know, rapidly. steve, michael raises a very interesting point about this degree of perhaps public scepticism about perhaps some of the rules, whether you're in madrid or for example in israel, where we are seeing a fair degree of at least political dispute over whether or not this second lockdown can be justified and can be sustained when people are told they can't go more than, i think it's a kilometre from their homes. a second way for those countries who may be experiencing it, isn't it?

that having kind of bought the arguments the first time round, will they buy them the second time round? this is where politics and leadership do play a part. of course, in the end, the only route through this is through the science as michael suggests. this is new, and therefore the science is still adapting. but leadership is about clarity of message. and as much as is possible, and obviously it is going to change, i don't blame the government for changing its message as it adapts to changing circumstances, but there has to be a clarity of message and strategy. actually, polls suggest most people are willing in this country, the uk, anyway, to accept further constraints if the government explains they're doing it to keep them safe and can show why they are doing it so i think the politics is as important a dimension, actually, as the science, and to give one other example, to name an unlikely quartet, conservatives like william hague and jeremy hunt

and former labour prime ministers tony blair and gordon brown from, i think about may of this year have been calling for a ramping up of testing, a big political figure in charge of a department solely responsible for this, with clear lines of accountability, and instead you have pulling of levers and nothing happens, contact signed, nothing happens, different agencies involved, and that fracturing of delivery is, i think, an issue which is deeply political. so there are two sides, the politics and the science. just a last thought on this. do you think that perhaps as the southern hemisphere looks forward to some easing of infections, is there anything they can learn from the northern hemisphere‘s experience during the summer of maybe how not to do it to buy themselves some time before winter returns in 2021?

that to me is obvious, isn't it? do not work on the assumption that when infection rates fall, they are not going to start rising again when people spend more time indoors and to prepare during the lull for that increase before we get, hopefully, some kind of vaccine. 0k, we'll leave it there. thanks very much. now, do you remember merrick garland? in march 2016, six months before the presidential election, ba rack 0bama nominated judge garland to fill the vacant seat on the supreme court. mitch mcconnell, then as now leader of the majority in the senate, said republicans would not cooperate because the vacancy should be filled by whoever the people chose as their next president that november, and that's what happened. this weekend, just over a month before the presidential election, donald trump is nominating a successor to ruth bader ginsberg,

who died a week ago. republicans, including senator mcconnell, think that's just fine. michael, should they? should they, should they? look, if you're going to hold the modern republican party to some kind of consistency and say, oh, we're going to accuse you of hypocrisy, you're not about to get very far. the republican party exists to exert power and you have to say that they are very, very good at it, whether they actually have a majority or not. they exercise power when they don't have a majority, they exercise power to present the party with the majority, the democrats, from doing what they want to do, and when they do have power and when they do have a majority, theyjust ram through — just ram through their programme. now, historically, this represents, in many ways, the culmination of at least a four—decade—long struggle

to gain absolute control of the supreme court. initially, it was in the hopes of overturning the decision in roe v wade about abortion but it is, of course, a wide range of issues now. donald trump does deliver for his voters — there is no doubt about it. he has reshaped the federal bench at the lower level with right—wing justices, and there is no reason to think that mitch mcconnell, who is the leader, the republican leader in the senate, won't try and put this all the way through. it usually takes four to six weeks to begin to gather all of the material, vetting material, to hold hearings. in four to six — well, in six weeks, we are going to have the election. will this carry on after the election? yeah, could do. so what we're looking

at is the court, which is meant to be to the side of politics, has become arguably the most politicised aspect of american governance now and it will be the hot button issue the rest of the way in this campaign. mark, it's fair to say, isn't it, that not only does the political kind of authority of the president continue even if he loses the election in november, because he is in office until the end of january and so is the existing congress, that they had the power to do this — there is no question — but isn't what the republicans are proposing now really not so different from what 0bama would have liked to have done four years ago, if he had been able to do it, which is replace a justice with a different philosophy with one more suited to his outlook?

well, it's interesting. i mean, democrats present president 0bama's actions at the time in terms of obeying a convention, or the rules of the game. and, of course, that's the whole appeal of trump to his base, is his transgressive quality in terms of businesses as usual in washington. and so, of course, it is a no—brainer for him to be forward—leaning, to put his candidate forward, to show, as michael said, that he is going to reshape the bench even at the highest level here and he's not afraid to do so, you know, weeks away from an election. and yes, you're right. i mean, when the election is gone — even assuming that these doubts he cast this week on that he might not accept the result — even assuming that this is all hot air and he will accept the process — he will still have months in which to affect the way that the situation washington is run. and you know, i have to say, i was thinking as i was hearing michael, back ten or 15 years when i was covering attempts to nation build in places like iraq and afghanistan and, you know, meetings in dusty places with tired military officers who were trying to bring about certain solutions, and — and a lot

