Well, there is a minister for spoons and she listens to newscast and she's very nifty with a voice note.
Hi, newscast, it's Sarah Jones here. I was listening to Sunday's episode and I guess I can claim the Minister for Spoon's title. I'm the Minister for Industry, working on our industrial strategy to create jobs across the country and I represent all the brilliant industries we have in the UK, including companies that make cutlery. So unless anyone else has claimed it, I'm very proud to.
Thank you very much to the Minister for Spoons for revealing herself. I also think a new newscast gimmick may have just been born, which is relatively new government ministers discovering interesting bits of their portfolio that the rest of us might not quite believe, but which turned out to be quite important and quite interesting. You know where to send your voice notes if that's you, Minister. It's 0330-12394.
8-0. So with the mystery of the Minister for Spoons solved, let's find out what else is happening in today's news on this episode of Newscast. Newscast. Newscast from the BBC. I like landscapes. You have a bright future behind you. You think you just fell out of a coconut tree? We're effectively run in this country by a bunch of childless cat ladies. You don't understand the essence of rap. It's the sun police working overtime. It's just getting silly now. Take me down to Downey Street. Let's go have a tour. Blimey.
Hello it's Adam in the Newscast studio and I'm just thinking about what I was doing a thousand days ago when Russia invaded Ukraine and I was standing in Downing Street in a massive rainstorm like many of us have experienced today actually and I was waiting for news from the government's Cobra Emergency Committee about how the UK was going to handle that situation and then I remember
listening very intently to my colleague James Waterhouse, who's our correspondent in Ukraine, standing on a rooftop in Kyiv, talking about what it felt like in the first few hours of that invasion. James has been doing an extra episode of Ukraine cast with Vic and Vitaly, and he also popped into the newscast studio as well to just talk about what's happened in the last thousand days, and also to just brief me on what's been going on
today because Ukraine has fired those American long distance cruise missiles that Joe Biden gave them permission to finally use over the weekend. And also Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, has published Russia's updated doctrine for nuclear war. So lots of quite alarming sounding things that we need to get to the bottom of.
But first of all, we're going to talk about what's happening in Westminster today, which was a very large protest by British farmers. Angry at the change to inheritance tax, which now means agricultural land will be subjected to it, having been exempt from it for many decades. And the person who can update us on the revolt in Wellies. Chris, hello. Hi. Not in Rio.
Not in Rio, not in the sunshine, in a rather soggy Westminster. But hey, telling the big political story today, so all is grand. Now, I want you to recreate your days as a cub reporter on FiveLive when you'd go to events like this all the time. Paint a picture of what this farming demo looked like when all the agricultural types descended on Westminster.
So there's a lot of wellies and a lot of barber jackets and a real sort of sense of rural Britain or a slice of it turning up right in the middle of London. There was tractors big and small, i.e. the real deal and then kids on toy tractors and you know what the farmers were trying to communicate.
was from their perspective the absolute essence of this which is the capacity to hand the farm down the generations and loads of these farmers I was speaking to in a pretty soggy Westminster day in November. Not snowy as it has been in plenty of parts of the UK but certainly soggy and damp and pretty cold.
is that idea of being able to pass things on. Now, and I think this is where you get to the heart of this whole route. So you can make an argument, which the government broadly does, which is that the system is currently unfair, because there are a chunk of people who are currently subject to inheritance tax at 40%, and farmers currently are exempt from all inheritance tax, and the view is that that's a discrepancy that isn't reasonable.
and it should change, it so goes the argument, and it is targeted at those who are rich in terms of their assets. The argument from the farmers is that they might be rich, some of them in terms of their assets, but they're often cash-poor in terms of their annual income. But the crux of this item is that cultural
expectation, if you like, that has been baked in sometimes for centuries that the farm will be passed on to the next generation. So yes, it's a business, but perhaps unlike some other businesses that might not have that longevity, that sends from farmers that that is often the case and that it would be a surprise if one of the next generation don't take it on. And so they see this
this new inheritance tax change as being something that for some of them will stop that happening. And that's where you get to the kind of cultural argument colliding with the political desire for what ministers would see as fairness coupled with a need for, as they see it, more money to come in to pay for schools and hospitals and all the rest of it.
