BBC sounds, music, radio, podcasts. Now, Patty, now you've finished adjusting your quiff. We can talk about the serious business of the week. People might remember last weekend, we shall I say, joshed about whether or not there was a minister for spoons. We did, however, discover that there is a minister for spoons. Yes.
Sarah Jones. And she was a good enough sport to talk to Newscast about this, as if you were paying attention, Newscasters, you'll have learned earlier in the week. However, what is the most unusual thing there's a minister for? We wonder. Yes. Well, because I use it as a sort of, uh, super K.
For mid-bulletin issues, Minister for Spoon says there aren't enough spoons. Yes. Then we do an interview on the radio about it, in which we normally say, I'm sorry, we haven't got enough time. We can't go on. We have to stop you there, Minister. Minister, going, but I just want to make it clear that there aren't enough spoons. And you go, no, sorry, you have to leave it there.
So, my equivalent, super K, would normally be the Minister for Paperclips. And every week, I think, oh, no, we only could get the Minister for Paperclips instead of the Foreign Secretary or the Defense Secretary or the Prime Minister. But I don't know if there is a Minister for Paperclips. But also, it gets back. We were sort of talking about this a bit with Louise Haig. It's not a bad thing to be a Minister with a point of view or an interest in anything. It's interesting how Labour's going to play. Can I say what I think? Can I be an individual?
That's right. And it also is a reminder just actually of how massive the reach for government of government is. And in a democracy like ours, actually, we do expect the government to have a handle on absolutely everything, whether it is spoons or paperclips or defence or foreign affairs or all these hugely serious things. And it is an interesting thing to observe, as you suggest, labour still going through the sort of growing pains of working out.
how actually they do government and how they should respond and we are grateful to Sarah Jones for getting in touch with us to talk about her job. Maybe you need a new super K, but what we have no shortage of spoons or otherwise is really big serious things to talk about this weekend. So we probably now should get on with this episode of Saturday's newscast.
Newscast. Newscast from the BBC. I like Landscast. I don't think I'm being rude. Japping. Unemployed people who are overweight. That is not the agenda. It's the fun police working overtime. A star is born, Elon! So hurt that America with this hat. Actually, I think we need a British Trump. Take me down to Downing Street. Let's go have a tour. Blimey. Hello, it's Laura in the studio.
It's Paddy in the studio and it's very nice to be reunited with you. So we used to talk, didn't we, about how there was no weekend news class and now it's everything everywhere all at once. And one of the big interventions that's taken the news world newsrooms by surprise is Gordon Brown's come out with a very harrowing and personal account into the to influence the debate about assisted dying.
That's right. So the vote on the bill to introduce assisted dying is coming up at the end of next week. And everybody knows how sensitive and emotive an issue this is for people on all sides of the debate, for those with strong feelings and those with none. This is clearly an issue that people
touches them in their part. Every family has a story. And Gordon Brown has come out very strongly, and I think very passionately, but with a sharing of an incredibly painful story about the loss of he and his wife Sarah's baby girl, Jennifer, some years ago. And he's written an opinion piece for the Guardian paper, and he's talking to one of our fellow programs on Radio 4 tomorrow morning.
And the experience of spending those days with Jennifer in her very short life are not days that he would have ever have wanted to exchange. So despite the pain, the heartbreak of losing a tiny baby, he writes that actually those days with her before she died just a few days into her life were days that he and his wife Sarah will treasure forever. And it's in that context
that he makes a very emotional and powerful case for saying we are not ready as a country to consider assisted dying because even the closing days of life are precious and the closing days of somebody's life are just as precious as any day of anyone's life. And I think it is a very significant intervention because of course as a former Labour Prime Minister, Labour MPs listen to him. They are the people who have to make this decision.
And also he suggests, I suppose, a way out of this, because Labour's split on this as a party, it's not a party political issue. And this sort of binary, should we do it, or should we not do it, vote? It's very difficult for them from a political point of view. And what Gordon Pride is saying is, look, he understands that people want to move forward with this as a nation and other countries have done it.
but why not take a pause, have something like a royal commission where you could have a genuine national conversation and essentially have a really good deep think about this. Yeah, because that's criticism as well that's come that the previous time nearly a decade ago when Parliament considered this, it said they had seven weeks of time to ponder it and this time the critics say it's 18 days.
