you're watching bbc news. the headlines. in italy giorgia meloni is set to become the nation's first female prime minister and the first far—right leader since benito mussolini. her brothers of italy party, which campaigns against immigration, is set to take more than 40% of the general election vote. the main philippine island of luzon has been hit by flooding as a result of heavy rain from super tycoon noru. emergency services have rescued people in low—lying areas from the roofs of their houses. noru is the strongest storm to hit the philippines this year. cubans have been voting in the referendum on whether to

legalise same—sex marriage. the new family code which is the culmination of efforts by a coalition of lgbtq activists, would help gay couples adopt children and also allow surrogate pregnancies. now on bbc news, it is time for dateline london. hello and a warm welcome to dateline london. i'm ben brown. we're looking at two of the week's big stories — what's happening in russia as men flee the country after president putin's call—up of reservists to fight in ukraine and his threat to use nuclear weapons, and also the british government's announcement of sweeping tax cuts — the most far—reaching

for half a century. well, i'm joined to discuss all this with polly toynbee, columnist from the guardian, stephanie baker of bloomberg news, and latika bourke of the sydney morning herald. so, cuts to income tax, corporation tax, national insurance and stamp duty and removing the cap on bankers�* bonuses. it will cost tens of billions of pounds. the government says it will boost economic growth, the labour party says it will reward the rich. stephanie, let's start off with you. this is being called a "gamble for growth". is it a gamble that's going to pay off, do you think? well, it's certainly a gamble. i have real doubts about whether it will pay off. kwasi kwarteng has said that he wants to boost growth by 2.5% and certainly what he's outlined will temper the economic slowdown that we are experiencing right now. but that's delivering a bit of a sugar rush and i'm not sure that will be sustained

over the long—term. some people have compared this to hitting the accelerator and slamming on the brakes at the same time because what you have is on the one hand, the bank of england trying to control inflation, cool demand by hiking interest rates, while the treasury's pumping money into the economy with this huge... yeah, they seem contradictory. they're working at cross purposes. and so, i think that could portend a bit of a stand—off as the time goes on and these two work at cross purposes. i mean, we already saw the proposals failing, if you look at the markets. the pound crashed. it's now at $1.08 — that's a 37—year low. and bond yields have risen, which is incredibly worrying because he's planning on this 45 billion tax cut, unfunded, through borrowing.

and so, it's going to cost the government more if the market is charging them more to borrow. and i think he said today the markets will do what they do, but i think the lesson of history is you ignore markets at your peril, if you're trying — if you're so reliant, if the uk is so reliant on international investors to fund this plan, i think that he's going to encounter real problems and i think it looks to me that we're going to end up with higher interest rates for longer as a result of this plan and, of course, there's been much talk that it's skewed towards the rich and that it's not really going to therefore deliver the type of economic growth he wants. if you give a huge tax break to someone on £200,000, they're going to go out — or bankers — they're going to go out and, you know, buy an expensive italian light fixture and import it

from italy, rather than spend it in the local economy. 0k. polly, what's your view? because what kwasi kwarteng is really saying is that growth in this country has been anaemic for years. he says these tax cuts are central to solving the riddle of growth and he wants to turn the vicious cycle of stagnation into a virtuous cycle of growth. do you think he might succeed with this? it's the dream of every government. it's the aim of every government, right, left or centre — everybody wants growth — so that's completely uncontroversial. what's controversial is whether you can get it by effectively destroying the economy. the pound plummeting, ftse index plummeting. it doesn't feel like the path to growth. but those might be temporary reactions — i mean, the markets, the pound and so on. yes, the market — the markets are quite scary if they turn against you. you do have to listen to them. i mean, labour has known that because labour has been there in the past for doing much less radical things than this. and he was warned, you know —