A brilliant summary. Let's zoom in on individual aspects of that then. Should we just spell out what the actual changes are? From April of 2026, we're talking about 18 months off, inherited agricultural assets worth more than a million quid.
that previously were exempt from inheritance tax, will attract inheritance tax of 20%. That's half the rate that other people have charged inheritance tax if you fall within its remit, but it's gone from 0 to 20. Now, there's a bit of an argument, in fact, a massive argument about how many people it would affect, looks like around about 500 estates
per year. The argument that the Prime Minister and others have been making is that in addition to that threshold of a million quid, when you factor in other exemptions, for instance a spouse passing on a farm to their spouse, i.e. when one part of a couple die, by the time you build in those kind of exemptions, it could actually be as high as
three million. Because that also includes the exemption for passing stuff on to your children and grandchildren. Exactly that. Exactly that. But the argument from the farmers over and above that kind of cultural thing that we were talking about is the sense that you can very easily hit quite big numbers because of the value of land and the value of equipment and the value of livestock. So there's another thing, Adam, that again is sort of central to this, which when you spend a day in conversation with farmers and indeed them with folk and government, you sort of
wrestle with and get a greater sense of, which is there's a big question. What does it mean to be rich? What is being rich? Because when you talk to a lot of these farmers, lots of big numbers get thrown around. I will, by the time I end up the value of my farm, it would be well over two million pounds. You think, my goodness, it's a lot of people, vast majority of people, it's an impossibly big number. That screams a sense of wealth to some people.
But then the farmers make the argument, but look, we never attach a value to it in numerical terms, because we've no intention of ever selling it, because the idea is that you pass it on. It's not a liquid asset. Completely that. It's not a liquid asset in a mentality sense. Even if somebody wanted to come along and was offering the money,
they wouldn't countenance in most instances talking to people today the idea of selling it because this is the family silver if you like. This is what's going to pass down the generations and there's every expectation and desire that that should be something that will happen. So I think that's why you get to the what some might see
as an outside sense of anger, given that this is a tax change that is suggesting certain people should pay half the rate of attacks that other people who are charged it pay, well, at double. And there's just this interesting argument over numbers. You instat it there about how many people could be affected by this. And so the treasury numbers are 500 and that a year. And that's based on the number of farms that were claiming the existing exemption under the existing scheme.
Every year and so the government has sort of extrapolated from that saying well you could expect 500 states a year to be affected by the change but then the farmers Lobbyists they all say well actually they're using a number of 70,000 but you look into that and that's basically just the number of farms that fit the criteria that mean that they'd be affected by the change that's not really a measure of how many
farms where the owner would die each year and then pass it on to their children so that they'd be caught in this inheritance tax net. That's just the total number of farms in theory that could be affected. It's not comparing the like with like. It's not comparing the treasury number with the farmer's numbers. Exactly. I have to explain that super well. But then there's another element of this which kind of
If you like gold plates, something that has long been known at Westminster, but this is really illustrating, which is that inheritance tax is disproportionately wildly unpopular given how relatively few people pay it. I'm talking about farmers here. I'm talking about society as a whole. It's a handful of percent of
estates, you know, in the word sort of assets that are left by someone who dies every year, that attract any inheritance tax bill. And yet you look, I was reading this the other day on the House of Commons library website. They citing various opinion polls say that inheritance tax is the single most unpopular
Now, why is that? Well, people might aspire to earn the kind of money or generate the kind of wealth that might mean that one day they fall within its remit, even if at the moment they don't. And then there's a sense from some that it's double taxation, that you've been taxed on that wealth once before, often, not always, but often.
And here you are being taxed again. And that it strikes, and this is where it overlaps, and if you like, is gold-plated by this particular example with the farmers. It is an attempt to take on, yes, an argument that its proponents say is about kind of leveling out wealth from one generation to the other so that you don't have guaranteed wealth because of the guaranteed wealth of previous generations, or at least a bit less.
But it is also seeking via the state to take on what many would see as the most basic of human instincts, which is to look after the next generation. And then when you layer on the kind of cultural expectations that often exist in farming, perhaps little wonder, we've got a row of this kind of scale. And Vicki Young, who is in Rio, was asking the Prime Minister about it. And so let's hear his robust defense of this change to the inheritance tax system.
