this is bbc news. i'm david eades. the headlines: brazil's presidential election will be settled in a second—round run—off vote on october 30. neither the left—wing challenger, luiz inacio lula da silva, nor the right—wing incumbent, jair bolsonaro, were able to gain the 51% of the vote required secure a first—round victory. indonesian authorities are investigating the death of 125 football fans killed in a stadium. thousands of fans panicked and rushed for an exit after police fired tear gas at them when they invaded the pitch. memorials have been held across indonesia for the deceased. volodymyr zelensky says

ukrainian troops have made advances against russian occupying forces on the frontline in eastern ukraine near the southern city of kherson. they the near the southern city of kherson. t of the near the southern city of kherson. t of four the near the southern city of kherson. t of four regions. 5 now on bbc news, time for 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 its consequences 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 kind of fill us in and really describe what this week has felt like? it really has been quite a dizzying week, when you watched the way the pound drop because of last friday's mini budget that prime minister liz truss�*s new government put out. that caught people unaware, including the markets, which then rendered their verdict, saying these unfunded tax cuts that were 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 dollar just 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 markets unleashed and trust in the rigors and the 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? —— stimulate 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 them looking for parking — you can hear them looking for parking places in downing street _ the british economy was already... there were enormous question 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," they are just scratching their heads, they cannot believe it. thomas, do you want to put this in some historical context? you were here 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 in partially in a wave in reaction to the tory government of 1992. is there a way back? if there is, how painful do you think it will be? before i go into that, - add to 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 hasjust happened before, and suddenly- we are back in the dregs of national malaise. - it is quite a shock. as you've said, 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? there's no way back. the devaluation in 1967| when he was chancellor 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 lay, and that was i when reagan came, with absolutely- unending glory for him. ifear, therefore, for- the current people in power. they can count their days

to theirfinal- ousting from power. ironically, they think of themselves as the inheritors of thatcher and reagan. on the reagan point, they have a point, in the sense that some of the measures are arguably closer to reagan than they are to thatcher, in terms of the innovations, 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 foremost 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 worked for the us. it's just not possible. 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 that the fed is a national bank, it is responsible for the us. now, 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. it takes us back to the port of confidence.— 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 somebody 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? well, it is more than a perception. the bank had to intervene to correct the damage that 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 office of budget responsibility and... nobody believes in this plan. but the fact that they had not published and still have not published any assessment from budget responsibility 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? lam i am puzzled by it. one little thing, - the postponement report from the obr into the end of september... i the end of november. how much more bad news do we want? _ 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 23 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, i 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 peoplel who are in the know? it does not make sense. i mean, it makes no sense. if this is about confidence... everything they're doing is undermining confidence. before we keep heap all the opprobrium on government, on kwasi kwarteng, the finance minister, 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 they've 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 questions of independence. but also there's been a quantitive easing that 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, some possible suggestions of review of its mandate. of 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 actually criticise versus how much he needed to make sure that he was playing down the line. so, 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? chuckles. wel, 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. in fact, 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. so, they closed their doors,

people went down with hammers at lunchtime and beat the doors, and nobody had money. so what you were saying at the beginning about the confidence in the money, you had a coin and could buy some stuff, 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 in 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 then, being 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 exaggerated 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," you know, "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, i we should not be watching it with relaxation. every modern democracy has a problem with confidence i 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. eventually, we are left with a political system| 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. i cannot see an end - of the confidence crisis, 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. and the threats to democracy also... but it will eventually pose. but politically, i think this government is finished. i cannot see that it recovers from this. let's look at another situation, a few not that so very far from us, really — a couple of thousand miles away in ukraine. the loss of part of ukraine to russia announced 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 - between now and 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 rightfully saying "the world will not tolerate i 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 kind of 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, or atomic devices? he would be silly to do so, l because he cannot calibrate the response, which would be ruinous for him. - so, i think all we have to do is continue to encircle him l 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. but as we see even in 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. i mean, all those positions are hardening, and so finding out where you could 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 and ways of treating the people who are there, who are trying to undermine that. it is entering into a perilous phase. we talk about the world not accepting this but actually, part of the world do

accept this. i mean, if you look at what happened in kazakhstan last — what — ten days ago, when putin and xi jinping and leaders of iran — you know, 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. built different from what we used to call the �*non—aligned 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. right. 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 more proactive core to it from countries that are entrenched enemies of the united states, like iran, finding common cause and actually giving practical assistance.

turkey is supplying drones — that is a very ambivalent one. not least because it is a nato member! yeah. but if you look at the russia—china joint statement of february the fifth, 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, and it is putin's justification again. even today, he was framing it in terms of western aggression. there is an echo there. but no, 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 addressed that directly. _

and indeed,, britain had to accept _ and indeed,, britain had to accept some chinese reticence. —— and indeed, putin britain to accept some chinese reticence. although there might be that entrenched worldview in terms of an implacable hostility towards what they think is the hegemony of the west, there are these annexations, which bring up all kinds of questions, including for china. well, 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 harry says that you dig yourself _ harry says that you dig yourself inside - harry says that you dig yourself inside you - harry says that you dig i yourself inside you may harry says that you dig -

yourself inside you may assume there _ yourself inside you may assume there isnt— yourself inside you may assume there isn't a _ yourself inside you may assume there isn't a good distance - yourself inside you may assume there isn't a good distance of. there isn't a good distance of guilt— there isn't a good distance of guilt or— there isn't a good distance of guilt or fault _ there isn't a good distance of guilt or fault here. _ you might assume there is a equidistance of guiltj 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 tried to compare forces of russia and america, j and so forth, — and we had a peace movement in germany which swore by that notion. - but you cannot equidistance 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 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. no, no. but simply that they are

irreconcilable as we see them, in terms of any political or diplomatic settlements. and if we don't want war just to keep spinning on and becoming even more deadly with weapons that 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 split . the conflict, which he seems absolutely hell—bent on doing, it cannot be our primary task. i we have to contain him, - we have to make him think that further escalation is not in his own interest. - "you're on the wrong road, l 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 russian minority. what about the russians that

don't live in russia? particularly those in some of the countries that now feel threatened what's going on in ukraine. 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. the weather's fairly quiet out there right now. higher pressure is building across england and wales, and with clear spells and the light winds, it is going to be quite chilly first thing in the morning on monday. these are the city temperatures but in rural spots, it may only be a couple of degrees above freezing. milder here in the western isles with more of a breeze coming off the atlantic, which will also push in a weather front during the course of monday. so, we are expecting some rain here in the north—west, whereas england and wales stays dry and really quite warm — temperatures up to 19 in london and cardiff, up to around 17 in liverpool and the lowlands of scotland will be 15. here's a look at tuesday's weather. the weather front

moves across the uk. not an awful lot on it. the best of the weather will be in the south—east. here, these south—south—westerly winds will will draw in some warmth, and temperatures could reach 20 degrees in london and norwich, a bit cooler in the north—west.

this is bbc news. welcome if you're watching here in the uk or around the globe. i'm david eades. our top stories: no outright winner in the brazilian election: left—wing candidate luiz inacio lula da silva and right—wing president jair bolsonaro will go to a second—round run—off. indonesia investigates the death of 125 football fans killed in a stampede after police used tear gas in the stadium. on the front line in eastern ukraine as its soldiers battle for every inch of territory. we have to be careful here. we have been told there is a russian sniper operating from that direction. for the troops

here, this is