each day, they can only- guess who and what moscow will target next. joining me tonight on the panel is mutaz ahmed, political correspondent at the telegraph — and kurt bardella, former republican rising star, turned democratic strategist. first, the latest headlines. ukrainian officials say at least five people have been killed and dozens injured in russian strikes on the city of kharkiv. the victims include a girl in a playground. meanwhile, president zelensky has sacked the commander of the air force, after one of the f—16 fighter jets donated by ukraine's nato allies crashed on monday. the cause of the crash is unknown. the house of commons�* biggest landlord, a newly—elected labour mp, is renting out flats

with black mould and ant infestations, the bbc has learnt. jas athwal, the mp for ilford south, owns 15 rental flats. tenants of some of these flats spoke of having to regularly scrub bathroom ceilings to remove mould — one told us of ants crawling up their child's body. mr athwal has denied this. european governments have expressed further concern about israel's military operation this week in the occupied west bank. here in the uk, one of israel's closest allies, the foreign office, says it's worried about the methods israel is using and urged restraint. and france has said the latest israeli operations "worsen a climate of unprecedented instability and violence". ukrainian officials say at least five people have been killed and dozens injured in russian strikes on the city of kharkiv, in the northeast of the country. a young girl was killed

in a playground. others died as apartment blocks were hit. there's been this reaction from one of her relatives. you'll make it is simply impossible to get over this. how can this is possible? i don't know, they are children. the local governor said russia targeted civilian areas in kharkiv with guided missiles. translation: let's say - unequivocally that there were guidance systems on missiles. they didn't fly along ballistic trajectories, ie purposefully along certain co—ordinates. we draw one conclusion. these streets are exclusively parked with large gatherings of civilians. this is a residential building. this is, again, mass

terror against our civilian population. meanwhile, the governor of the belgorod region, in russia, says one civilian has been killed and seven injured in ukrainian shelling of the city of belgorod. it comes as ukraine's top military commander says kyiv�*s forces have advanced up to two kilometres in their invasion of the neighbouring kursk region. oleksandr syrskyi made the comments in a briefing with the ukrainian president, volodymyr zelensky. he said forces have taken control of five square kilometres of russian territory, as they press on with the cross—border incursion launched more than three weeks ago. ukrainian president, volodymyr zelensky, has sacked the commander of the air force. the move comes after an f—16fighterjet — sent by nato allies — crashed while shooting down russian missiles in ukraine. a special commission was set up by the ukrainian defence ministry to investigate the incident. the pilot was killed in the incident —

his name was oleksiy mes, with the callsign "moonfish" — and he was one of the first few ukrainian pilots trained to fly advanced fighter jets. the cause of the crash is unknown. co—founder of wingmen for ukraine, adam makos — who worked alongside the pilot known as "moonsfish" — says he made the ultimate sacrifice. i think we saw on august 26th, what oleksiy was doing, what moonfish was doing. he was saving the civilians on the ground. you know, every missile he shot down, every drone was some little kid who was not going to wake up with rubble over him or lose his parents. i mean, he was fighting for his people. and so it's a tragedy, but he went out a hero. and i think people will always remember him for that. across the atlantic, ukraine's defence minister, rustem umerov, has been meeting with us defence secretary, lloyd austin, at the pentagon. ukrainian president, volodymyr zelenskiy, has been calling for western allies to allow long—range attacks on russian

military air bases. let's hear from our panel now. mutaz ahmed, from the telegraph, and democratic strategist kurt bardella. welcome to both of you, thanks forjoining us on the programme this evening. kurt, what do you make of that meeting at the pentagon? we were told that lloyd austin got a briefing on the battleground situation right now in ukraine from ukraine's defence minister, and we heard that call from president zelensky, didn't we, for the country to be allowed to send weapons by allies deeper into russian territory? but allies have been nervous about that, is there a chance they might change their mind? they've been worried about the risk of escalation, haven't they? risk of escalation, haven't the ? , ., ~ risk of escalation, haven't the ? , . ~ ., they? yes, and i think part of this was the _ they? yes, and i think part of this was the interest - they? yes, and i think part of this was the interest for - they? yes, and i think part of this was the interest for the l this was the interest for the us after ukraine's surprise offensive or they actually gained ground into russia. we

