this is bbc news, the headlines.... at least 129 people have been killed and 180 injured after a stampede at a football stadium in indonesia. it happened after police fired tear gas during a pitch invasion at the top—flight match in malang, eastjava. ukrainian forces have retaken a key town just one day after president putin declared it was now part of russia. lyman was a strategic target, used by russia as a logistics hub. russia's ministry of defence confirms its forces have withdrawn. a huge clean—up operation is under way in florida after hurricane ian. dozens of people are feared to have died, while many thousands of properties have been destroyed. causeways linking many islands to the mainland have been damaged, cutting

off entire communities. those are the latest headlines. now on bbc news, dateline london. hello and welcome to our digest of the global week seen through the eyes of leading journalists from the uk and the foreign correspondents based here who podcast, broadcast, blog and, yes, even these days write for audiences back home from the dateline, london. confidence — it's the magic ingredient which makes us all believe that notes or coins — in themselves worth

next to nothing — do have value and will be accepted as payment. governments need the confidence of the money markets who do the lending if they want to borrow money at affordable rates. over the last week, liz truss and herfinance minister have struggled to create confidence in their economic strategy and to sustain it in the british currency. to discuss the uk's dash for growth and the border war between russia and ukraine — isabel hilton, a distinguished foreign correspondent who founded china dialogue, an independent body which explores the environmental challenges for that country and how that affects the rest of us. thomas kielinger was a student and later a lecturer in wales in the 1960s, returning to the uk in the late 1990s for a german newspaper. more recently, he's been a royal biographer. henry chu is london correspondent of the la times, on the west coast of the united states, he's also part of the newspaper's editorial team. welcome to all of you, great to have you in studio. isabel is back from nairobi, so welcome back to the country.

henry, let me start with you. for those who have not been in the country, like isabel, do you want to fill us in and describe what this week has felt like? this really has been a dizzying week, when you watched the way the pound drop because of last friday's mini budget that liz truss�*s new government put out. that caught people unaware, including the markets, which then rendered their verdict, saying these unfunded tax cuts included were really quite worrisome, and then you saw investors flying away from the pound in droves. so we had the pound touching down to its lowest ever point against the dollarjust a few days ago. it has recovered a little bit, but that also has been because of this extraordinary intervention by the bank of england. for a little bit of context, we look at the fact that this government has only been in power for less than a month, and yet this crisis has hit.

and then i also look back to when i first arrived here in britain in 2008 — the pound was nearly $2, two to one, and it was obviously extremely painful for those of us being paid in dollars to pay our rent and buy groceries. to think of it in that period of time, dropping down to near parity is really quite astonishing, and so there has been that feeling of watching the bottom falling out from beneath us. just a couple of quick things that really struck me about this. one is that this country has clutched to the pound as being so much part of its identity, to the extent that when we were part of the eu, britain was exempt from using the euro because it claimed the superiority of the pound. watching that fall through is obviously going to have a psychological effect. and then the second thing that has been remarkable to me about this week is that we now have a government, the prime minister and her chancellor, who have almost a religious faith in the power

of the free market. they want to see the free market unleashed and trust in the rigors and wisdom of the market. well, the markets have now said what they think of their plan, and yet they say, "we are ignoring the markets, and we are going to operate almost despite the markets." that seems like a very strange paradox to me, politically. isabel, having been outside and come back in, at the end of the week, how damaging has this been, both for confidence in the british economy and in the prime minister's ability and ambition to solidify growth? i think it has been catastrophic. you've got tory mps competing for new and different ways to shake their heads in despair. you can hear the tumbrils looking for parking

in downing st! the british economy was already... there were enormous questions marks over the british economy, and there have been since 2016, for reasons we all know, but also longer—term. we do badly on a number of important factors, like productivity, and investment, for example. so, it was not looking terribly... excuse me. but the credibility issue, if you get rebuked, when you are a g7 country and you get rebuked by the imf, you really have messed up, and these rebukes have not been disguised at all. as you say, i have been in nairobi all week. people were shaking their heads and saying, "what has happened to britain? we used to admire britain, we used to think it was a country of sensible politics and sensible economics," and they are just scratching their heads, they cannot believe it. thomas, do you want to put this in some historical context? you came in the 1960s... i think you had already left by the time the labour government devalued the pound. i was still here for that. you were in the us when

the financial crisis was so bad, hyperinflation, the effects of the oil shock thatjimmy ca rter�*s government struggled, ultimately unsuccessfully, with. you came back in the 1990s, when the blair government came back in partially in a wave in reaction to the crisis in the pound under the tory government of 1992. is there a way back? if there is, how painful do you think it will be? out of the picture - we have heard from our two colleagues... what i've heard from i the trickle—down doom, when you juxtapose it to the celebration of. the queen's era, which has just happened before, - and suddenly we are back in. the dregs of national malaise. it is quite a shock. i've experienced this shock several times before. - there is a pattern to. this, when it happens to the party in power. sure enough, that signals| their doom down the line.