they said markets won't like it and he says, "markets will do what markets do". well, you know, markets trample all over you if you're going to borrow huge sums of money and you're not — you know, it might be sensible to borrow huge sums of money if it was for serious investment. if it was to have a real green energy policy to make sure that we can be self—sufficient in energy, something of that sort that has real yields for the future, instead of which, as stephanie said, it's money into the pockets of the very rich who will use it on extra holidays and buying things from abroad. if you give it to people in the middle or lower down, each pound rolls through the economy over and over and over again, through the local economy, and takes much longer before it gets sent abroad. we have a terrible balance of payments as it is. giving lots of money to the rich will only make that worse. 0k. latika bourke of the sydney morning herald, not exactly ringing endorsements

from these two. what's your take on this? there's a crazy brave element to this. - you have to give liz truss credit for coming into - government and doing something that very few prime ministers - find the guts and the daring to do, which is— lay it all on the table and go for broke. - now, i'm the sort of poker. player that lays all my cards on the table in the first - round and then sits the rest of the game out, watching - everybody else continue to play because i've lost the first hand. i i really hope for britain l that this doesn't turn out the same way but it does have a sense to this that| there's a couple of teenagersl have turned up to the parents' house, found it abandoned, long looted, and flicked - on the lights and gone, "yeah, it's party time. i the party we always wanted to have." i so, i do think this. is the ultimate test of whether these - economics really work. we are about to find out. just poor british people - will be caught in the middle of this experiment. stephanie, one of the things that's interesting about this is it is so radical and it feels like a new government has

just come in after a general election with a brand—new policy, but actually, liz truss has been in government for many years. i know. it's such a radical change from the days of david cameron and george osborne. i mean, to go from austerity, we must balance the budget, to borisjohnson, where he was favouring spending, now we've got her going for broke in terms of spending — and huge amounts on helping to cap energy bills, and i think that makes sense. the question is how they fund it. and the fact that she wants to go to go for this trickle—down approach, she's going to cut taxes but she's not going to cut spending and she's not going to tax any energy companies for their windfall profits, so i think it's this disconnect. it's very ideological but she's actually pursuing trickle—down economics with a bit of keynesianism mixed in.

it's very — it's a real experiment and i don't know how it's going to turn out. polly, we heard some of this during the conservative leadership campaign, but not all of it. so, people have been surprised by this. she always said she wanted to cut taxes — she talked about that a lot — but a lot of people thought that's just to soften up the conservative party so she gets elected and when she gets there, she'll pivot. surely, she will. surely, she won't do anything so socially unjust. because already, opinion polls — snap polls today showing a very large number of people, including a very large number of conservative voters, think it's unfair, don't think it will produce growth. although kwasi kwarteng says tax cuts for everybody, so he says it is fair. well, yes, if you — those at the bottom get a tiny bit and those at the top get walloping great tens of thousands. yeah, i think it's150 for someone on £20,000 and 5000 something on — for someone on 200,000. yeah, 150 — a year. and the danger for-

the government, though, is that the real test - at the end of this come election time in two and a bit years is actually not - going to be how much tax - they have to pay every month. it's going to be, - did my wages grow? and if you see bankers' i wages growing, if you see millionaires' wages growing in a real sense and yours i didn't, that's where this is really problematic- for the government. - the other thing i would add is there's a really good litmusj test for this in what happened in australia in 2007, where a very old right _ government, they had four terms and the centre—right government that had made a huge mantra - for itself in selling fiscal. responsibility to the public ended up going on an absolute spending spree _ a couple — of years before the election. they're very unpopular by this point. - and the labor opposition leader who then became the prime minister won that election l by saying this reckless spending must stop, l and i think— there's a real moment for keir starmer here - to come in here and say, "actually, i'm going to be the responsible guy- "in the room." it's very likely that labour will win the next election

because on the whole, if you look at all the history, no government that has been in control, whether you say it's their fault or not, through such an economic crisis as this has ever been re—elected. but it leaves labour with quite a quandary because what they inherit, we don't know yet. how bad it will be, how far the pound will plunge and all the rest of it. but it leaves the traditional labour position of generosity very, very difficult. as you say, they may find themselves in a reversed role. but also, are they going to deliver the tax cuts? | are they going to reverse them? i think that's clearly - the political positioning where the tories i are setting up here. are you, keir starmer,j going to go to the next election saying you're actually going to increase taxes - on everyone, not just - the big energy companies? that's a very - different scenario. but people... well, they'd certainly put the taxes back on the rich. i mean, it's quite extraordinary. it's symbolic. 45% rate that the top, you know, that the people who earn most, are going to have 5% tax cuts. i think labour will have no trouble saying,