got so used to the narrative that ukraine was on the defence, resources were becoming slim and that there had been at the very least the stalemate that leaned towards russia — then all of a sudden, ukraine makes this offensive, and i know that the entire dod of the biden administration really wanted an updated situation and analysis on what's going on. are they making continued gains, are they defending the territories that have been the theatre of battle for months now? what resources do they need and what's realistic to expect? bearin what's realistic to expect? bear in mind here in the us, we are in the midst of an unprecedented presidential election, the politics of everything also plays a role into what can be made available when, the sitting vice president is one of the candidates for president, the current president was running and decided not to. so there are a lot of different elements involved. also juxtaposing that with what's going on in the

middle east.— with what's going on in the middle east. absolutely, lots of volatility — middle east. absolutely, lots of volatility in _ middle east. absolutely, lots of volatility in a _ middle east. absolutely, lots of volatility in a lot _ middle east. absolutely, lots of volatility in a lot of - of volatility in a lot of places which complicates decisions being made. interesting to hear that comment from the government here in the uk — let mejust remind the viewers, the foreign office saying it's worried about the methods israel is using in the west bank, just to move on to the situation there. as kurt was just introducing the topic of the middle east, how unusual do you think it is to get that sort of commentary during a military operation? it's becoming quite normal actuallx _ it's becoming quite normal actually. we are seeing lots of messages like this from western governments which have become much _ governments which have become much more sceptical of israeli actions — much more sceptical of israeli actions over the months. a lot of the — actions over the months. a lot of the support israel had from the international community after— the international community after october 7th has eroded. it after october 7th has eroded. it really— after october 7th has eroded. it really stands alone now with its operations. people in israel_ its operations. people in israel would say these operations are totally necessary, that its fighting

wars — necessary, that its fighting wars on _ necessary, that its fighting wars on several fronts, that they— wars on several fronts, that they are _ wars on several fronts, that they are terrorists in the west bank— they are terrorists in the west bank who— they are terrorists in the west bank who are attacking israel and israelis and it has a right to defend _ and israelis and it has a right to defend itself. increasingly, especially in the west, no one is really— especially in the west, no one is really listening to the israeii _ is really listening to the israeli government any more, no one trusts — israeli government any more, no one trusts the israeli government or prime minister netanyahu any more. we also have — netanyahu any more. we also have a — netanyahu any more. we also have a labour government here that is— have a labour government here that is less sympathetic. pivoting back to ukraine then, and this still very new labour government, what do you think will be the attitude towards those pleas from president zelensky?— those pleas from president zelens ?~ , , zelensky? we support it. those lectures are _ zelensky? we support it. those lectures are that _ zelensky? we support it. those lectures are that it's _ zelensky? we support it. those lectures are that it's once - lectures are that it's once again— lectures are that it's once again because once again, the ukrainians are in the back foot _ ukrainians are in the back foot. we've seen this issue with— foot. we've seen this issue with the _ foot. we've seen this issue with the shadow missiles where the uk — with the shadow missiles where the uk seems to support their use in— the uk seems to support their use in russia, but the us is really— use in russia, but the us is really holding back and is against _ really holding back and is against it. that's what was

briefed _ against it. that's what was briefed privately. we saw the same — briefed privately. we saw the same issue when it was fighter jets. _ same issue when it was fighter jets. the — same issue when it was fighter jets, the uk was much more keen to provide — jets, the uk was much more keen to provide fighterjets under boris — to provide fighterjets under borisjohnson, the us was less key~ _ borisjohnson, the us was less key~ the — borisjohnson, the us was less key. the us is on the back foot when _ key. the us is on the back foot when it— key. the us is on the back foot when it comes to allowing ukraine _ when it comes to allowing ukraine to do what it needs to do, because there are still a lot of— do, because there are still a lot of restrictions on the use of american weapons in particular which all are the bulk— particular which all are the bulk of— particular which all are the bulk of the weapons required in russian — bulk of the weapons required in russian territory. and bulk of the weapons required in russian territory.— russian territory. and kurt, do ou russian territory. and kurt, do you agree _ russian territory. and kurt, do you agree with _ russian territory. and kurt, do you agree with that _ russian territory. and kurt, do i you agree with that assessment? do you think the us is on the back foot and allowing ukraine what it needs to do?— what it needs to do? yes, because _ what it needs to do? yes, because l _ what it needs to do? yes, because i think _ what it needs to do? yes, because i think the - what it needs to do? yes, i because i think the political temperature in this country has evolved and shifted as this conflict has borne out. when it began, there was overwhelming tremendous public support for the people of ukraine. now unfortunately this issue has become a political litmus test and has been weaponize to in the politicals games that are going on as we head into election season. we've seen republicans seize on this issue

as a "this is your money in america going to ukraine, that's not how it should be spent." we've heard democrats say protecting ukraine is in the vital global interest of the vital global interest of the world order — the united states of america believes, as a democrat speaking, back when will not stop here. if you give him an inch, he'll take a mile. as the election plays out, that's basically the most difficult time to get any movement on anything when the two sides are gearing up for what will be one of the most contentious and polarising elections in american history. for the moment, thank you both. around the world and across the uk, this is bbc news.