so there is no way back for the conservatives? no way back. callaghan's devaluation in 1967 led to a series of crisises. - nine years later, he had to go to the imf for a loan, - which was the most humiliating experience at the time, - and sure enough, the pact with unions did not hold, i it collapsed, and two years i later, margaret thatcher won. same with jimmy carter. famous american malaise speech ofjuly '79, when he seemed - to blame the economic- difficulties on the american lack of spirit and community values and so forth. - the country came back - and showed him where the fork laid, and that was when reagan came, with absolutely - unending glory for him. i fear therefore for- the current people in power. they can count their days to i their final descent from power. ironically, they think of themselves as the inheritors

of thatcher and reagan. 0n the reagan point, they have a point, in the sense that some of the measures are arguably closer to reagan than they are of thatcher, but happening in a different kind of environment? translating the policies when other aspects of the economy are very different. and to pretend that you are the same as the nation which i come from, which has 360 million people and is the world's strongest economy and has a currency that is the world's reserve currency, you cannot actually be the same. the us is unique in that regard, so the uk can obviously take what reforms look like they could possibly work for this country, but it is not going to be the same recipe that works for the us. there are those who say some of this is america's fault, the strength of the dollar and the actions, the really aggressive interest rate rises introduced by the fed. that is true.

obviously, the fed has been more aggressive than the bank of england and more aggressive than the european central bank. there are actually some who say the fed was not aggressive enough to tame inflation in the us. let's not forget the fed is a national bank, it is responsible for the us. the value of any currency is not determined by the fed, by the central bank, it is in the eyes of the beholders of those who do business in the various currencies around the world. the us dollar still remains the world reserve and the most trusted currency. it goes up and down. the pound was in the basket, along with the euro and also the yen, but those have all actually declined against the dollar, and that is because of what investors around the world think, not just what the federal reserve thinks. let's talk about something from a different north american country, from canada. we had this intervention for mark carney, who was the governor of

the bank of england. he was quoted on thursday, having a partial budget in the circumstances of the tough global economy, tough financial market position, working at cross—purposes with the bank, has led to dramatic moves in finance markets. is there a perception that the bank and the government are doing two contradictory things? it is more than a perception. the bank had to intervene to correct the damage the government had caused, by buying back bonds and by raising interest rates. it is moving in the opposite direction, but if it had not, who knows where we would have ended up if there had not been an intervention? this goes back... what the bank did was to try to restore confidence in both the economy and the currency. and this was necessary because the government itself had removed all the guardrails. the 0br and... nobody believes in this plan.

but the fact that they had not published and still have not published any assessment from 0br means that what we are seeing is magical thinking. we are not seeing an objective assessment. they sacked the permanent secretary at the treasury on day one, the chief official of the treasury, so it looks like they are simply driven by some internal light, which has not yet had anything to do with reality, so why should the markets have confidence in them? one little thing, - the postponement report from the 0br of— into the end of september... the end of november. there is an old saying which, if you're in a hole, _ you should stop digging. they continue to dig themselves furtherl and further away from reality.

you think november is not going to hold? it could not. the pressures of the market and all other interested - parties will force them . to revise the date again. and altogether, the government seems to be at the mercy- of forces that they cannot control, _ but they are producing - them to their own detriment. you have the budget coming . again at the end of november, and we should all have to wait for the forecast of the people who are in the know? - it does not make sense. i i mean, it makes no sense. everything they're doing is undermining confidence. before we kind of heap all the opprobrium on government, kwasi kwarteng, the chancellor, and prime minister liz truss, what about the position of the bank of england and andrew bailey? i wonder about the degree of confidence in him and the bank's stewardship, for a number of reasons, number one, because it had

to effectively bail out the government, and he is independent, but he has not been publicly critical of the government's approach, so that must raise question of independence. but quantitive easing has been going on... isn't there a political element? the bank of england does its own internal polling to see what the confidence of the british public is in its handling of monetary policy, and the latest one is the second one in a row that shows that a net number of people in britain actually are not confident, do not like the way that the bank of england has been handling the inflationary battle, so absolutely there is a trust issue now in andrew bailey's handling of the bank of england, of the central bank. it is still independent of the government, and should remain so, despite what liz truss has been hinting at various points. she did during her leadership election, possible suggestions of a review of its mandate.

