don't worry. pat cummins last to fall. the catch from ben stokes was a boundary classic — hold, step back, release and complete. england will bat, 12 behind. joe wilson, bbc news at the oval. just take a look at these images, captured off the east coast of america. three humpback whales breached in almost perfect synchronisation,

as london's mayor presses ahead with expanding the low emissions zone, even though the labour leadership appears opposed to that, critics say it's just one more example of where the party could afford to be more radical. we'll hear views for and against the idea that keir starmer should be defining a bolder agenda for the next election. also tonight... we report from tunisia, the country where the arab spring began and was once a beacon of hope. but now galloping inflation and the strains of migration have set protestors once again against a hardline repressive regime. in their minds, democracy rhymes with anarchy. i think what's going on actually is going to lead us to become a failed state. and as the european space agency is about to burn up a retired satellite in the atmosphere, are we starting to clean up the space debris that endangers the orbital communications

we all rely on? good evening. london's low emission zone will expand following a victory today in court for the mayor, sadiq khan. you'd think that facing down a challenge from conservative councils might be cause for celebration in the labour party — certainly there are other cities looking to introduce similar air quality measures. but the leadership seems rather lukewarm about it after last week's uxbridge by—election result. one labour frontbencher today said "keir has been very clear he doesn't want it to go ahead at this stage". there are other issues, too, where the leadership�*s adoption of what's called the ming vase theory — that when you've got a thumping poll lead you really don't want to drop it — causes tension within the party. here'sjoe. how did the tories spin a legal loss as a rallying moment for hard—up car drivers?

within 90 minutes of today's judgment from the high court, tweets started to appear. sadiq khan had won. but that didn't necessarily mean conservatives felt that they had lost. just look at the language here... "keir starmer�*s mayor sadiq khan is choosing to saddle london's families and businesses with a £4,500 a year charge. it's a tax on hardworking londoners." with pollsters saying the cost of living and the economy is the top concern of voters, the conservatives are framing ulez as a cost of living issue. and one for which they — even after 13 years in power at westminster — are not to blame. sadiq khan and keir starmer have diverged on the clean air policy. and they have very different strategies overall. but that's partly because they are in very different situations. one has yet to taste power, the other has been pulling the political levers of london for seven years. the mayor has been bold because he can. and also perhaps because he has one eye on his legacy. he clearly believes the environment is a large part of that — after all, he's written

a book about it. so why the keir criticism of ulez and the keir caution on policies? remember the labour leader's recent u—turns on the two—child benefit cap, ditching a pledge to introduce self—id for trans people, and dropping his promise to scrap tuition fees? when he ran to be leader, keir starmer called the 2017 labour manifesto the party's "foundational document". but the man who wrote it is perplexed by sir keir�*s subsequent shift. broadly, our pledges were based on the key tenets of that manifesto, public ownership, redistributive taxation, workers�* rights and all of that supporting freedom of movement and other things as well, scrapping tuition fees is another. and all of those have been reneged upon and i think the public will see that the tories would use that in an election campaign. can you trust with this

person says from one minute to the next? we need someone who is a transformative prime minister. they have taken different forms over the years, arkley was transformative and thatcher, who i deeply opposed, was also transformative but we are in these times of crisis now where you need that sort of leader and my worry is keir starmer really is not that. in contrast with that, one ally of the labour leader told me today... "labour�*s victory relies on the next election being fought on the cost of living — that�*s why keir starmer is obsessed with neutralising other issues." this person argues the core message needs to be... "we�*re on your side and they�*re out of touch". and therefore, after the consequential role ulez played at the uxbridge by—election, keir starmer had no option but to criticise the policy. after all, my source said, the first rule of politics is, voters are never wrong. keir starmer is also well aware of two recent cautionary tales. ed miliband and theresa may were leaders ahead in the polls