I do understand their concerns. What I've pointed out is firstly that at the budget we put five billion pounds into farming over the next two years. That's the single biggest amount of money that's being put into farming because I want to support our farmers, our sustainability of our food grown in the UK. So we put that amount of money and we also put money in to deal with flooding and the outbreak of disease, huge concerns for farmers.
on the question of inheritance, which is obviously the issue of concern. If you take a typical case, which is parents who want to pass on their farm to one of their children, which would be a very typical example, by the time you've built in the other income tax thresholds, it's only those with assets over three million pounds that would begin to pay inheritance tax. And that's why I'm very confident that the vast majority
of farms will be totally unaffected by this position. So that was the Prime Minister. Chris, what is your take on the appearance in this protest and this debate of Jeremy Clarkson? What is the political significance of him? The political significance of him is his capacity to attract attention. He's kind of, if you like, lifelong knack, really. It's funny, isn't it? Because if you sort of rewound 10 years or whatever,
Do you think Jeremy Clarkson at a sort of farming demo? But now because of the success of Clarkson's farm, his TV show, and his sort of lifelong, cognaceous capacity to make a forceful argument and attract support from those who like that argument and attract criticism from those,
who don't. He is a kind of disproportionately big figure in all of this. Now it's slightly awkward and it's kind of something that he acknowledges because he came to farming late in life. He said publicly an interview in the Sunday Times that part of his motivation was
inheritance tax that you could buy land that wouldn't be therefore subject to inheritance. He also wanted to take up and have his own space, his own land for shooting, and then obviously set up the farm that his TV show documents. But I think he was
conscious today that he wanted to be there in support, but at the same time conscious that, I guess, you know, he might help double down the conviction of those who already agree with him and with the farmers, to what extent his arguments are used for one in broadening the sense of support for the farmers.
question mark. Also, just before we started recording this episode of Newscaster, half past six on Tuesday evening, we all got an email from conservative HQ with an attachment, which was a picture, check your emails of Kenny Baidonok. There's still relatively new leader of the opposition meeting Jeremy Clarkson after the protest in CC HQ. She is really doubling down on this as one of her issues, isn't she? I know she really is. She really is. I'm just thinking. And they want us to know that they're doubling down on it.
Yeah, I'm just thinking through my emails, but the Wi-Fi is not strong enough. It opens. Yeah, no, no, totally that. So she was out on the farm in Buckinghamshire. I think it was the other day they see this as a kind of colossal stick that they can beat the government with. They are seeking to broaden it to an argument as they see it of a kind of city dwelling, Labour government not understanding rural
Britain, and we've been around this political bloc before if you rewind 20 odd years in the countryside alliance and the protests that sprung out of the arguments around fox hunting, and there are some parallels here. An issue that is relatively niche, even within rural Britain,
but then mushroomed into this far wider conversation about a perception from some that the government of the day didn't really understand a significant slice of the country. Now, who knows where and for how long this argument rumbles, but that's certainly an argument that's being prosecuted by.
the Conservatives to a degree by Jeremy Clarkson, by the Liberal Democrats and others, and it's a vulnerability clearly for the government. What's interesting with Labour now, given the stonking majority they have, is they've got dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of MPs who represent genuinely rural seats around the UK, and how that then manifests itself in terms of the fleas being placed in various after days like today,
and where the government ends up could prove interesting. The government for now is absolutely insistent. It's not going to about turn and the farmers are absolutely insistent. This is just the start. So something's going to have to give. And you and I have both spent time outside the European Parliament. We're fairly regularly they'd be manure or milk dumped outside the door of the parliamentarians. So that could be what we have in store.
Yeah, and when you speak to farmers here, they note that the tactics of their European cousins are often more pugnacious than the, if you like, more kind of classically British instinct of protesting British farmers. What was really striking today? Not surprising, because they'd said they wanted to do this, but it was incredibly polite. It was almost like a classic British
kind of classic Britishness through a prism of morality on the streets of London. They were determined to be warm and polite and reasonable in how they came across because they think at the moment they have public support and they are determined to hold on to that and not create reasons why people might conclude that they're wrong.
Chris, thank you very much. Now we're going to catch up with our key correspondent James Waterhouse, who has spent the last thousand days covering the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But he's over here in the UK for a couple of days. So this is a great opportunity to pick his brains about just what's been happening over the last thousand days and also two news stories that have happened today.
The Ukrainians have launched those American attackums long-range cruise missiles into Russian territory for the first time and very quickly after the US President Joe Biden authorized their use over the weekend. And Russian President Vladimir Putin has published a new doctrine for how Russia would approach a potential nuclear conflict.