let's turn to the us election. donald trump is in one of the major battleground states tonight, pennsylvania.

these are the pictures coming to us live from the place where he's holding his rally in pennsylvania tonight, johnstown. he will be taken to the stage pretty soon they are, we'll keep an eye on that for you and bring you any of the key lines from that rally of course. pennsylvania is state that the former republican president won in 2016, beating hilary clinton by a margin of around 50,000 votes — 20 votes in the all—important electoral college. then in 2020, the state turned blue —joe biden winning pennsylvania by around 80,000 votes. this time, the polling suggests another tight race. the latest survey, from morning consult today, has kamala harris ahead with 51% to donald trump on 47%. injuly, when biden was still in the race, those numbers were flipped. so, donald trump will be looking to pull back the

momentum in the battleground state, perhaps with more new policy announcements. the republican nominee's campaign speeches often follow a largely predictable script, attacking the biden—harris administration's handling of the border and the economy. but last night at his rally in michigan, he made an announcement no one really expected. i'm announcing today, i and a major statement, that under the trump administration, yourl government will pay for — i or your insurance company will be mandated to pay for — all costs associated _ with ivf treatment, - fertilisation for women. ibf stomach ivf treatment. -- ivf —— ivf treatment. because we want more| babies, to put it nicely! the announcement puts him at odds with other republicans and conservative anti—abortion activists, who want to ban ivf for discarding unused human embryos. the harris—walz campaign was quick to respond

to the former president's new policy position, blaming him for the us supreme court's decision to overturn the landmark 1973 abortion case, roe v wade, which eliminated the national right to abortion. and other critics have pointed outjust how expensive the plan would be. ivf treatments can be very expensive. in the us, we are talking about around $20,000 per round. and often, couples require five or more rounds before the process is successful. according to the society for assisted reproductive technology, its member clinics performed almost 400,000 rounds in 2022 — meaning in that year alone, the trump policy would cost almost $8 billion. donald trump didn't provide any detail about how he might implement his plan, orfund it. let's hear from our panel now.

mutaz ahmed from the telegraph, and democratic strategist kurt bardella. on the issue of big states, traditionally the publicans traditionally the publica ns don't like traditionally the publicans don't like that, yet donald trump is saying he's going to implement this policy, and we just explained the figures of the potential costs involved. is that a sign that he is worried about where he's going with the voters on this, compared to harris and tim walz? �* . . compared to harris and tim walz? �* , , . walz? it's interesting, we are talkin: walz? it's interesting, we are talking about _ walz? it's interesting, we are talking about massive - walz? it's interesting, we are talking about massive state i talking about massive state subsidies here. it's a policy that traditionally would have been thought of as being left—wing. but it's interesting because we see this development of a new sort of sector of conservative policies effectively, with the introduction of pronatalist ideology — you heard in there, this idea of we want more women to have babies, this idea that you need to grow your native population and increase your productive rate at all costs.

it's a view trump shares with people like elon musk, he wants people like elon musk, he wants people to have many more kids. we see it translate itself into the ivf policy, putting aside conservative concerns about frozen embryos, because this president wants the american publishing to grow. and there are several reasons for this. we also see pronatalist and playing a role in changing conservative policies in a similar way here in the uk, because we are now seeing conservatives, tories come out against things like the two child benefit cap on the basis that they want to have more british children. and you are seeing people like nigel farage come out against too. so this is a phenomenon happening across the atlantic where conservatives just want more babies, they are willing to put aside funding concerns, concerns about frozen embryos and abortion in order to achieve that.— and abortion in order to achieve that. �* ., , ., achieve that. and kurt, do you think mr trump's _ achieve that. and kurt, do you think mr trump's vice - think mr trump's vice