but who squandered their dominance. so is the starmer strategy wise or woeful? we�*rejoined now by lord hain, labour peer and a former secretary of state under tony blair and gordon brown. and with us in the studio is labour councillor frankie leach, who was an advisor to former party leaderjeremy corbyn. welcome to you. frankie leach, do you think keir starmer should be setting out a more radical agenda? he absolutely should be. it was interesting to see my former colleague andrew fisher earlier talking about essentially how the labour party has reneged on what we consider its more radical commitments, whether renationalising energy, trying to end the hostile environment we have seen for immigrants and migrants and asylum—seekers and i think the labour party is right when it

analyses the fact we are in a fiscal emergency but what i am concerned about is if we take away the investment from things like public sector and we take away the investment for people who are on the breadline already suffering without offering radical policies like rent control or giving people who is well needed public sector pay rises, what the labour party is doing is not putting much clear water between them and the conservatives. what putting much clear water between them and the conservatives. what are them and the conservatives. what are the for? them and the conservatives. what are they for? peter— them and the conservatives. what are they for? peter hain, _ them and the conservatives. what are they for? peter hain, does _ them and the conservatives. what are they for? peter hain, does that - they for? peter hain, does that sound like a winning formula or a better formula sound like a winning formula or a betterformula than the sound like a winning formula or a better formula than the one the leadership is pursuing at the moment? i leadership is pursuing at the moment?— leadership is pursuing at the moment? . ., ~ , , moment? i am with frankie in spirit but the truth _ moment? i am with frankie in spirit but the truth is, _ moment? i am with frankie in spirit but the truth is, that _ moment? i am with frankie in spirit but the truth is, that kind _ moment? i am with frankie in spirit but the truth is, that kind of - but the truth is, that kind of agenda, the one advocated by andrew fisher. _ agenda, the one advocated by andrew fisher. lost_ agenda, the one advocated by andrew fisher, lost heavily in 2019 and you cannot_ fisher, lost heavily in 2019 and you cannot try— fisher, lost heavily in 2019 and you cannot try to say to the electorate, renationalise electricity, as frankie _ renationalise electricity, as frankie has said, when you cannot pay for— frankie has said, when you cannot pay for that— frankie has said, when you cannot pay for that and the priority would be building homes, which we have in affordable _ be building homes, which we have in affordable homes, we don't have

nearly— affordable homes, we don't have nearly enough, we are a million short. _ nearly enough, we are a million short. the — nearly enough, we are a million short, the priority would be green investment of the kind that keir starmer— investment of the kind that keir starmer and rachel reeves have set out, 28 _ starmer and rachel reeves have set out, 28 billion every year. a programme to regenerate the economy and take _ programme to regenerate the economy and take it — programme to regenerate the economy and take it down a greener path and that is_ and take it down a greener path and that is radical stuff. but you cannot _ that is radical stuff. but you cannot do that in a way that is unaffordable and that leaves you open, _ unaffordable and that leaves you open, as — unaffordable and that leaves you open, as we were in 2019, to promise things— open, as we were in 2019, to promise things you _ open, as we were in 2019, to promise things you cannot deliver and that is what _ things you cannot deliver and that is what the leadership is trying to do. is what the leadership is trying to do i_ is what the leadership is trying to do iwant— is what the leadership is trying to do. i want radical action on the climate — do. i want radical action on the climate emergency demands that, and you cannot _ climate emergency demands that, and you cannot duck that or things will -et you cannot duck that or things will get worse — you cannot duck that or things will get worse and worse. the housing crisis _ get worse and worse. the housing crisis demands radical action and the state — crisis demands radical action and the state of the health service and our schools and i could go on. just quickly- -- — our schools and i could go on. just quickly... when _ our schools and i could go on. that quickly... when you see radical action on climate change, does that mean you are disappointed that the party has decided to slow down in implementation of its £28 billion every year package for environmental