That's something that the Russians have been working on for a couple of months now, but surprise, surprise, they published it today, presumably linked to the military moves by the US and Ukraine. So let's listen to my conversation, which was quite bleak in some places I have to say, but it's quite a bleak situation with James Waterhouse.
James, hello. Hello, Adam. Nice to see you on our sofa rather than on a rooftop in Kyiv. It's warmer. Also, can you give me the actual textbook pronunciation of Kyiv? It's like a Kyiv. Kyiv. I think a bunch of Kyiv singular. Not the most important issue today. What do we know about this Ukrainian use of these long-range American missiles into Russian territory?
So it's what Ukraine has wanted for so long. They have wanted the green light to use these, whether it's attacking missiles from the US, whether it's storm shadows from the UK, they are extremely effective, they pack a punch and they're very precise. But the West has said, we're not going to allow it because there's always a fear of World War 3.
And here we are with the outgoing Biden administration saying, yes, you can do it. We have both sides in terms of Russia and US officials confirming the targeting of a weapons depot in the Russia's Briance region, which is further north. The West is saying it was successful. Russia is saying most were intercepted, but clearly it's a step change in that regard. But the feeling is it's too little too late. No one is talking about this changing the tide. It's simply Ukraine now trying to improve its position.
Why would they have attacked this depot in Brienzk? If it was manufacturing or storing weapons and ammunition, and if you're Russia, you do that at a sizable scale, that directly hinders troops further forward to fight. War is about supply lines and stockpiles. So it doesn't matter how many troops you've got fighting in a trench. It doesn't matter how many you've got. If you haven't got enough food, if you haven't got wet
Weather gear, warm gear, if you haven't got ammunition coming forward, medical trucks going back and forth, missiles being launched, artillery behind you, then you're unable to fight. And the last good news story for Ukraine in terms of the battlefield in 2022, when they liberated her son in the south, notably, they were able to isolate thousands of Russian soldiers by taking out the supply lines, these routes and forcing them in the end to retreat, because the frontline kind of collapses on itself.
And that sport has always got me about this conflict that here in the UK, a lot of the kind of the news is high level stuff about, oh, does Germany authorize the use of F-16 fighter jets? These attack comes from the US so they get authorized. But actually a lot of the reporting you guys have done is about homemade drones dropping grenades on people and it's quite low tech. And so the war kind of exists on those two very different planes.
It's endless, right? So with those drones you talk about, they've created this kind of pressure, this inertia on the front lines, where both sides have innovated, they use them. So it's incredibly difficult for soldiers to move in any kind of numbers when you've got these either these kamikaze drones flown by a skilled pilot that can just zero in on you. And I've seen endless footage of soldiers
either losing limbs or being killed as a result. They can drop grenades. I mean, it's extraordinary the level of technology. And then you have the big moves like the F16 fighter jets, like attacking missiles, like Abraham's tanks and the like. But then you have the geopolitics above that and all of this decision making. But all the while Ukraine is on the receiving end.
of this, this invasion. But just to go back to the attack on story today, would you say we need to keep a sense of proportion? Because when you first get the BBC news push alert saying Russian officials say these weapons have been used on Russian soil for the first time, it's quite alarming. But you would recommend that we keep that alarm kind of in proportion. Yes. Look at the whole thing. Of course, when you have Russia saying we have changed the criteria for how we would use nuclear missiles
Oh yeah, so let's unpack that because that is what happened today in response to this use of this new weapon, Russia announced that they're kind of like their handbook for how they would start a nuclear war has been rewritten. How have they rewritten it? In the past, it was if a nuclear power directly attacks Russia, if Russia faces an existential threat, now it's saying if a non-nuclear power
attacks Russia's sovereignty with the backing of a nuclear power, which it argues is what is happening here with Ukraine. Should we take it seriously? Of course, because if there is a misstep or a miscalculation or a miscommunication between the Western Russia, then things could escalate.
But we could be talking about a tactical nuclear weapon, which is smaller, but they are still very nasty. They could destroy large parts of a town which would represent an escalation. But there is a real frustration out of inside Ukraine among experts and Ukrainians that the word nuclear is hogging the headlines. An escalation could be a cyber attack on the West. It could be an act of sabotage on an oil pipeline, for example.