"we'll certainly put that top rate back". but people say that liz truss is trying to model herself on margaret thatcher. is that electorally going to be a way for her to win the next election, potentially? well, the remarkable thing is how much they are willing to take the hit politically for things that don't deliver that much in terms of economic gain. i mean, that, ifind shocking. so, the banker bonuses, lifting the cap on banker bonuses, for instance — politically unpopular. in reality, it doesn't really change things much. it's not a game changer. it's not going to result in a huge reversal of the exodus of bankers from london to the continent as a result of brexit. it might make the uk more competitive, london more competitive versus new york. it's probably a good thing, but it's not going to really deliver much in terms of economic growth. likewise, the move for him

to require people on benefits to try to show that they're looking for more work and adding more hours, it's a hugely unpopular move. but liz truss has said... but it's a tiny number of people! liz truss has said she's prepared to be unpopular. and so, in that sense, i think she's trying to be like maggie thatcher, that she's going to go for these unpopular policies that are highly ideological, betting that, actually, people will side with her in the end. but you're right about the irrelevance of the things she's picked on, because thatcher picked her battles. they were things she really cared about. i mean, she massively privatised all of the utilities. these were great big things. as you said, bankers' bonuses or, you know, tormenting a few of the people who are part—time workers, these are absolute small beer. it's not big stuff. so, her battles are very peculiar. high unpopularity for very little gain. what's your take on that? will this make her unpopular or popular? well, i wasjust going to add

that if you're trying - to cosplay margaret thatcher, it's one thing to fund - all these tax cuts and set yourself _ up as singapore — upon thames from a position of surplus, it's quite another l to do it when your debt to gdp ratio is already nearly 100%. 0k, we're going to leave tax cuts and the british economy and we're going to turn our attention now to the war in ukraine, because the us presidentjoe biden said this week that russia's invasion had breached the core tenets of the united nations charter. president putin, though, seems to be doubling down on the war — he's mobilising another 300,000 reservists — with the result that many men eligible for the call—up are fleeing from russia. meanwhile, the kremlin are organising self—styled "referendums" in four regions of ukraine, seeking to annexe them all as russian territory. and if the west doesn't like it, well, we've had another dire warning from mr putin this week —

threatening to retaliate with nuclear weapons if necessary. and he said this is not a bluff. latika, is it a bluff? do you worry that this war in ukraine could escalate? yes, absolutely. i mean, it's startling to see someone have to tell everybody that they're notjoking. - you only normally say that if you think everyone - is taking you for a joke. but i think we should takel what he says very seriously because he's acting - in a very different scenario to the rest of us. he's clearly panickingl and i think he realises that this war is not - going the way he wanted, he's not having the effect he wanted on the west. i going the way he wanted. and indeed, in the last few weeks, we've seen some i of russia's allies start - to put pressure on russia. china, in particular, - china had their first foreign ministers meeting on the sidelines at unga today, j i think that's - really significant. and also india's starting

to complain to russia i about the war. so, yes, i think we should take very seriously what putin says, j primarily because he's feeling the pressure. i but take it seriously and should we then stop supplying weapons to ukraine, for example? no, i mean, obviously the goal is for ukraine to win this war. i and they've staged remarkable victories — in the last few weeks. so the momentum is with ukraine. i i think every expert _ would agree this ends in a very protracted stalemate rather than a quick victory- on ukraine's side. but no, i think the resolve from the west _ should only be stronger. it's interesting, polly, seeing the reaction in russia. pictures we've seen of russian men trying to flee from the country. huge queues at the border. people clamouring to get onto planes. the price of plane tickets out of russia going sky high. it seems as if putin still has backing from the majority, but it also seems from polling as if it's slipping quite fast.