measures? i every year package for environmental measures? ., ., , ., ,, every year package for environmental measures? ., ., , ., , , ., , measures? i want to see it happen as soon as possible _ measures? i want to see it happen as soon as possible and _ measures? i want to see it happen as soon as possible and so _ measures? i want to see it happen as soon as possible and so does - measures? i want to see it happen as soon as possible and so does a - soon as possible and so does a leadership but there is no point in promising — leadership but there is no point in promising something that was originally set out when the economic crisis _ originally set out when the economic crisis that— originally set out when the economic crisis that we are facing and will take _ crisis that we are facing and will take over— crisis that we are facing and will take over was before trust or boris johnson _ take over was before trust or boris johnson at — take over was before trust or boris johnson at his worst and that things are not— johnson at his worst and that things are not as _ johnson at his worst and that things are not as good now for the kind of programme — are not as good now for the kind of programme to do immediately, than we will do _ programme to do immediately, than we will do when _ programme to do immediately, than we will do when we are able to. inevitably, people will say 2019, andrew fisher, you were on the side of ajeremy andrew fisher, you were on the side of a jeremy corbyn leadership that got a pretty hefty rejection in electoral terms, so i am interested in the public spending side of this. whether you think you did say in the first answer you mentioned fiscal prudence, does the labour party have to broadly stay in line with government spending plans, shades of 1987, or do you think no, we should

promise to spend more on those public services?— promise to spend more on those public services? what i would say on 2019 as it was _ public services? what i would say on 2019 as it was the _ public services? what i would say on 2019 as it was the same _ public services? what i would say on 2019 as it was the same policy - 2019 as it was the same policy platform that almost toppled theresa may in 2017 and the election was very heavily focused on brexit and we lost that election, i will not deny that, and the people of britain needed to win that election for the labour party and we did not deliver on that. what i would say about the fiscal environment is of course we are in a fiscal economic crisis, you would have to be mad to realise that but the important thing is i do nothing ordinary working people should have to bear the brunt of the crisis when they already suffer with things like inflation, wages are falling, and investment in public services is the way for us to get out of that and if that means we need to borrow more... we either raise taxes or raise capital gains tax and i would rather tax the wealthy to support the poor in society when we are going through such a moment of crisis. increased tax? we are _ such a moment of crisis. increased tax? we are going _ such a moment of crisis. increased

tax? we are going to _ such a moment of crisis. increased tax? we are going to raise - such a moment of crisis. increased tax? we are going to raise money| tax? we are going to raise money throu~h tax? we are going to raise money through abolishing _ tax? we are going to raise money through abolishing the _ tax? we are going to raise money through abolishing the non-dom, | through abolishing the non—dom, imposing — through abolishing the non—dom, imposing taxes on non—dom s and a proper— imposing taxes on non—dom s and a proper windfall tax and other ways. more _ proper windfall tax and other ways. more borrowing, peter hain? we pledged — more borrowing, peter hain? we pledged to borrow to invest, which is what _ pledged to borrow to invest, which is what the — pledged to borrow to invest, which is what the labour government did with clement attlee, and tory governments did after that as well, even though the national debt was hi-h even though the national debt was high after— even though the national debt was high after the second world war, that is— high after the second world war, that is not— high after the second world war, that is not the issue. borrowing to invest. _ that is not the issue. borrowing to invest. we — that is not the issue. borrowing to invest, we said we will do that with the new— invest, we said we will do that with the new deal and if you want to tackle — the new deal and if you want to tackle the — the new deal and if you want to tackle the climate emergency, vote labour, _ tackle the climate emergency, vote labour, that is the only way to get rid of— labour, that is the only way to get rid of the — labour, that is the only way to get rid of the tories, who are making it worse _ rid of the tories, who are making it worse and — rid of the tories, who are making it worse and opposing it at almost every— worse and opposing it at almost every point, policies like the ones in london — every point, policies like the ones in london to actually deal with the urohient — in london to actually deal with the roblem. ., _ in london to actually deal with the roblem. ., ., ., ., problem. you say that about voting labour for climate _ problem. you say that about voting labour for climate policies - problem. you say that about voting labour for climate policies and - problem. you say that about voting labour for climate policies and i - labourfor climate policies and i will vote labour at the next election, probably through gritted teeth due to the amount of u—turns... but what i would say... what i would say... i would vote for