of them ended up concluding that rule of law was actually more important than elections in defining the quality of democracy. and, you know, one plays with that at one's peril, potentially. steve richards, the criticism that the right has made traditionally of the us supreme court and the court that existed particularly in the early ‘70s and mid ‘70s, was that it was too activist, that it kind of reinterpreted the constitution to fit the contemporary political mores. what is the risk that the right runs if it pursues a nomination? the reports are, as we are sitting here now — and this will be clear as the weekend goes on — that amy coney barrett, a judge who has deep religious views, is a catholic and has been critical of abortion, is opposed to abortion — although she has also said that she wouldn't allow,

is written in the past, she wouldn't allow her personal views to influence her judgements — what's the risk they run if they go ahead with that nomination in terms of kind of, as they would see it, pulling back the court away from the tilt it's had in recent past? well, the risk, as you imply, is the reverse of that perception in the ‘70s, that it will strengthen and reinforce the trump core vote but will alienate — orfurther alienate — a potentially dangerous coalition, which will be the democrats and disillusioned republicans who think that trump has gone too far on some of the social issues and the way he plays fast and loose with the rules. however, there is another side to this, i think, which is that trump — the one thing we know for sure is that trump will be president untiljanuary. we don't know what will happen in the november election and who will replace him then. and he is going to use every lever available to him in that time to do what he wants. and, in a way, the democrats should take note about how you can use power and pull

levers to get what you want. but the risk, clearly, is that he — it widens further the coalition of doubters and firm opponents against him. and what is the political risk, michael, for the democrats as this nomination proceeds? because as you said, it is going to become something inevitably of a kind of headline—grabber, potentially if these hearings start every day? you know, the thing about america, shaun, is that we have been in this place — it's only been deepening, but the essential divisions in society have been present — again, you have to go back 35 years. there was the infamous case of robert bork — a ronald reagan appointee to the court — who was denied being seated by democrats.

and then justice clarence thomas became another extraordinary difficult confirmation. he was confirmed, you know, but there is a ritualised — ritualised approach to these confirmation hearings now. and i don't see it as having any impact at all in the upcoming election. i mean, i don't know what the democrats can do. i mean, mitch mcconnell is going to do everything in his power to getjustice — judge barrett seated — we are assuming that that's who the nominee will be — but whoever the nominee is, they will be seated on the court. and what can the democrats do? well, you can come out on the street in kind of massive demonstrations. we've seen massive demonstrations before at the heart of an election campaign. the polls have barely moved in months. no matter what happens, no matter how many more people die of covid, no matter that ruth bader ginsberg dies in a most inopportune moment, the polls remain the same. joe biden remain 7% to 8% ahead. donald trump's voters will absolutely come out and vote for him.

those who want remove him will absolutely come out to vote for him. very little is changing and curiously, i don't think that this is going to move the dial one way or the other. you know, i think where we are is actually is just to recapitulate what has been said. in the weeks after the election — and let's assume that we take donald trump at his word, and we should, because the attorney general william barr, who is the chiefjustice officer and whispers very closely into the president's ear is, you know — they are authoritarians. they will do what they can. they will move the levers of power as much as they can to maintain their power, and that's when the real arguments will start. and i don't think these ensuing weeks of hearings — if we get hearings — are really going to change much. a0 days to go. and we will be talking about it

quite a lot i think in this programme — not just in the next month but beyond that, too. thank you all very much. now, the opportunity for the dateline panel to bend your ear about a story that's been bugging them, but which perhaps hasn't had the attention it deserves. mark, can i start with you? closer to home for a uk audience but something of particular interest to europeans as well? yeah, in a sense this is a classic dateline story because it's something journalists are talking about but it's not really appearing much on the surface of politics, which is is the uk government about to fold in order to get a trade deal with the eu? having really upped the ante a few weeks ago with the internal market bill and seemingly been ready to override the withdrawal agreement — that divorce deal that they'd already signed and, indeed, been elected to parliament on, all the conservative mps, their commitment to implement that withdrawal agreement — were they really going to do it? now, some briefing that was going on in the last day or two, produced an article in the times yesterday by a very well connected journalist james forsyth, suggesting that, well, this bill could be amended and pushed into the distance in order to take the pressure off the negotiation.

that, well, the government had thought about this and with a second wave of covid, they didn't really want to be leaving the eu without a free trade agreement. some bemused reaction from european partners, but also enough hints, i think, that they sense that possibly, there is some truth in this. for the idea that we are going to have a rupture onjanuaryi and leave, going effectively from the single market and customs union to nothing, now seems to be receding whereas even some very seasoned and well—connected pundits a couple of weeks ago were saying it was above evens as a likelihood. that is an intriguing thought, isn't it, after all the sound and fury of the possibility of breaking international law. michael, a different part of the world but one that, again, has rather dropped from many of the headlines but should still be something we're thinking about, and that is what is happening in the borders of syria and iraq, and particularly turkey's actions?

