direct contact with hts, the group leading the rebel alliance in syria. dipolmatic moves are gathering pace to stabilise the country, after the end of the assad regime. and the mystery is continuing to grow in the us after repeated sightings of unknown drones in several states on the east coast. the governor of newjersey has urged president biden to investigate. now on bbc news, newscast. faisal, as economics editor and somebody with an interest in tech, you will remember when youtube first started, which year? i'm going to say 2005? correct. good knowledge, faisal. i remember going up to my editor on channel 4 news

and going, this is big, this is really big. and did they bite? it was the year i met larry page, and he said, he told me that he doesn't read newspapers. and i reported back to my boss and said, there might be an issue here, these tech guys are not really into... well, we'll see which one wins out... i bring this up not because we are having a christmas quiz, it's because newscast, this podcast, has entered 2005 this week, because you can watch episodes of the podcast every weekday on youtube. nothing like keeping up with the times! exactly. newscast isn't that old, and neither are you. iam old. i was on a programme called john craven�*s newsround. so, if you would like to watch, as well as listen to us, you can go to the bbc news youtube account and click

on the tab called podcast. if you click on that, everyday you will get newscast. when was the qr code invented? that's harder. if you want to scan the qr code on your screen, that will magically take you to the bbc news youtube page, where you can then watch newscast after you've watched this one. newscast. newscast from the bbc. hello, it's adam in the studio. and it's chris, wondering what platform has been invented this year that we will get to in 201m. and it's alex, not wondering that but now thinking about that. and it faisal islam i in the studio feeling rather chuffed that he got the first question right. . i'm trying to think what we could be on? like tinder? what did you have for lunch today, chris? i had a salad and some soup.

did you think it was for wimps? definitely without question. alex, explain why we've gone down this wormhole. well, there's a whole row about sandwiches and lunch. i mean, it's a sandwich, a lunch, or should you have a steak? and this is kemi badenoch in one of her big first interventions as the new conservative leader has basically done an interview with the spectator saying she thinks lunch is for wimps. lunch is for wimps and sandwich is a real meal. no. and if she likes anything, she likes to have a steak rather than a sandwich. and then she also makes some comments about bread. she doesn't like bread in many forms, particularly if it's moist. and this has caused a whole thing as politicians talking about food seems to do quite frequently. so she was interviewed by former cabinet colleague michael gove and indeed katy balls, who's the political editor of the spectator. and of course has sat in these, in these chairs. but yeah, it started a conversation today at westminster, which reached the prime minister's official spokesman. and downing street were remarkably well briefed around all of this and quite keen, i think, to sort of lean into it a little bit.

so we learned that the prime minister likes a tuna sandwich or occasionally a cheese toastie. i thought he was vegetarian. i think he's pescatarian. is he? — yeah, he eats fish. and then ed daveyjoined in by saying he does think lunch is ok, and his favourite sandwich is a bacon sandwich. but then i don't really think of a bacon sandwich as a lunch. but didn't kemi badenoch also say that sandwiches are a breakfast thing? and i would say that bacon sandwich is a breakfast thing. sandwich for breakfast. so we've got a bit confused. sorry i didn't. what i don't get is lunch. was for wimps, but she has a steak brought to her anyway, so it was — i think the wimp bit was about having a break as opposed to eating. there'sjust this really interesting thing about, i think when politicians do things like this, there is some people can do it well, some people can do it less well. there's a sort of balance to be struck between wanting to show a bit of who you are, a bit of personality, you know, connect with the electorate. so frequently, though,

i think it almost does the opposite fizzle to the point that you're making. ——the opposite, faisal to the point that you're making. and this is definitely not the only you know, i don't think many people would consider having a steak brought to them for lunch. i think a lot of people would think a sandwich is quite average, something they might enjoy, but by no means the only politicians have done it because didn't rishi sunak, when he was asked... tory splits! during the election campaign on the this morning sofa. so he was asked about his favourite food, his favourite meal and he said sandwiches. for which he was criticised. so people were sort of teasing him for the equal and opposite reason. there's one other quote i should bring you, and this is from the file. the british sandwich association have inevitably been consulted about this. let me guess what their position is. yeah, exactly. but there's an important stat here. maybe it's one for bbc verify. um, we eat 3.5 billion commercially made sandwiches each year. they are part of our heritage. so there you go. and they kind of are, i suppose, aren't they?