But actually two things, an opinion poll of the public has been published showing that more than 70% of the public broadly expect an assisted dying permission to be given. It's hard to use the word want because it's a serious matter. Parliament is with divided on conscience.
My question would be, what's likely to happen? How's the Prime Minister going to vote? And what do you think is the impact of the intervention of Diane Abbott? Also, who's the other? Edward Lee. Edward Lee. So the mother and father of the house. I was going to say the oldest parliamentarians. I don't mean the oldest parliamentarians. I mean, the people who've served the longest as MPs are known as the mother and the father of the house. And they've come together to write a piece
also expressing concern, but there are lots of other people. Yvette Cooper has been out this week saying that she backs the bill. Liz Kendall, another cabinet minister who's on the program with us tomorrow. She's backing the bill. Kim Ledbetter, of course, who's the Labour MP who's put this four words, backs it very strongly. I think it's very
understandable that this is not, and completely proper that this is not a party political issue. However, there are politics in this, because the government has given this time in Westminster. We know that the Prime Minister is in favour of this change, although he doesn't really want to talk about it now.
We know also it's just awkward to have cabinet ministers out there expressing different views because, you know, unity is powerful in politics and having them out there saying different things. That's just awkward, even debating whether or not they should be saying different things. And there is a sense of people have been speaking to a government in the last couple of days of actually, was it the right thing to allow this to go ahead at this moment? So early on. Yeah, and they've got so much else to be getting on with.
It's really, really difficult. There are lots of big unanswered questions, like would the NHS be expected to help do this? Or would it be to happen in some other kind of mechanism? How would the government be able to sort of manage this, in how it would actually translate from being a kind of intellectual debate with a vote attached to something that actually
happened in the real world. And I think there are a lot of nerves. You know, someone even suggests to me that there might be government ministers who vote for it, but actually hope it doesn't go through. It's got hints, actually, of the Brexit referendum. It does. Because that was also a position where cabinet ministers were allowed to express disagreements, but were asked politely, please don't press the muscular button, please just be sort of intellectual, don't be emotive. And that was very problematic for David Cameron.
It's hugely problematic. And David Cameron, I think, sort of thought it would be fine and thought that it would all be civil. Now, we're not saying that this is going to end up in some kind of four year horrific political civil war, but it's interesting you make that parallel because somebody in government made that parallel to me yesterday.
This little girl might end up being a bit like Brexit, not that they're going to be all sort of, you know, hideous infighting, but that you enter into a public period of disagreement on something that is profoundly important. And it's just kind of messy. Well, it's Wizard of Oz, isn't it? You've opened the curtain on cabinet government and it's meant to look like this. And suddenly it looks like someone's got to tell Wes Streeting to get back in his box.
That's right. And other people are saying, actually, where's treating is completely right? Because he's pointing out what the potential, there might be potential costs and impacts on the health service. And other people, as you say, suggest that he should get back in his books. But I just wonder, I think some of our viewers and listeners also think that you've had quite a lot of emails on this subject. Kind of think, well, hang on a minute. Why are we suddenly talking about this now? This wasn't in a party manifest. And we'd just been through a huge democratic exercise of a general election. But no, we voted on this.
And actually, if people will remember, I know in Newscastersville, because they're a smart bunch of people, this came about because Esther Ranson, who is herself Tamleil, said publicly that she thought it should be debated, made a sort of request, I suppose, in a very moving interview with our colleagues at the Today program. Keir Starmer responded to Esther Ranson saying, yes, if we win the election, I'll give this parliamentary time.