yes, i mean in the last couple of weeks, the only news coming out the middle east has been the rapprochement between the uae and israel and establishing diplomatic relations and direct flights and trade in that sort of thing. but, you know, every single day, there is military action along the border between syria and turkey and iraq and turkey. last week, the united states launched a drone attack against, i mean, al-qaeda leaders there, and turkey has stepped up. nobody's paying attention. turkey has stepped up activities against the kurdish group the pkk. 0ne hears some pretty shocking reports about military action there. and, you know, we are coming into october and we talk of october surprises, and eve ryone's forgotten about syria, but if there were to be some kind of international incident in late august, so — a russian — there was russian—american kind of argy—bargy along the border. it could happen here and we really shouldn't

take our eyes off the border between turkey, syria, and iraq. yeah, i was very struck by a syrian in london telling me on friday that the government has now introduced a kind of bond that syrians who want to go back to their country have to pay to be allowed to go home. i think it can only be paid in us dollars, because the syrian government is desperate for hard currency and of course, there's rationing as well of essentials which, again, is adding to the domestic pressure, and it is getting very cold and very bitter at night for those who can't get across the border. michael, thanks very much. steve, very much a lighter note but something that shines a bit of light on, well, what you might call "uk culture"? i mean, everything is dark. a friend of mine, the observer columnist william keegan, told me recently that he watches the news all evening. it's so miserable. he puts on fawlty towers and it cheers him up before he goes to bed.

and when he's watched two series, he then starts all over again. and john cleese tweeted this week that it was the 45th anniversary since the first episode, and he put a clip out of the first episode which made me laugh out loud. i retweeted it and i was amazed — i looked at my phone later on, there were hundreds of these retweets and included people like the former foreign office minister alistair burt saying "thank you, john cleese. you are a comic genius" and so on. and it is — so that's my advice to all listeners around the world — cheer yourself up by watching fawlty towers. it is enduring and timeless and god — 45 years ago! i can't believe it! there were some other interesting issues like whether it would be made today and so on, so big themes as well as light ones. yeah, absolutely. michael goldfarb, as an american living in the uk, did you understand

fawlty towers ? which is kind of setting an english seaside hotel and feels kind of — now feels almost from another world — but is still amazingly funny, at least to a brit. well, i lived fawlty towers because i did my first tour of duty as a university student in 1970 and '71 and i did stay at the british seaside, which is an experience we all have to have — all foreigners need to have the british seaside experience in a fawlty towers—like hotel. i got it, and it was hugely popular in america in the '70s when it was sold on. michael goldfarb, steve richards, mark urban, thank all of you very much. thank you very much. don't forget, geeta guru—murphy is here next week at the same time with dateline. from all of us now on dateline london, goodbye.

good morning. a frosty but sunny start to the week for areas from eastern scotland all the way through to the bristol channel. still cloudy though, first thing, east anglia, south—east. bit of patchy rain, cloudy damp morning in northern ireland. but brightening up here from mid—morning onwards as cloud and patchy rain spreads its way through scotland during the day, and into the afternoon across wales and the western fringes of england. it does mean, out towards the west, we brighten up, with some sunshine later on and, at long last, the cloud and the wind break up across east anglia, south—west corner — it will feel warmer than the weekend. that also continues to happen as we go through monday night but then the cloud comes back in, with some patchy rain and drizzle, to take us into tuesday. further north and west, where we see the clear skies into tuesday morning, chance of a touch of frost but not quite as cold as we've seen through recent nights. as for tuesday, that lingering weather front across east anglia and

the south—east to begin with may take a while to shift. the rest of the country, probably one of the driest and brightest days of the week. plenty of sunshine around. feeling pleasant in that sunshine, but things turn stormier as you go through the second half of the week. bye for now.

welcome to bbc news, i'm rich preston, very good to have you with us. our top stories: the new york times says it's obtained president trump's tax records dating back two decades, which it says reveal chronic losses and years of tax avoidance. he denies the claims. it's totally fake news. made—up. fake. we went through the same stories, you could've asked me the same questions four years ago, i had to litigate this and talk about it. totally fake news. fighting breaks out between armenia and azerbaijan in the disputed region of nagorno—karabakh, with casualties on both sides. tear gas and mass arrests as tens of thousands march in belarus against president lukashenko. and melbourne's controverial curfew has been lifted almost two months after it was first imposed following surging