And what Ukraine argues is that escalation has not happened yet. So all the while, Western help is slow in their eyes because of these fears of an escalation. And Russia hasn't stepped it up because Vladimir Putin knows it is argued that if he was to escalate in that way, there could well be a response from the West. And because of the losses he suffered in Ukraine, it might not be a risk he wants to take.
Okay, so sort of zooming out at just the kind of bigger picture about what is happening in Ukraine, I find it quite hard to keep track of who's where, where the front is, who's taking territory, who's losing territory. And part of me thinks the reason I'm confused is because it's confusing. And it's hard to actually sum up. Yeah, I mean, I would you sum up where we've got to.
You're right. You look at the map. If you're casually looking at the war, and fair enough, whenever I come back to the UK and the taxi driver asks, what's going on in Ukraine? How long is the journey? Exactly. What do you think drops me off early? That's the point. It's very hard to follow. You look at the map. Russia, broadly speaking, is occupied of 5th.
of Ukraine, but Ukraine is still a massive country. But Russia is inching forward, not in one area, not in two, but in three or four main areas. What does that mean? It's more than a map. We are talking about towns, villages and cities that are sitting very nervously. And I've seen countless cities
Prokrosk has talked about a lot at the moment. Over the two years, we visited there. The hotel we stayed in, the hotel, Druzhba has been destroyed. The American diner in the city was directly hit. I have no idea what happened to the staff there, whether they were there. You could hear artillery in the background when I was there a few months ago. Russians are now pressing the edge of
The city, and it happens over and over. There's now been an exodus once more. People came back initially and they've gone again. And eventually, if a city is captured like Evdivka, like back Mooten, like Soledar, you have the sight of a Russian soldier plonking a Russian flag down in a sea of ruin.
and they call it liberation, and that is what it means. You have the erosion of a country right before us. You have the erosion of Ukrainian culture, the language, it's identity in some places. And once people are occupied, they struggle to communicate beyond Russia or Russian controlled territory. They consume state TV. It's a security state. They're really tight restrictions on day-to-day life. And that's a lot to be frightened of on a day-to-day basis.
The conversation in the last couple of weeks has sort of turned to the pressure that might be put on Zelensky when Trump goes back to the White House to basically go to the negotiating table with Putin and ultimately give up some Ukrainian territory to end a conflict. Can you see any kind of pressure like that coming from the Ukrainian people?
Do people there want to end the conflict and maybe end it in a way that's less advantageous to them than a thousand days ago? I think there is a pattern in that there is less of a desire to keep fighting. I think the latest polling showed
it was dropping to around 50% or thereabouts. I think we've come across a minority of voices, certainly those who live close to the front lines, who just have seen enough death and destruction. They've had enough, and they see a Donald Trump presidency as perhaps a way of having an out, no matter what. We're not going to get it back as the feeling, you know, like, let's just, you know, let's just,
have a reprieve of some sort. There are others, you know, there's a woman we spoke to recently, Olga, in her son. And, you know, she is, her son is shelled every day. It was occupied. It was liberated again. It's uninhabitable in my view. It's incredibly dangerous. And yet people there tell you this is still better than being occupied. The idea of living alongside, you know, Russian occupiers is a non-starter because throughout the 11 years of Russian aggression, whenever there's been a peace treaty, Russia just goes back on it.
And fighting breaks out again and Vladimir Putin. He still wants the hold of Ukraine. So there are domestic pressures. President Zelensky is less popular than he was. There are men frightened of being mobilized with a controversial law. The people who volunteered did so long ago. So yeah, it is not just about the geopolitics here. The rug could well be pulled domestically.
Yesterday, Steve Rosenberg was chatting to us from Moscow, and he was talking about the economic impact on people's daily lives, so just that inflation is through the roof, so when you go to buy groceries, the effect of the Ukraine war is that groceries are very expensive, irrespective of whether people have lost relatives at the front in huge numbers. What's an example from daily life in Ukraine that kind of just brings home what's happening there?
For me, it's strange you get moved at different moments when you're near the front line or near in an eastern town. You're kind of prepared for what you see and you see people that just, they wear a stress on their face. If you see a soldier who's been fighting, they have this darkness
cross their eyes. I've never seen it before. And you sort of wonder what they've seen and experienced. And you wonder if they're ever going to have a, well, they'll have that all the rest of their lives. Yeah, yeah, yeah, essentially. But then in other cities, you look around and you think, oh, there's, there are more women here. There are more older people and kids, no men. Very few you can see. And that kind of moves you and you, you realize this, the implications that will have for Ukraine going forward.
you sit in a hospital in a rehab centre and you watch a man come in with a missing limb or serious burns every minute. There's just a supply line of soldiers coming in and you wonder what their future looks like. And we went to a flat the other day, a high-rise flat that was hit by a Russian drone. These drones come in their dozens every night. You go to bed, the sirens go off at 11 p.m.