they are a staple. i suppose the danger for kemi badenoch will be here is that if more people end up hearing about sandwiches and her approach to sandwiches than heard two weeks ago that she is proposing a cap on work visas for immigration into the country, then this is backfired. the counter—argument is to say that they're a party at the moment, which is trying where they can to grab a bit of attention and to remind folk that they are there. and with kemi badenoch, she still has got some work to do, in terms of letting people get to know her and to the point i made earlier. i think when politicians do this kind of thing, i actually don't think it's easy for them to get it right. you know, a lot of people are sort of willing to leap on whatever they say to go hang about. on the point about the kind of introducing yourself to the country and all that, i can't, i don't know because i haven't asked, but i can't imagine the strategy going into that interview was we really must land the point about the soggy bread. no. and yet it is that and sandwiches that has become the talking point. but what we do know her

strategy is, is to kind of do like a root and branch review of what the conservatives should propose as policies, but starting off with what their actual values should be in 2024 to then have a bunch of policies for the election in 2029. but we're now seeing a downside of leaving that space, that intellectual space a bit empty means that it gets filled with this instead. yeah, i mean she does talk about in this interview, albeit in the write up below, the bit about and this is, you know, and this is a kind of quite highfalutin political magazine, this isn't an interview with the tabloid newspaper. she does get into the whole business of the policy commissions and how they approach it. do they have a thatcherite approach? cameron approach? blah, blah blah. but the crux of it is they she does not want to talk specifics now. and the way she formulates it, and again with the food reference, is that if you were planning on opening a restaurant in four years time, would you write the menu now? now you might say, well, maybe you would, because if you were a keen, aspiring restaurateur, that might be the thing that drives you. but her view is, no, you've got to get everything else right.

you've got to get everything else right. she's going to cookery school stage. well, she's restaurant. concept stage. the concept stage and making sure it's a restaurant that is welcoming and somewhere that people would want to visit etc. let's talk about... i can see faisal, you're itching to talk about the economy. so let's talk about, um, always let's talk about the government's reforms to the planning system in england that they unveiled today. and, alex, i'll get you to do take us through the details in a minute, because i know you've spent a lot of time looking at this stuff, but, chris, just put this in kind of a bigger political context of how important it is to keir starmer and angela rayner, in this case today, to get this shaken up. it's super important because it's one of the big, big promises that they've made. they've set themselves a target. so that's a target that you might fail to hit. um, and it matters for its own sake but it matters too, because the overarching promise the government is making is about economic growth and the two are connected. so it's really, really big for them. and so, alex, just give us a sort of rundown of the bits. and i'm aware that planning reforms can get very

jargony very quickly. we'll go for a kind ofjargon free summary of where it's at. so the government has made some changes to the planning rules in england. and these are the rules that govern basically where houses can be built, what they should look like, how many there should be. and they've been consulting on these changes today. they've come up with the final version. and very broadly speaking, there are two key things. lots of complexities, two key things. the first thing is there's going to be a lot more homes and councils right across england are going to have much higher housing targets to meet — 370,000 homes the first thing is there's going to be a lot more homes and councils right across england are going to have much higher housing targets to meet — 370,000 homes across england per year. that is much higher than anything that has been delivered for decades. few tweaks to the targets. so a few more homes from london in the south east than was proposed