exactly how it would work. even mark carney, when he was the governor of the bank of england, also trod a fine line, in terms of how much he felt he could criticise versus how much he needed to make sure that he was playing down the line. i think andrew bailey is in a tough position. but we do see public confidence in him is actually quite low. how does this all end? if i knew that, i would probably be chancellor of the exchequer, but i would not want the job right now. i have seen economic catastrophe in other countries. the most dramatic one was in 2001, when argentina had what was at the time the biggest sovereign default in history, and money vanished. the banksjust shut up. they closed their doors, people went down with hammers

at lunchtime and beat the doors, and nobody had money. at the beginning you were saying about the confidence in the money, all that disappeared overnight. people could not buy things, and it was quite extraordinary, because they were very inventive in how they responded to it, and the country essentially went over to barter. they created a currency within the barter system to create the exchange, and it being argentina, you could barter cooking oil for psychotherapy. you just had to regulate the medium of exchange. and because it was argentina, it was so successful and so big, some political parties got alarmed and apparently started printing fake barter currency and flooded the barter system, created inflation and the whole thing fell to bits. it was like an accelerated mini cycle within a crisis, but it was extraordinary. i do not think we are quite

there yet, but people were out on the streets, shouting, "let all of them go, get rid of all of them," meaning the politicians, and i sort of sense we are not that far off in this country. talking about confidence, we should not be watching it with relaxation. - every modern democracy has a problem _ with confidence of the people. germans have no confidence in the ability of their- government to run the show, and the level of acceptance . of what happens in politics drops further and further. i eventually, we are left with a political systemj which does not produce the kind of leader that the citizens - are entitled to expect, and when you ask, - "what is the end of it all?", that is my worst problem. l i cannot see an end - of the confidence crisis, of a time where the uncertain world around us nowadays, . everywhere, would generate i a new hands—on political class that might be up to the job.

i don't see that yet, and so we are going into difficult times. i and the threats to democracy also... but politically, i think this government is finished. i cannot see that it recovers from this. let's look at another situation, not that so very far from us, really, a couple of thousand miles away in ukraine. the loss of part of ukraine to russia, following those referendums during the week. thomas, referendums have a rather inglorious history in eastern europe. reflect, if you would, on the implications of all of this? i am thinking of what the soviet union did, i am thinking of what hitler did. the circumstances are different, but the uses and abuses of what is supposed to be a democratic tool... the circumstances l are totally different. an economic discussion - like we had with thatcher... you call it _ "the loss of ukraine". i think it is _ the rape of the country.

it is an unconscionable event, which i'm sure the american president is rightly saying, i "the world will not tolerate it." - it is one thing to say. we will not tolerate it, but how do we bring it - to an end, is another question? how does it all end? as long as you have someone like putin, who is absolutely. resolved not to follow any traditional dipolmatic - and civilised means of coming to terms with his neighbours, | it can only go - from bad to worse. now, what does worse mean? is he going to be serious about using atomic - weapons, atomic devices? he would be silly to do so, l because he cannot calibrate ene roesnnse — which would be ruinous for him. i think all we have to do. is continue to encircle him with our resistance to accept it. - he must find a united world - against him that simply refuses to deal with a man like him. containment was the old word.

you have to contain - the putin phenomenon. with the financial discussion, this governement here digging in its heels when all seems to be falling around it, now unfortunately we have all sides entrenching themselves further in their positions, whether it is russians or ukraine or the west. all those positions are hardening, and so finding out where you can actually go from that for everyone to have an off ramp, as they always say, off the freeway is very difficult. and with this annexation, we are even into new territory, where russia is saying, "this is our sovereign soil that we are going to be protecting." that brings up new dangers, in terms of weapons that could be used, ways of treating the people who are there, who are trying to undermine that. it is a perilous phase. we talk about the world not accepting this, but actually parts of the world do accept this. if you look at what happened in kazakhstan ten days ago,

when putin and xi jinping and leaders of iran... we are seeing a new axis forming of countries that do blame the united states and the west for all their ills. that do find a kind of solidarity in that vision. different from what we used to call the nonaligned movement in the �*60s, when it was seen as post—imperial, many of the countries that freed themselves from colonial european power. it overlaps in some ways, for example, in the un general assembly. if you monitor the votes there, you can see legacy from the non—aligned movement, but there is also a proactive call to it from countries that are entrenched enemies of the united states, like iran, finding common cause and action, giving practical assistance. turkey is supplying drones, that is an ambivalent one. not least because it