enthusiasm if i felt enthusiastic about policies but this thing about voting for the labour party if you want to tackle the climate crisis, i do want to do that, which is why i�*m disappointed to see keir starmer and his office briefing against sadiq khan around ulez, i was pleased to see but it was passed in the court to say we could... and i would be concerned to see that the labour party is talking about reneging on commitments for climate spending because i agree, investing in the green new deal is crucial because if you invest now, it will cost less money in the long run.- you invest now, it will cost less money in the long run. also... the cost of doing _ money in the long run. also... the cost of doing something _ money in the long run. also... the cost of doing something about - cost of doing something about climate — cost of doing something about climate change, for example... one last point. — climate change, for example... one last point. sorry. — climate change, for example... one last point, sorry, we _ climate change, for example... qua: last point, sorry, we only have climate change, for example... iaz last point, sorry, we only have one minute, i understand why you would put forward what you see as socialist policies to win that side of the argument but we know from

somerset and frome that the lib dems are also a danger to the conservative majority and you need to convince them as well, don�*t you? does that not involve the keir starmer strategy, attacking the conservative government in record and playing it safe? i conservative government in record and playing it safe?— and playing it safe? i don't think the -a and playing it safe? i don't think the party is _ and playing it safe? i don't think the party is looking _ and playing it safe? i don't think the party is looking for- and playing it safe? i don't think the party is looking for lib - and playing it safe? i don't think the party is looking for lib dem | the party is looking for lib dem votes, if you look at the performance, labour downplayed the role in somerset and frome to allow the lib dems to get through and you are seeing an unholy alliance between the lib dems and the labour party in the next general election to take two seats but i do not think that keir starmer and his team are looking for liberal democrat voters, they are probably looking for soft conservatives or nonvoters general. we are looking for voters from everybody, to win!— we are looking for voters from eve bod , to win! ., ,, as wheat prices spike again because of the war in ukraine, inevitably there are worries. it challenges the existing order in places like north africa. in tunisia, galloping inflation, the pressures of trans—saharan migration and an increasingly repressive government are straining social cohesion.

there are similarities to the situation that led to the country�*s jasmine revolution in 2010, which in turn triggered the wider arab spring protests. it�*s all being watched nervously across the mediterranean by european countries that rely on the government there to control migration. mike thompson reports now from tunis for newsnight. tunisia�*s jasmine revolution against corruption, poverty and political repression finally ended the long rule of dictatorial strongman president zine el abidine ben ali, and helped spawn the so—called arab spring right across the middle east.

a song by tunisian rapper el general ripped into ben ali�*s much feared regime in a way few, if any, had ever dared before. it became the anthem of the uprising to many. translation: when the song - was released, it was a shock for me because i didn�*t know where these words would take me. as there was turbulence, repression and the possibility of bad reaction from the authorities. there were also consequences for the opposition at the time, which really scared me as i was very young. at the moment, i realised the danger of what i�*d done and understood that i had challenged the system, and it is not easy to do that. soon after el general�*s song went

viral, he was arrested, before being released a few days later. after the revolution, he took a break from music to raise his family. but now, in his mid—30s, has returned to composing songs as he watches the country�*s freedoms being eroded all over again. translation: i am one of many| who feel our country is in danger. i see a lot of people getting detained and beaten up. we don�*t know why this is happening, but we are trying to find out. it feels like some kind of revenge. we didn�*t expect this level of repression. opposing president kais saied is a risky business. here in central tunis, i�*m outside the headquarters of the ennahdha party.

that�*s the main opposition group in this country. it�*s been closed down and its leaderjailed. the same fate has befallen dozens of other politicians, journalists, academics and activists who�*ve criticised the president. this father and daughter have first—hand experience of what happens to family members who rock the boat. chaima issa, a prominent opposition activist and women�*s rights campaigner, was arrested at a police roadblock in february soon after posting likes for two tweets critical of president kais saied. hersister, hadiza, said she and her family are devastated. translation: the arrest of chaima has had a significant _ impact on my psyche. chaima and i were inseparable. we were always together. when chaima was arrested, my life came to a halt, and it revolved around seeking assistance, imprisonment and home confinement.