in the summer, a few less elsewhere, but overall big uplift in the targets. second thing is the government saying very clearly, i think, to councils, you've got to crack on with this, and if you don't do it, if you don't get on board and crack on, we're going to intervene and take control. and the other bit is part of the way they think councils might be able to get these houses built is looking at the land they've got available in their neck of the woods, and where they don't think they've got enough land that's previously been built on, then they're going to have to, the government says, look at the green belt — bits of the land that are currently protected to stop cities just splurging into each other. and the government says, you've got to find low quality bits of that and consider building on that, because you have to hit these targets. and chris, i'm thinking back to when we started talking about when youtube was invented. i feel like politicians have been talking about changing the planning system since even before 2005, when youtube was invented. it's like it's a perennial. it is a perennial, and the crux of it is a trade off between, uh, the extent to which you allow lots of people to have a say net result, often stuff doesn't happen, versus what would be perceived by a critic as top down, big government, treading all over local accountability

and a local ability to be able to say no, there's a good reason why we don't want x number of houses on that particular field. but the bigger context is one where housing targets are so often not been met, and one where there's been a lot of population growth in the last ten, 20 years. and it's a massive issue, massive issue for so many people. and then politically, it's massive for the government because they've decided that they are going to try and badge themselves as the personification of a solution. i think what always strikes me about this conversation, faisal, is that actually when you think about the housing industry and why houses get built and how much they cost and whether people can buy them, local authorities in england are kind of like quite down the bottom of the factors that contribute to that. i think the bigger. point is that people think our lack of house - building is kind ofjust part of the weather, it's| how things happen, thingsjust don't get done. but actually it's a sort - of inherent part of the way our politics works at a local level. - what's quite interesting is because of things - like you referenced youtube again, you can now watch i

the proceedings of planning committees up and down i the country. every single one | is now streamed. and during the election we had to do... - that's what youtube founders were thinking of! it genuinely is quite _ interesting to see what happens in planning, because the act of not building houses- is a political economy choice, and it happens in these wet. wednesdays in local councils up and down the country _ where you get councillors putting up their hands, . refusing to build things. now, they may have very good reasons locally. - you add all of that instinct up i around the country and you get a house building number, - which is way off these targets, so much so that i think my- judgment is that these targets, certainly the 1.5 million, - won't be met, can't be met. it's a kind of moonshot target, a little bit like some _ of the sort of pandemic vaccine targets, which we also thoughtj weren't going to be met. but it's a statement of intent to drive home a significant. change in the way that these things are delivered - and the way in which these

decisions are made. - the big problem is that - when we've had these sorts of numbers even approached . before, has only been in a time when the public sector funds directly tens of thousands i of houses being built. that is not happening in this case. - so you have to ask _ the question, what is happening in the private house—building sector? — they are not geared up for this right now. - their share prices - have been going down. um, something... the sorts of changes we're talking - about that yield anything | like these numbers, even credibly to target - these numbers, will be so controversiall in every locality, it almost has to be... because off the sheer number? the sheer numbers, - yeah, it's got to be it's not not violent is the wrong word, but it's got to be, like, - as controversial as anything that chris or alex will cover| from the politics unit. it's got to be that. - but it's slightly disaggregated in different, you know, - constituencies and councils. but it's got to be thatj controversial as more controversial than maybe - like immigration or something

like that or brexit even. it is of that level, . even though people say planning boring. i think it's tremendously interesting. _ it is a political choice - and if this is going to be even near met, it's going to change in a very significant way. - and it's the one thing that really gets... i mean, like i have sat in those planning committee meetings for years and people turn up to them because they care. you know, people really care about the development that's taking place in their local area, whether they're pro or anti what it looks like. it gets people going. and that's why i think this is it's going to be tricky. but isn't it trying to rebalance it. because actually what about the people that can't afford to get on the housing ladder. they're never going to go to the planning meeting to be in favour of a development that they probably don't even really know is happening. well, it's that sort of thing about what is success and failure in a multi—layered, complex democracy. because, you know, we have these arguments around, say, the expansion of heathrow airport or whatever big building projects is, is a is a multi—layered, advanced democracy working well when there are so many