And there is a sense, and a couple of people have always been there, that actually did they quite realize what they would be opening up when they gave what seemed to be, I suppose, quite a kind of harmless answer on a very serious subject. But yes, of course, of course you would want to grant that wish. And we know what Kiar Starmer's personal position was. And actually, as you said, drum back the curtains on something, and you go, oh, OK. Yeah. And in the meantime, as it's been discussed,
a large number, an unusually large number of people have been writing to us, your program, my program we're ready for, and our newscast colleagues. We've got messages on both sides of the argument. So Ian,
said, as a 50-year-old father with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, I'm deeply concerned about the ongoing calls for assisted dying legislation. Should we not be assisting living and affirming the inherent value of human life? And this is kind of what Gordon Brown's intervention is. And in reading this out, we're not seeking to influence anyone's opinion or influence the debate. I can now read another one. I'm just saying this is kind of what Gordon Brown is saying.
This is the intervention of Hormone. We're reporting the intervention of Hormone. We know there are very many people, including a serranson who wants us to adopt it. But this has touched the live wire part of the national conversation.
It's definitely worth seeing, though, that the UK is not the only country that's been considering this. We're talking to the Belgian minister tomorrow, actually, which has got very liberal laws on euthanasia. It's possible in the Netherlands, obviously, in Canada as well, in some states of America. So there was a sense at the beginning of this debate that this is kind of the progressive direction of travel, and that most politicians would want to be on the side of that.
And in the Scottish Parliament, for example, there is already legislation, it hasn't gone through yet, but legislation has already been put through and it has, legislation is already on the books in Holyrood, although there's a debate about whether or not it's actually within the powers of the Scottish Parliament to pass this law. But you know, the law that's been put forward by Kim Ledbetter is not a kind of outrider. This is something that's happened in lots of places.
But I don't think it's certain at all that it's going to pass when it actually comes to a vote. And up until the vote, we will definitely continue to share your messages and your reviews to try and include the public in the conversation. So do keep them coming in. So if you haven't heard your view represented in what I've read out, you will do this week. And also after the vote on Friday, we're having a special edition of Newscars.
The other story really of the week is the use of long-range missiles by Ukraine into Russia supplied by the United States, the UK and possibly France. So your rate has been a huge story this week also including Putin striking back
with an intercontinental ballistic missile for the first time. So he fired a big missile that can go a very, very, very long way for the first time. So both of those things have been junctions, if you like, in what's been a very serious week in Ukraine. Yesterday, I sat down to speak to the French Foreign Minister Jean-Paul Barot. And it was very interesting in the context of what's happened this week that he was completely clear that France explicitly has said that Ukraine can use French
supplied long-range missiles to fire into Russia. He said that would be in the logic of self-defense. He said that there were, there shouldn't be any red lines set at all in terms of Western support for President Zelensky and he wouldn't rule out even troops going to help alongside Ukrainians. We will support
Ukraine as intensely and as long as necessary. Why? Because it is our security that is at stake. Each time the Russian army progresses by one square kilometer, the threat gets one square kilometer closer to Europe.
Now, President Macron has indicated in May that he might be willing for this to happen, that France didn't have a problem with its missiles being used in that way. But obviously in the context of the UK and the US actually doing it, not firing them themselves, but allowing Ukraine to fire them in that way, it takes on a new significance. So it was really interesting to speak to him at that moment. He was the first French foreign minister for several years, actually, to come and meet the British Foreign Secretary, which
tells you something about what relationships have been like on either side of the channel. But he was very clear that this was an option. He was also said that France hasn't always taken this position. He also said that countries should be open to Ukraine joining NATO. He said they were trying to encourage other allies.
to come to that view that Ukraine should be able to join the defence partnership of NATO, which, of course, is one of President Zelensky's absolute key demands. And one of Vladimir Putin's red lines. Absolutely. You could see, we've said on Newscast before, most wars end at the table. The question you should ask is, where's the table? Who's round the table? What's the timeline for getting the table out?
We don't often talk about that, but we've started to because of the arrival of President Donald Trump saying it'll be over by his inauguration, the war without saying how. President Zelensky is saying he's aware of the transition, meaning the war will end in 2025. In that gap has come
Joe Biden's permission and Vladimir Putin's response, the most unstable escalation in a year, if not longer, just in the transition. So it's all connected to what's happening in the White House, of course. It is completely. And last week on the use card, you said that it was not out of the question that there could be a change on the use of long range weapons. That was something you said last week.