presidential pick was a little more blindsided by this when he was asked about this statement from mr trump?— was asked about this statement from mr trump? yes, i mean you look at the — from mr trump? yes, i mean you look at the rhetoric _ from mr trump? yes, i mean you look at the rhetoric of _ from mr trump? yes, i mean you look at the rhetoric oij - look at the rhetoric ofjd vance _ look at the rhetoric ofjd vance and it tells you that the right _ vance and it tells you that the right hand doesn't know what the right— right hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing in that ticket — the right hand is doing in that ticket. let's call it what it is. — ticket. let's call it what it is. it's— ticket. let's call it what it is, it's pandering, it's completely unrealistic. first of all. — completely unrealistic. first of all, apparently donald trump isn't aware of the fact that if you — isn't aware of the fact that if you go— isn't aware of the fact that if you go through ivf in the first round — you go through ivf in the first round doesn't work, there are times— round doesn't work, there are times where you have to get a nredically_ times where you have to get a medically induced abortion in order— medically induced abortion in order to _ medically induced abortion in order to continue on. so is donald _ order to continue on. so is donald trump now saying he's willing — donald trump now saying he's willing to _ donald trump now saying he's willing to allow funding to be used — willing to allow funding to be used to— willing to allow funding to be used to pay for abortions? because _ used to pay for abortions? because that's what will happen in this— because that's what will happen in this scenario. this is someone _ in this scenario. this is someone who is clearly ignorant and what — someone who is clearly ignorant and what this process really entails _ and what this process really entails and what the medical health— entails and what the medical health repercussions are for women _ health repercussions are for women. and i don't think anyone is really— women. and i don't think anyone is really buying it. you can't on one _ is really buying it. you can't on one hand say, "i'm proud that— on one hand say, "i'm proud that the _ on one hand say, "i'm proud that the supreme courtjustices are appointed took away the right— are appointed took away the right to _

are appointed took away the right to choose," and if you are — right to choose," and if you are someone who needs daycare for your— are someone who needs daycare for your children, we won't give — for your children, we won't give it— for your children, we won't give it to _ for your children, we won't give it to you. if you need food _ give it to you. if you need food support and housing support, we won't give it to you — support, we won't give it to you because we too busy giving tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires — and none of this actually— billionaires — and none of this actually it— billionaires — and none of this actually it lines up, it's fantastical in pandering. so another fantastical in pandering. sr another brief one from you on this topic, kurt, how will donald trump managed to cling onto his base if this is the kind of thing he is saying? because obviously some of his base are very conservative on theissue base are very conservative on the issue of reproductive rights. i the issue of reproductive ri . hts. ~' , . , the issue of reproductive riahts. ~' ,, ., , rights. i think the base knows what i rights. i think the base knows what i know _ rights. i think the base knows what i know - _ rights. i think the base knows what i know - he's _ rights. i think the base knows what i know - he'sjust - rights. i think the base knowsj what i know - he'sjust saying what i know — he'sjust saying this— what i know — he'sjust saying this to — what i know — he'sjust saying this to get _ what i know — he'sjust saying this to get elected, it won't actually— this to get elected, it won't actually happen. and his base often — actually happen. and his base often times gives him a pass on his fantastical rhetoric and bil his fantastical rhetoric and big announcements because they know— big announcements because they know it's — big announcements because they know it's actually not realistic, it'sjust a know it's actually not realistic, it's just a way to win— realistic, it's just a way to win and _ realistic, it's just a way to win and never have to follow through _ win and never have to follow through. that's what donald trump — through. that's what donald trump has been doing since 2016 — trump has been doing since 2016. remember, mexico was supposed to pay for this giant lrorder— supposed to pay for this giant border wall in the 2016 campaign — i don't see a big check— campaign — i don't see a big check from mexico, which makes

me wonder— check from mexico, which makes me wonder who will pay for the government run ivf. where will the $8 — government run ivf. where will the $8 billion come from? no one will— the $8 billion come from? no one will press him on the details _ one will press him on the details on the right because they— details on the right because they know never happen. let�*s they know never happen. let's take a look _ they know never happen. let's take a look at _ they know never happen. let's take a look at kamala - they know never happen. let's take a look at kamala harris i take a look at kamala harris then. whilst donald trump was focusing on reproductive health, overnight, kamala harris made her pitch to voters in herfirst major televised interview since becoming the democratic party's nominee. our north america sarah smith has more. kamala harris looks like she truly enjoys this. and why not? huge rallies full of genuinely excited supporters. she's now touring states that looked unwinnable for democrats just a few weeks ago. she's always been much less keen on lengthy broadcast interviews, so this one was considered a significant test. if elected, what would she do on her first day as president? day one, it's going to be about — one, implementing my plan for what i call an opportunity economy. what we're going to do to bring down the cost of everyday goods, what we're going to do to invest in america's small businesses.