checks and balances that lots of horrible word. but stakeholders can have a say at one way or another. or is the net result of that an inertia? now, some might think that inertia is a good thing, by the way, and others and others won't. and is it right to have a scenario where the attempt to unblock, as keir starmer might describe it, is to effectively remove democratic power from some actors in the chain? it is. and that's what he's saying. they're sort of trying to lean into that. - yeah. do they want to l have a fight here? completely. they do. they want to have a fight. ijust keep thinking back to a conversation i had last week on newscast with jonathan reynolds, the business secretary, and it was after keir starmer had unveiled his six milestones, one of which is the house—building target. and i was just saying, well, what is going to give? because there's lots of things in the planning system that people like, whether it is protecting the environment or protecting nature, or making sure that local services aren't overwhelmed. which one of those do

you take away to unblock the system as he would see it? and he said, well, think and he said, well, think aboutjudicial review, aboutjudicial review, when things are reviewed when things are reviewed in court, you can't in court, you can't judicially review somebody judicially review somebody because what they've done because what they've done is led to the economy not is led to the economy not growing fast enough. growing fast enough. but then i said, well, but then i said, well, ok, the rule of law ok, the rule of law is one of the things is one of the things that we like having. that we like having. so, what, you're preparing so, what, you're preparing to like get rid of the rule to like get rid of the rule of law when it comes to when it of law when it comes to when it comes to construction? comes to construction? it's like, well, it's like, well, the trade—offs are big. yeah, they are. the trade—offs are big. yeah, they are. and i think there's and i think there's a couple of points. a couple of points. i think the first thing is, i think the first thing is, at the moment, i completely at the moment, i completely agree with faisal that agree with faisal that the government's almost leaning the government's almost leaning into this idea that we're into this idea that we're prepared to take you on. do you know what i mean? prepared to take you on. we think this is we think this is the right approach, the right approach, bring it on. bring it on. but i think what they but i think what they are actually doing are actually doing in practice is trying to sound in practice is trying to sound really tough on councils, really tough on councils, with the threat hanging over with the threat hanging over them, that if you don't get them, that if you don't get on board, then we will step on board, then we will step in and do this, ie take over in and do this, ie take over and decide what bits of land and decide what bits of land that can be built on or not, that can be built on or not, in the hope that councils do in the hope that councils do because it will be much less because it will be much less of a headache. of a headache. it'sjust giving them it'sjust giving them a big shove, isn't it? a big shove, isn't it? a massive shove. a massive shove. it will be interesting it will be interesting to see how far they to see how far they take that in reality. take that in reality.

do you know what i mean? if there is a real local pushback somewhere where they're like, sorry, no chance. what then? _ they actually do in practice will be interesting. but the other point i would say about it is that for opposition what then they actually do in practice but the other point i would say about it is that for opposition parties who are pointing to this and saying, you know, you've got to have local democracy, councils have to have a say. they are also saying, but we do have to build loads more homes, you know. and that hasn't happened. you know, as we've said in successive years to the level that the government is now trying to achieve. i think it also kind of works the other way, though, - that the danger here, | the jeopardy is they're going to back this policy - at the macro level, and then we're going to find in each minister's back yard, - are they really backing this? there's going to be a tonne of examples of that. - there's a bigger point here. which is about house prices. i put to matthew pennycook a couple of months ago, - the housing minister, i said, so at the end i of the result of whatever l it is you're planning before they settled on it, _ are you going to expect house prices to come down? i mean, that would be the, you know, become more . affordable for that army