And I confess, I sometimes lie there and think, I just can't move. I just need to sleep. That's what Ukrainians across the country live with. And then we went to a flat that was hit. It was completely hollowed out by the impact, 45 kilos of explosives in the end of a warhead. And a 14 year old girl who's chilling in her bed, you come home early,
was killed straight away and she burned in that bed and her parents gave me a tour of the flat and they were sat, they showed me the living room, they were sat watching the TV which had melted from the fire and that just completely blindsided me because it connects it. We talk about the politics, don't we? We talk about them.
F-16 fighter jets, we talk about maps, but this is happening all the time at any point in the country. I don't know if you've sat on this sofa earlier on this week with Victoria and Vitaly to do an episode of Ukraine cast to mark a thousand days. I just wonder, is there something from a thousand days ago
that's just worth remembering when we think of what's happening now, because I can remember a thousand days ago getting the phone call in my old job at 4 o'clock in the morning, get to Downing Street, the war has started, Russia's invaded, it was a massive thunderstorm, so actually the weather was very similar to how it's been today, and at that point there was a giant column of armoured vehicles heading towards Kyiv, and it looked like
Russia had a pretty good chance of seizing the whole country. And the thing I always have to remember is the situation we're in now might be bleak for Ukraine, but it's so different from how it looked in those first few days. And that's the thing I think is worth remembering about how different this has ended up, from how we thought it was going to end up in those first few days. I completely agree. And I think that will be brought up. So I've just Ukraine's planes to you. I do apologize. But you're right. But from my job, that's the thing I keep in mind. Yeah, of course. And I think that will be brought up.
on a political level when Ukraine is being urged to negotiate. You've made it this far. I completely agree. There was a US general who said, if Russia does it, if they launched this full-scale invasion, Kiev will fall in 72 hours. And we as a team were calculating what that would mean for us. Can we still get out? Should we get out? If we stay, can we still report?
what will the Russian soldiers do with us? And we were surrounded by Ukrainians looking on their phones, seeing their family, their parents' house on fire in countless places. It was a fear like I've never seen in streets emptied. There were queues at ATMs, cars were just left on the streets. I remember at the station in Kiev, there were cars just piled up at the sides of the road where people had just gone, grabbed a bag, one way ticket. They were heading west.
but it's 72 hours. That was how long it was thought. On paper Russia should have done it, but they acted on faulty intelligence. They thought they'd be welcomed in open arms and of course they were met with a Western trained, motivated Ukrainian army who were prepared to fight back. And that will be an extraordinary chapter in history when we can take stock. The problem is we can't yet take stock.
This is a story of survival. Ukraine is still standing, but there are, I think, well-grounded concerns that even if you have a deal signed with, say, Turkey is a mediator to the United Nations, whoever.
They will be the understandable fear that the world will look elsewhere. Donald Trump will focus on domestic issues and Vladimir Putin will maintain his war economy. He will mobilize more of his country and they will have another push. And it's a very difficult existence for a country that politically wants to be aligned with the West.
It wants to be in the European Union. It wants to be in the NATO alliance. Those two prospects are as distant as ever. Ultimately, Russia's probably succeeded in pulling Ukraine back in some way. The cost has been huge, but Ukraine technically is still standing as a democratic country.
Well, James, thank you very much. My pleasure. Thanks for having me. And you can listen to more of James and his reflections of the last 1000 days in that special episode of Ukraine cast with Vic and Vitaly, which is available now on BBC sounds. And that's all for this podcast. Thank you very much for listening and we'll be back with you with another one very soon. Bye bye.
From one newscaster to another, thank you so much for making it to the end of this episode. You clearly do, in the words of Chris Mason, ooze stamina. Can I also gently encourage you to subscribe to us on BBC Sounds?
Tell everyone you know and don't forget you can email us anytime at newscast at bbc.co.uk or, if you're that way inclined, send us a WhatsApp on plus 440-330-123-9480. Be assured, I promise you listen to everyone.