Well, we were just wondering, right, if Biden, as somebody suggested to me, that Biden might use his last couple of months in the White House to try to make a difference in Ukraine, to try to move things forward, to try to put them in the strongest possible position before Trump arrives, and he does whatever he's going to do to try to bring all this to a conclusion. And in the last few days, I've written about it for the website today. I've been talking to people's sort of defense sources and people inside and outside government.
And one of the things that struck me was, well, lots of things are really interesting. But someone said to me, he's very connected to all of this, said, look, everybody knows now there's a negotiation coming. And therefore, we have to do two things. And this was two parts of a strategy were suggested to me.
independently by different sources, is one is you have to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position in terms of that negotiation. And it was suggested that was to really make some progress in Kursk so that they had something to trade, which is in Russia, sorry, I should have said that. So they had something to sort of trade. So there's a question of keep the money flowing, keep the munitions flowing, do things like allow long-range missiles to be fired, continue to have a united Western
approach to this and I'm sure our interview with Sean Melbarov from France is, you know, no coincidence in the part of that clearly. He was very keen to get that message of support for Ukraine across. The second part of a strategy that was sort of described to me by different sources was how you handle President Trump.
And someone put it to me this way, they said, you have to get him in a frame of mind, use the art of the deal. Big up hit, which of course was his book, big up his sort of strength as a negotiator and say, look, you want to be the guy that stopped the war, not the guy that lost Ukraine. But there is concern in the circles of people that I've been speaking to, that the sense that's coming out of Florida,
Trump world before it moves to DC is that there is potentially the incentive for Russia will be go to the negotiating table and ease up on your sanctions. The message to Ukraine may be go to the table or be cut off your aid and it was suggested to me that's not a very fair and balanced approach because it's like all carrot for Russia.
And I'll stick for Ukraine, but obviously this is a very, very movable feast. So many different pieces of this jigsaw, but it's a very, as you said, there's a sort of moment of what feels like have maximal uncertainty and maximum peril. Everyone said to me, everyone's waiting to see what the Trump offer is.
And also the Europeans have got to decide how much money to spend on their own defense. We're getting a check from the American taxpayer. In fact, we use this phrase check. Adam Fleming always points out, partly anyone writes checks anymore. But... Oh, he's so young. Yeah. Billions and billions and billions of American money in an era where Americans have just voted for America first, going to the defense of European nations, some of whom are very wealthy,
in a post-war order, which is changing, slash has changed because the Russians have imported troops from North Korea to the front line. That's an escalation, which is why the West said it needed to respond. You need to tell Putin we see your North Korean troops and we raise you missiles.
That's kind of, unfortunately, the era I grew up in, Cold War logic. This is, we're back to the future. We're back to those criminology days, how to read signals sent by troops, missiles, all with the framework of the change in the White House, I know. But it is basically, it won't have escaped Newscaster's attention, that this is all men with rockets.
You know, there's no woman in this picture. There's no powerful person really trying to bring these people together as we speak at the moment. It's just a lot of men fighting with the walls of their fathers with a lot of weapons. Or you make a really interesting point there that the Foreign Minister made to me this week has said, look, actually,
the period of the sort of early nineties to the mid 2000s look like russia was looking with a friendly eye to the west nearly joined nato they were suggesting to me that was an aberration, and essentially we're back with something that we lived with, kind of forever they said either a new cold war maybe even a dirty war whatever you want to call it they actually said get used to it this is what we've lived with forever.
And if we had a Russian sympathy, it would be wise for Western nations to remind the Russian people that we don't have beef with the Russian people. We have beef with a system where political dissent is punished by death. President Putin's rivals fall out of windows and blow up an airplane.
We have a democratic system. The front line at the moment appears to be Ukraine. So we do know which side we're on. But it is very delicate. Also, of course, the thing is that Russia has a complex going back hundreds of years to powers coming from the West, sweeping across the flat part of Europe and going towards Moscow. That is in their history. And they are right to have that in the memory of being invaded. That's part of it.