of people that can't get|

but what comes with that, - which is fascinating and people might be more entertained, might be more entertained, is what does this look- is what does this look- like geographically, like geographically, new towns, what's going to happen? i new towns, what's going to happen? i we're going to let cambridge we're going to let cambridge and oxford grow hugely- and oxford grow hugely- because that's an engine because that's an engine of growth that's - of growth that's - been restrained. been restrained. they are building, - they are building, - i think, a fast train line i think, a fast train line between those two cities. between those two cities. what's going to happen what's going to happen in the middle? - in the middle? - you know, if this - you know, if this - works, the geography works, the geography of england will change substantially. - of england will change substantially. - then you've got the twist then you've got the twist of look at the parliamentary of look at the parliamentary labour party now and where labour party now and where labour have mps, including labour have mps, including in lots of rural, rural seats. in lots of rural, rural seats. fast forward those couple fast forward those couple of years and they can see of years and they can see projects, and then again stood the election on the horizon, the election on the horizon, notjust those, in rural notjust those, in rural seats everywhere. seats everywhere. and they're getting and they're getting a bit of grief locally a bit of grief locally from their local authorities, from their local authorities, from potential constituents. from potential constituents. you know, you have a particular you know, you have a particular project that might be sitting project that might be sitting there for, you know, there for, you know, 300 new houses, whatever it 300 new houses, whatever it might be, and a huge local might be, and a huge local campaign in opposition. campaign in opposition. what do you do? what do you do? and, of course, keir starmer and, of course, keir starmer as a constituency mp, opposed as a constituency mp, opposed hs2 because it goes through. hs2 because it goes through. there are many examples there are many examples of where mps have opposed local of where mps have opposed local house building or other house building or other

projects, and then again stood

up and spoken about the need for us to kind of get building but, yeah, iwon't... the chancellor was in brussels, i got the 6am eurostar over- there, and she's made a big deal of this. _ and she was briefing brusselsjournalists. j and my sense is that you have that, you have a big meeting i today which we'll go on to, | you have one of the foreign ministers also in berlin. and the mood music i get, given their constraints, - is what we have thought of as being quite - a constrained, technical, - small tweak—type move next year in terms of trying toi get closer to europe, what they're calling the reset, that it might be far more - expansive than we think. it won't break their red lines, not rejoin the single market, | the customs union, freedom. of movement, but particularly because of two things that have happened. i they've got a lot of feedbackj since the investment summit from business that are angryl about things like the budget, and they feel like breaking - down some of the trade barriers

that were created from leaving j the single market and customs union in certain sectors. might be a quid pro quo for putting up employers' national insurance contributions. yeah. so if you can, if you can export totally freely - or as near as that as possible in the food sector, _ maybe many goods sectors, that that's a possibility. - and, um, and then, more generally, the sense i got from my brussels contacts were that, you know, - there were a sense of very tough things being put - on the table by the commission. and this would get into the kremlinology here, which is important. and the commission, parts of the commission are very happy with the settlement, and britain is stable - and all that sort of stuff. but the council, - the european council, which is the political- leadership, in a changed world with trump tariffs | going god knows where, they see a real political- impetus in keeping the uk, whose government's instincts is to come back closer- to europe, to lock that in. and i did notice in

rachel reeves�* speech, one of her big priorities to the finance ministers was, oh, we will help you in the battle to keep free trade free. now, that's quite different from what keir starmer says when he's asked to pick a side between donald trump and europe. he says, i'm not going to pick a side, but that's rachel reeves kind of picking the eu side, if she says that. well, and i think, i think. let'sjust pick one example. there's many different things. so the bottom line is i think next year we are actually. going to get a summit, a political declaration, i the eu 27 coming up - with a negotiating mandate, and then a proper negotiation. we're going to feel a littlel bit like it's 2018 and maybe and this is my thesis here. happy new year, adam! my thesis. so brexitcast comes back on youtube. i my thesis here is that - although the bureaucrats don't want to have cake and eat it. they like the deal as it is. it's settled. it's stable. because of the political diplomatic situation, i