people are more and more afraid and horrified. they don't want to send their sons. i think there is a debate going on quietly about giving your enemy a retreat. what do we do to let him retreat in any way that's remotely plausible? what could we do? giving him an off ramp. i don't know if there is one, but it certainly something to hold in the back of one's mind that it's better to let the enemy run away if you can. a long stalemate eventually, something, somewhere has to give. maybe we just sit there hoping that somebody deposes him, but i think that seems... but if he says he would end the war if he could keep the territory he has now, ukraine would never agree. and it would be for us to say it's up to them to decide.

it doesn't look near that now. but i don't know if there are other terms and intermediaries who might come in. china and india are now backing off of it, whether there is some way of softening... we don't look anywhere near that at this point. stephanie, i said in a way, putin is doubling down. we've got these referendums which, they are sham referendums — that's what everybody in the west is saying. a bit like crimea in 2014. is this a way of putin saying this is definitely part of russia and if you try and stop us, that's when we could up the ante and potentially use weapons of mass destruction? it seems like a blatant strategic attempt to extend russia's nuclear umbrella to those eastern territories so that he raises the stakes for the us and the uk. because he says they are part of russia. so don't continue to

supply ukrainians with... there's been an incredible influx of high—precision weaponry that has changed the game on the ground. and i think he's betting that will make them think twice before continuing to send equipment. but i think you'll probably also see in response a doubling down on the sanctions, and of course, they're pushing ahead with this idea of a price cap on russian oil to try to undermine putin's ability to fund his war machine. we will see how that works out. there's a real division as to whether or not that will result in higher or lower oil prices and whether india and china will play along. so that remains to be seen, but they can go further on sanctions. but you look at the additional troops being mobilised — the real question in my mind is, how will that change the situation on the ground?

it seems unlikely to change it in any substantial way. it probably will lengthen the war. we don't know how many of these troops he will successfully recruit, and there's now talk of potentially martial law being called in russia as a way of forcing it through. how much danger do you think that puts putin in himself, personally? we talk about possibly someone deposing him. but in a sense, he's a creature of the elite. yes, i think we've always been hoping that something - might happen in the kremlin. maybe with the nuclear threat that would be the moment. someone in the kremlin. would prevail in that point. until then, i think that the real test i is what the ordinary russian people do. | we've seen this - extraordinary flight. we've seen some very. brave russians protesting and being arrested and drafted. which must be horrific. -

we also see these calls from ukraine _ to ban russian tourism. a lot of russians are trying to escape the country- at the moment. finland is putting a hard - border up now against russians. what do we do? i think we do need to - have a serious conversation because alienating ordinary russians who might turn i against putin, i think that's a very critical arsenal- in our own, in the west... are you saying the country should allow in russian men who want to get out? no, ijust think we need to have a conversation i and be more nuanced than an outright ban. | there's a lot of people who i think _ are not necessarily pro—putin. they're clearly trying - to escape him and the fact that he's trying - to impose on ukraine. we've seen protests in russia, but they are not mass uprisings or anything that security forces can't put down. no, but incredibly brave people and gradually more and more of them. the stories that they will be

swept away and drafted into the army are horrendous. but there is a way in which protest will out, particularly if you start drafting people into an unpopular war, that really is a turning point. like the vietnam war... but there was a free media in the us, images of people coming back... but there was free media in the us. it's different in russia. an army of russian mothers is pretty powerful. bodies coming back, refusing to let their sons go. i think there is potential there. it does require the sort of bravery that we don't have to have in the west, to protest and demonstrate. and i think in the end, though, parents protecting their children is a powerful force. stephanie, do you think this is a gamble by putin? people said when he first launched the invasion that this

was a potentially catastrophic gamble by him in the long term, that it would ultimately backfire on him. is that how you see it? it could backfire on him. i think it's going to take some time, and i disagree with those people who think there will be some sort of palace coup. if he is overthrown, it's more likely to be by one of the hard—liners in his circle. yes, some people think he's not going far enough. not hitting ukraine hard enough. exactly, so i think we'll be in the same place even if he's gone. i'm not seeing a democratic revolution on the horizon in russia. but i think, as well, we do in the west need to understand what latika was saying, that it's incredibly scary in russia right now. if you're opposing the government. compared to what it was like under the soviet union, this is ten times worse.