now i�*m trying to cope with the shock and the unjust manner in which chaima, a loving woman to everyone, has been treated. her son is in france, struggling psychologically and unable to return. the entire family is suffering because of what has happened to chaima. chaima was accused of conspiring against the state — a charge that can carry many years injail. early this morning, two plain—clothes police officers came to our guest house in tunis and asked the owner if she knew where we�*re planning to go today. since then, the same car has been following us everywhere we go, right behind. it�*s still there. i�*ve been advised not to point the camera at their car,

but i have a feeling that those inside want us to know they�*re there. mosaique fm is not only tunisia�*s most popular radio station, it�*s also the most critical of president kais saied. the station�*s owner is facing corruption charges, and one of hisjournalists has beenjailed for five years for disclosing information about the country�*s security services. others fear falling foul of a new law against spreading false information and rumours. those convicted face five years jail, doubled to ten if such content concerns state officials.

yet it seems the president�*s hardline authoritarian regime is proving surprisingly popular with many tunisians. after years of squabbling, inept and corrupt elected governments that followed the 2011 revolution. it�*s a shame, but you can�*t blame them. and with what these people were doing with the country, i was afraid of people wanting more and more repression, more and more control of everything, because in their minds, democracy rhymes with anarchy. democracy rhymes with impunity. so — and freedom of speech rhymes with abuses, and a total absence of the rule of law. so right now, what�*s going on?

i mean, i think what�*s going on actually is going to lead us to become a failed state. after being elected with a landslide majority in 2019, former law professor kais saied went on to mount what his critics have called a coup. in 2021, he suspended tunisia�*s parliament, before giving himself the power to rule by decree. he then scrapped the country�*s judicial council, dissolved tunisia�*s already suspended parliament, and fired 57 judges, before enlarging his powers even further, after a constitutional referendum. these people, some sub—saharan migrants, others members of tunisia�*s minority black population, were forced to flee their accommodation and jobs, after an incendiary,

racist speech in february by president saied. growing attacks on migrants across tunisia have followed. but the same weekend, an eu delegation arrived in the country to discuss giving his government more than 100 million euros to help humanely stop migrants crossing to europe — a deal since formally agreed — kais saied suddenly displayed a newfound fondness for the people he�*s so recently accused of ruining tunisia. despite the new eu money, this heavily indebted country�*s economy continues to nosedive, and unrest is slowly growing. this group of striking delivery workers say rising prices and stagnant wages leaves them unable to feed their families, even when working seven days a week. president saied has been very successful in suppressing opposition, but he�*s had a much

tougher time keeping prices down. and here in this market in central tunis, that�*s causing great suffering. traders here say wholesale prices are rising so fast, that many can�*t afford to buy what they sell any more. translation: many people suffer| and cannot even afford a sandwich. some sleep on the pavement and others search through garbage for food. there are people who cannot find medicine. my heart goes out to them. many staples, like sugar, rice, oil and flour are becoming hard to find, never mind afford. and some potentially life saving medicines for the treatment of critical heart and kidney diseases are no longer available, forcing doctors to advertise on social media for people travelling abroad to bring some home with them.

sub—saharan migrants, desperate to leave the country, are now being joined by thousands of impoverished tunisians who�*ve given up hope. the imf has offered the government a nearly 2 billion euros bailout, on condition that it scraps costly food subsidies and slims down the country�*s huge civil service. but president saied has refused, knowing that doing so could spark an uprising against him, just like the one that toppled his predecessor, ben ali, in 2011. all of which has left many asking if this heralds the death of democracy for a country that had inspired so many others. we hope that we will be able to keep on doing ourjob. we hope that we would be able to still broadcast political shows, because we — no—one could do that before the revolution.