is a nato member! if you look at the russia—china joint statement of february, that worldview, which is that all the world's troubles are caused by western aggression, which we continue to hear as a description of what putin has done, end it— is putin'sjustification. again, even today, he was framing it in terms of western aggression— there is an echo there. we do not hear it so much in europe or the united states, but there is a lot of the rest of the world that finds this a certain schadenfreude there. what do you think of that summit in uzbekistan with president xi and putin and also modi from india? there was definitely talk that there seemed to be reservations coming from those quarters about how the war was going on. narendra modi expresssed that directly. _ although there might be that entrenched worldview in terms

of an implacable hostility towards what they think is the hegemony of the us and west, there which bring up all kinds of questions, including for china. there is a difference in interest over this between russia and china to some extent, in that china essentially wants the world order as it is. it wants it to tilt in favour of china, _ but it doesn't want to destroy it. china's prosperity is dependent on the global economy. whereas you feel that the russian strategy of chaos has very few limits and russia has very little to lose by creating chaos. china has quite a lot to lose. thinking of taiwan and other issues. i you might assume there is a equidistance of- guilt or faults here. i cannot get away from . the fact you have to start

with first principles. there is an onslaught of one country onto another which,| under all prejudices you mightj hold, needs to be thrown back and needs to be fought. where do you go from there? you cannot equidistance. .. there used to be a world 30 i or 40 years ago where people compared forces of russiai and america, and so forth, and we had a peace movement in germany— which swore by that notion. but you cannot be - equidistant in this crisis. you have to believe in... apart from a political point - of view, you have a moral point of view, although some people accuse me of being the worst i warmonger in the world, . talking of moral principles. but moral principles are involved. - i was not trying to draw any moral equivalence in terms of the positions being held by each of the parties, but simply that they are

irreconcilable as we see them, in terms of any political or diplomatic settlements. if we don't want war to keep spinning on and becoming even more deadly with weapons we cannot control the fallout of, how do we find any actionable solution? that is what i do not see the end to. it is about an off ramp to putin, because any settlement requires an off ramp unless he is taken out. but if he continues- to escalate the conflict, which he seems hell—bent on doing, it cannot- be our primary task. we have to contain him, i we have to make him think that further escalation is not in his own interest. - we have to prepare a case to let him know, "you're l on the wrong road, you're - going to ruin your own country, you're going to ruin yourself." that will go on before we have any healthy. solution, i'm afraid. just one brief last thought, isabel. i remember talking to the former latvian prime

minister about the country's sizeable russian minority. what about the russians that don't live in russia? i think it is very difficult for them. there were 25 million russians outside the borders of the soviet union when it collapsed. two out of three baltic countries had nearly one—third of the population as russians. that is all right as long as russia does not try to weaponise the diaspora, but russia is trying to weaponise the diaspora. this business of, "first we must protect them and then they could vote to rejoin us," you can see this as very, very difficult. it puts a target on their backs. isabel, henry, thomas, thank you very much. more dateline next week, but for now, goodbye.

hello. sunday, for many, will be a mainly dry day, but not for all. we have a frontal system moving its way eastwards across southern england and wales, and that will continue to bring some rain through sunday morning. the heaviest of that rain will be across south—west england where we could see some rumbles of thunder through the morning, that rain also extending into south—east england then possibly into the south midlands but somewhat lighter and patchier here. and we are likely to see some outbreaks of rain for the london marathon, particularly through the morning, it shouldn't amount to very much and through the afternoon that rain will tend to ease with perhaps some late spells of sunshine. so, you can see that band of rain moving its way southwards. for much of the uk on sunday, fine and dry, good spells of sunshine, still some showers for western scotland, the northern isles, maybe later in the afternoon

for northern ireland. and where we've got the sunshine, temperatures getting into the mid to high teens, but still quite windy for the western isles, and also along the channel coasts. some more rain in the forecast in the week ahead, particularly for scotland, northern ireland, wales, and northern

hello and welcome to bbc news. we'll start with a developing story... police in indonesia say more than 120 football fans have died at a match on the island ofjava. many more were injured in a crush after the game between rival teams, arema and persebaya surabaya. video on social media shows police firing tear gas at supporters running onto the pitch. we can see in the last few minutes the sports minister has

said the authorities will