illegal immigration is a tough issue for her. it has soared whilst she's been vice president. she says she'll revive a bipartisan plan that was sunk by republicans. donald trump got word of this bill that would have contributed to securing our border, and because he believes that it would not have helped him politically, he told his folks in congress, "don't put it forward". he killed the bill. kamala harris said she had changed her mind on banning fracking, defunding the police, and building more of the border wall. republicans still want to paint her as a dangerous. -- is --isa —— is a dangerous radical. the proof is in the pudding. kamala harris can say that she's changed her mind on american energy, or changed her mind on police, or changed her mind on immigration. she is the sitting vice president of the united states. if she's changed her mind, why doesn't she enact these policies now and make americans better off? i don't think she believes it, which is why you're not seeing it in what she's doing. donald trump's verdict

on the interview — "boring". the momentum shift from where this race was a month ago. the race still looks extremely tight, but opinion polls are moving in herfavour. donald trump has launched some nasty, sexist and racist attacks against kamala harris. she was always of indian . heritage, and she was only promoting indian heritage. i didn't know she was black| until a number of years ago when she happened to turn black, and now she wants i to be known as black. she seems determined to shrug it off. any same old tired playbook. next question, please. kamala harris�* grandniece watched her make history at the democratic convention, but she herself says little about being a trailblazing black woman running for president, saying only she believes she is the best person to do the job, regardless of race and gender. mutaz ahmed and kurt bardella. what'd you make of her performance in the interview?

there was probably a lot of pressure on her, wasn't there? many people were saying, " has she not done an interview already?" so shejust she not done an interview already?" so she just squeezed in by the self—imposed deadlines popular there was a lot of pressure because she hadn't done an interview for a0 days. hadn't done an interview for 40 da s. ., . hadn't done an interview for 40 da 5. ., ., , , ., days. for a presidential candidate, _ days. for a presidential candidate, that - days. for a presidential candidate, that was - candidate, that was astonishing. it was a well scripted interview, she often resorted to lines that she uses on the stump that haven't really changed since she became the presumptive nominee. the problem with this was that it did make it dull. donald trump has a point, it was quite boring because we didn't learn much knew about kamala harris in the end. to use one example, pennsylvania — fracking is a big issue there, she did a u on fracking there, she said when she was running for the democratic nomination that she would ban it —— a u—turn on fracking there. but instead of explaining why she changed her

position, some people have a legitimate — jd vance changed his tune on donald trump and explained it. instead of explained it. instead of explain it, she said she's for fracking and her values haven't changed. so we learned nothing about what led to... that's the lack of substance that voters will pick on in the coming days. will pick on in the coming da s. . . ~ will pick on in the coming da s. ., , ,, .. will pick on in the coming das. , . ., days. lack of substance - how do ou days. lack of substance - how do you think _ days. lack of substance - how do you think she _ days. lack of substance - how do you think she did? - days. lack of substance - how do you think she did? has - days. lack of substance - how do you think she did? has she done enough tojust do you think she did? has she done enough to just keep that very small lead that she has in most of the polls? it's pretty tight in most states, do you think she's done enough to keep that forward momentum going? absolutely. let's be very realistic _ absolutely. let's be very realistic here — anyone who's watching _ realistic here — anyone who's watching cnn or any news broadcast, you already know who you're _ broadcast, you already know who you're voting for. so there's a new— you're voting for. so there's a new nfinds— you're voting for. so there's a new minds to change here. the important — new minds to change here. the important thing is, she didn't do anything to create a negative news cycle. if the