people are going to jail for very, very minor things. it takes incredible courage to come out against the regime. i don't think that the west is doing enough to support those people who are opposing putin and need some sort of option and support. in the soviet period, we had a defector programme and we have nothing anywhere near that, and i think the strategy has been keep them in russia so that they overthrow putin's regime and i don't think that's realistic necessarily. we said in a sense putin is doubling down by mobilising hundreds of thousands of people, of troops, reservists. should the west now double down? shall be be pouring more weaponry into ukraine? i think that's already happening, - and a lot of it's kept quieter. ukraine keeps saying they need more. i think they would like to win| this war and they probably do need more than what we've been willing to give at this point -

in time, but they made - huge advances on the basis of german weaponry. the biden administration has poured another billion in, - so i do think that - support keeps going. i know my country, - australia, is considering requests for more help _ i think we proudly say we're the largest non—nato - contributor. _ of course there should be. i don't see slackening of resolve. certainly not in britain. some countries in europe maybe a bit, but not really. i think there is a sense this is a common enemy to us all. an enemy to nato, to the west. it's notjust a question of poor little ukraine, it's all of us together. and liz truss, of course, boris johnson went several times to kyiv himself. he said he was a friend of president zelensky. do you sense the same determination

and level of support from the new prime minister? iimagine so. i think it's one of the few things that unite the country, and she's been advised to stick with it. she certainly said she's going to raise defence spending hugely. and this has not been factored in. this incredible borrowing, she's going to raise it to 3% of gdp. 1% more than she needs to for nato. if she's going to borrow and bust, she's going to on behalf of ukraine. good to talk to all of you. polly, stephanie and latika, thank you for being with us. that is it from us. thank you for watching. dateline will be back next week same time, same place. goodbye.

hello. we will get our first proper taste of autumn this week, with temperatures below average for the time of year, north—westerly winds to begin with, a changeable week in terms of sunshine, during the first half of the week, and then the potential for something quite nasty later on. to start the week we have warm weather fronts clearing away from southern coastal counties, bringing early rain, and that opens the door to a north—westerly airflow bringing arctic air our way, but don't forget it is september, there is still warmth in the atmosphere and it won't feel desperately chilly, and temperatures higher than they were on sunday. but we do start with rain across southern counties of england, the channel islands, just one or two showers later here. ever—changing skies elsewhere, sunshine and showers, most frequent across scotland and out of the western coast,

one or two spots may avoid showers altogether, but quite breezy compared to of late. strongest winds in the west, gusting up to 50mph. and of course it all adds up for a cool afternoon, and out of the sunshine you will notice temperatures of 10—16, lower than of late, and distinctly chilly in the north of scotland, 8 degrees cooler than on sunday. through monday night into tuesday, we continue with the strong wind, showers frequent across northern parts of scotland and a bit cooler particularly in the south and east, but enough of a breeze to stop a frost forming to take this into tuesday. the chart for tuesday, low—pressure to the north—east of us, trying to move down, sliding towards the south—west, a bit closer with a chance of some cloudy conditions, outbreaks of rain close to cornwall and devon but otherwise it is sunshine and showers, a different position of showers due to a shift in wind direction, so some eastern areas will stay dry for longer.

and in temperatures, 11—15, it will feel cool. the winds starting to ease down a little bit, heavier, longer spells of rain, eastern scotland pushing down, and overall southern and western areas looking a little bit drier and brighter and it won't feel quite as cold given the winds are light. a cold start to thursday, but the quietest day of the week with more places dry, but the potential for some very wet and windy weather on friday.

welcome to bbc news, i'm david eades. our top stories. a moment of history for italy — giorgia meloni's election election victory. we will unite the people. the pound sterling plummets to its lowest ever level against the us dollar after the ggt; “":- .::§%;—’%%; ’ historic cuts chancellor's historic tax cuts funded by huge