there may be some small amounts i of cake on offer, maybe a small. muffin, for the uk in terms of breaking down trade - barriers that exist. and i'm going to throw- something back at you guys, because there's also peoplel in brussels have noticed this really obscure bill that'sl going through the house of commons and house of lords, the product standards _ and metrology bill. right, which apparentlyl gives your former guest, johnny reynolds, the power to align with the eu - in certain areas for goods. and they see this as a route through which you could get a more widespread alignment. now, the politics of that is for you guys to discuss. i certainly, there are businesses that would quite like that. - some of the markets might quite like the idea of all that. - and there's a question. as to is this rowing back on brexit, that whole argument, or is this reflecting _ labour's coalition that has actually elected it, - which is less bothered - about whether the ec] have this power or that power- or its consequences elsewhere? and enter the next item in the diary. just a couple of weeks after the inauguration

of donald trump and the prime minister will head to brussels himself at the beginning of february to meet other european leaders. and what's interesting is that that invite has been sent. but also you've got a prime minister who is saying yes to that invite, because you could imagine more recent prime ministers, when brexit was closer in the rear view mirror, would have not wanted to entertain that kind of trip. and so the context of that off the back of the chancellor's visit and the arrival of donald trump and all of this other stuff that is floating around. i know, from speaking to eu folk that, you know, they, of course, they have clocked that there's been this change of government and that the outlook of this government is very different from its predecessors that where the sentiment within the labour party versus the sentiment within the conservative party, completely different. and that would be, you know, that's quite a thing. you know, you just imagine, the one thing the chancellor going, the prime minister going to meet other european

leaders where he knows he will have some people saying, hang on a minute, he's going to go out and sell out brexit. tells you quite a lot about where they are willing to entertain, evenjust in an optical sense, let alone the detail. that relationship. it is interesting because while they have been so loud and repeatedly talking about the fact that they do want to reset the relationship with europe, they have put that forward as a positive. they have also been quite cautious to publicly say how firm they're sticking to within their red lines and reiterate that because. so it's like whatever the private conversations, i think there's going to still be a very cautious tiptoe around the public messaging about... ijust think my neurones are firing now, just a few like unplanned thoughts. um, i mean, it's so different from the brexit negotiations. just think, the glare of the spotlight that was on every single thing and every utterance of every minister was reported back in brussels and interpreted. i mean, those days are gone now. also, we kind of forget that borisjohnson and lord frost, his negotiator, took an uber

sovereigntist approach to brexit. they were, like, right, nothing that... even things that maybe they might instinctively quite wanted. they were like, no, we're not going to do that because we want to have what people used to call a hard brexit. and so that's totally gone. and ijust think you can once you, once you like deprioritize sovereignty, and once you do it all on the hush hush and make it very much more technocratic, then there's lots of options. and that's us. got to the end of this episode of newscast, which is our last one on bbc one for 202a. so i'll say, have a good christmas break if you get one, and we'll see you again in 2025. bye! bye—bye. happy new year. newscast. newscast from the bbc.

live from london, this is bbc news. nearly a week after bashar al—assad's fall, the bbc visits a military base in syria, uncovering evidence of torture being carried out there. the former manchester city footballer mikheil kavelashvili is elected as georgia's new president amid mass protests by the opposition. france warns of a potentially "heavy" number of casualties

after cyclone chido hits mayotte. and a "spectacular" meteor shower is expected to light up the night sky this weekend all around the world. hello, i'm rich preston. a very warm welcome to the programme, good to have your company. let's begin in the middle east. leaders from the arab world, along with the us secretary of state antony blinken, have been meeting injordan to discuss the future of syria. more on that in a moment. first, nearly a week after the overthrow of the syrian president bashar al assad, more details are emerging about the extent of human rights abuses committed under his rule. the bbc has visited a military base, bombed earlier this week by israel, which revealed evidence of torture being carried out there. our middle east correspondent, lucy williamson, went to the base in damascus — and just to warn you,

her report contains details you may find distressing.