worst _ negative news cycle. if the worst thing you have to say about — worst thing you have to say about her interview was boring - lioring — about her interview was boring - lioring is— about her interview was boring — boring is better, this country— — boring is better, this country has trump fatigue, and every— country has trump fatigue, and every day— country has trump fatigue, and every day he goes out there and reminds— every day he goes out there and reminds them of the type of sexism. _ reminds them of the type of sexism, misogyny, idiocy and dumbness you can expect if you put this— dumbness you can expect if you put this guy back in the office. _ put this guy back in the office, it plays right into their— office, it plays right into their hands. he makes the best case _ their hands. he makes the best case for— their hands. he makes the best case for kamala harris's campaign by going out there every— campaign by going out there every day and saying nonsensical stuff. and in an election— nonsensical stuff. and in an election where women vote, just as it _ election where women vote, just as it was — election where women vote, just as it was in — election where women vote, just as it was in the 2022 midterms, it can _ as it was in the 2022 midterms, it can have _ as it was in the 2022 midterms, it can have the deciding factor. _ it can have the deciding factor, he's doing everything he can— factor, he's doing everything he can to _ factor, he's doing everything he can to alienate his core candidacy. he can to alienate his core candidacy-— he can to alienate his core candidacy. literally one line from you — candidacy. literally one line from you both, _ candidacy. literally one line from you both, looking - candidacy. literally one line i from you both, looking forward to the presidential debate, what should we be looking out for? i what should we be looking out for? ~ , . ., . . . for? i think prosecutor kamala harris will _ for? i think prosecutor kamala harris will show _ for? i think prosecutor kamala harris will show up. _ for? i think prosecutor kamala harris will show up. i - for? i think prosecutor kamala harris will show up. i think - harris will show up. i think she's going _ harris will show up. i think she's going to _ harris will show up. i think she's going to be - harris will show up. i think - she's going to be prosecutor... she better have good answers. you'll be looking for more of

that detail you are mentioned during a moment ago. thank you both very much for your thoughts on all those stories. to stay with us here on the context, much more to come in the next 30 minutes. hello there. there will be some changes over the course of the weekend, but friday was a very pleasant day actually with the sunshine and light winds. high pressure in charge. but that's going to start to move away this weekend. a lot of the cloud that did bubble up isjust going to melt away this evening, leaving us with clear skies for many places. one or two mist and fog patches. there's a bit more cloud in the far southeast, and the breeze is picking up here. threatens one or two showers. that'll keep the temperatures a bit higher, but with clearer skies further north, it's going to be another chilly night, particularly in scotland and northern ireland. temperatures down to 3—4 celsius. this cloud that comes in from the southeast will push a little bit further north into england and wales.

still could be the odd shower around, particularly towards the southwest in the afternoon. a lot of places will be dry. we've got sunnier skies as you head further north across the uk. the winds will be a bit stronger, mind you, particularly across east anglia, the southeast and through the english channel. but with that sort of wind direction, it means this part of the country will be a little bit warmer. we're going to find temperatures getting into the low 20s for this area, and we could see a boost in those temperatures in the southeast as we see a bit more sunshine during the afternoon. and overnight, those temperatures aren't going to fall a great deal across southern areas. it could be a much more uncomfortable night for sleeping here. and that's because we're going to draw in a bit more warmth and humidity ahead of this weather front that's coming in from the atlantic. the high pressure slowly retreating across towards scandinavia. could be a few showers developing across some northern parts of england and east anglia, with the threat of a few thunderstorms. and then, as we see a bit more sunshine across england and wales, we'll develop a few more of those storms into the afternoon. quite warm and humid air here.

temperatures are going to be higher, peaking at 27, maybe 28 celsius. won't be quite as warm on sunday for scotland and northern ireland, because there'll be more cloud by this time. and this weather front will push its way in from the atlantic. but i think most of the rain is going to come ahead of that. we've got the potential for a plume of heavy rain and a lot of thunder and lightning. more towards the east coast of england, heading into easternmost parts of scotland. the weather front itself not producing much rain. and following on from that, there'll be sunshine in wales, in the southwest, perhaps into northern ireland. here, things will turn a little cooler and fresher, but there's still some warmth for another day across some eastern parts of england.

hello, i'm christian fraser. you're watching the context on bbc news. it may be one of greece's most popular tourist destinations, but now the mayor of santorini has had enough and called for urgent action to stop a construction spree he says presents an existential threat to the island. here in the uk, employees could be given the right to ask to work a four—day week under government plans to encourage flexible working. it wouldn't mean less work or less pay because staff

would be expected to work longer days to reach their total number of weekly hours. the government insists any changes won't be imposed on employers, but how do businesses feel about the idea? here's emma simpson. it's all quiet today on the factory floor of this small packaging firm in wigan. most of the workers are on a day off because they've worked four longer days instead of five. the office staff do them, too. when you're a busy working mum, to have that extra day when your children are all in school or college or uni, it's fantastic. it's a game—changer for me. not every employer can do compressed hours, but it works for this one. factory work doesn't... you know, we don't have the ability for those in the factory to work from home. so, just to be able to give a benefit and a different working pattern, such as the four—day week, is just an amazing thing that we've been able to do, and we're able to prove that this works.