and we hope that this country will get a little bit better, because, i mean, just like we say, we have one life. we do not want to spend it fighting for a better country. we wish that someday we will be able to live in the country that we hoped for. chaima issa, tunisia�*s first female political prisoner, was finally released from jail earlier this month. yet many other opponents of president kais saied remain behind bars. it seems tunisians continue to face a stark choice between creeping dictatorship or a return to anarchic democracy.

given the number of human activities that depend on satellites, it�*s a little unnerving how little effort has been made to tackle the problem of spacejunk orbiting our planet. well, tonight that�*s changed. given the number the european space agency has for the first time this evening guided a retired weather satellite, the aeolus, on a journey — resembling something like this — in an asssisted re—entry back into the atmosphere, in order to burn it up rather than littering the cosmic neighbourhood. that feat was accomplished by the agency�*s operations team, jubilant earlier this afternoon, and it�*s now been handed over to the space debris tea, and from their control centre we�*re to the space debris team, and from their control centre we�*re joined now by benjamin bastida virgili. thank you very much indeed for joining us. can you confirm to us, that the satellite has now been burned up in the earth�*s atmosphere?

good evening. i can still not confirm, we are quite confident that the satellite has decayed, has reentered the atmosphere but we still have not got the confirmation when and where exactly, however, we have few indications that point to the satellite is no longer in orbit. now it is clearly an important landmark, but number of satellites launched in the last five years exceeds the number launched in the previous 50, so there is a big job still to be done, isn�*t there, to get on top of this debris problem exactly. we have a large problem, we had already the problem before we started launches so much but now with more launches we are really looking at how to control this growth, or how to handle the space debris environment, the space environment, to be ready to live

with so many space junk, and to environment, to be ready to live with so many spacejunk, and to make sure that any new satellite that we launch do not become new space debris, so what we are preparing is all the technology, all the means to revelation, we are here pushing zero debris policy, with a charter, i we wants all the european industry, uk, also, to support. to make sure that this rules there are at the moment will be even more strict and will be followed and we can make sure that we can continue to use stays in the future. in we can continue to use stays in the future. , ., , future. in terms of the rules if i am riaht future. in terms of the rules if i am right in _ future. in terms of the rules if i am right in saying _ future. in terms of the rules if i am right in saying this, - future. in terms of the rules if i am right in saying this, the - future. in terms of the rules if i am right in saying this, the uk| future. in terms of the rules if i i am right in saying this, the uk has am right in saying this, the uk has a policy after 25 year, it would deal with the satellite and the us has one that after five years it will deal with a satellite, clearly a lot faster, are you looking for a harmonisation globally on this? 50. harmonisation globally on this? so, initiall the

harmonisation globally on this? 55>, initially the rules came harmonisation globally on this? 553, initially the rules came from international organisation, it�*s the co—ordination committee which consists of 13 agencies is all over world and they created this 25 year rule basically, now, it is true that last year the americans or the fsm cc it is not all tully americans change this rule to five years and thatis change this rule to five years and that is also something that we are pushing, it is go to five years or even less, we see that is one of the ways that we need to approach the problem, is to reduce the lifetime of satellites at the end of life to make sure they don�*t remain in orbit and regulars for other satellites, we are trying to push with this charter approach, to go to a common understanding, international way of dealing with the problem, because thatis dealing with the problem, because that is an international, a problem for everyone, if one acts and the other doesn�*t act the problem is

still there, everyone should be consistency and follow the same approach. this, we could reduce slightly the problem. mil approach. this, we could reduce slightly the problem.— slightly the problem. all right. ben'amin slightly the problem. all right. benjamin bastida _ slightly the problem. all right. benjamin bastida virgili, - slightly the problem. all right. | benjamin bastida virgili, thank slightly the problem. all right. - benjamin bastida virgili, thank you very much indeed for explaining that and congratulations, i suppose on bringing down the aeolus satellite successfully. the aeolus satellite successfully. that�*s all from us tonight. kirsty is in the chair on monday. until then, have a great weekend.