Is it being exploited by Vladimir Putin? Yes. Is he increasingly a despot? Yes. And what's going to happen is it's been compressed into this timeframe. And I think your interview with the French Foreign Minister is a sign. It's a time to pick sides. And if you've been rowing about migrants in the channel and Brexit, this is existential. So you need to get your meetings out and you need to get going. That's the whole point.
Well, it's one of the reasons I think clearly why he was here. I think John Hayley, the defence secretary, is heading back, I think, to Berlin, or certainly to meet again with the Germans and the French and continue this sort of round or visible, visible unity. But then also he talks people in the sort of...
defense circles here, and some of them are really frustrated that they think that allies have not all been pulling an equal weight. Obviously, the US, the UK, the polls, all of it's been giving significant amounts of support. And the Germans. But, you know, we've talked about it before, haven't we? There's always this sense, and if President Macron said this, he said that Western leaders should be humble about this, that what's happened has often been too late. You know, Zelensky has asked and asked and asked.
and then eventually the request is granted and then asked and asked and asked for the next thing and then eventually the request was granted. So if you go back to the beginning of this conflict, I think from memory, Germany initially offered helmets and sleeping bags.
There's a lot of criticism and there's a split in the coalition government there. Well, I suppose what we say is we know that the search for context passes. We don't want people to go away feeling depressed about all outcomes because we said Clinton gave us the phrase, it's the economy stupid. And I've thought for a long time, we need people to come along and say it's the politics.
And by the way, don't call me stupid. What's needed is adult political diplomatic people to understand the Russian perspective, to understand what must not be given away in Ukraine, and to come to God, that's what the West is. The West is a coalition of nations.
And I think what is happening is in governments and Western governments, there is the beginnings or the more evident signs of private discussions about what the ultimate quid pro quo could be for Ukraine.
And that was said very plainly to me, but a few people, is this has to be something that now is given proper thought. Not because anybody in the Western Alliance wants Ukraine to have to give up or to have to compromise. Absolutely not. But I go back to the phrase of my source, everybody knows there's a negotiation coming.
So how do you bolster Ukraine and Zelensky to be in the strongest possible position for the negotiation? But also, how do you start to think about what might be realistic options? What will the Ukrainian ask be? It was put to me. Maybe it is a guarantee that they could get into NATO to guarantee their long-term security. Maybe it could be some kind of demilitarized zone. Who knows? But the tone of the conversation and the tenor of the conversation certainly has changed with the Trump victory.
and it's going to be a fascinating and maybe quite perilous few weeks until the proper shape of the Trump plan, such as it may be, becomes clear. We've got Vadim Pristico, who was the Ukrainian ambassador, and was sacked by... He was sacked by Zelensky, yeah. So he's going to be our live guest, so maybe when we meet tomorrow we can...
I'd love to hear about that. Join all these thoughts together. Absolutely. And we'll be talking to Liz Kendall, who is the work and pension secretary, because next week comes another government welfare crackdown. Government wants to get to grips with the absolutely enormous and growing numbers of people who, for whatever reason, feel that they can't go to work, whether they're not well enough to go to work. So we'll be hearing about her plans to try to sort that problem out.
and all sorts of other exciting things. We've got Piers Morgan, Nadine Dorys, Jonathan Demelby, or our panel tomorrow. How will you get them to talk? I don't know. What a shy, retiring bunch of walkers. I'm a bit worried. The work you're going to have to do to get that panel. A bit worried about having anybody else into the program. I've only got 60 minutes for the three of them.
So we say to you, thank you for listening. These are serious times, and we try and keep the conversation flowing with your help, so please write to us. Do you have any wild animals on your programme tomorrow? No, no, but we have got opera singers. Well, that's lovely. Which is passion, if not. Animal spirits. Animal spirits. There you go. Yes. Thank you for listening, and goodbye. Goodbye.
Newscast. Newscast from the BBC. Thank you so much for making it to the end of Newscast. You clearly copyright, Chris Mason. Who's stamina? Can I gently encourage you to subscribe to us on BBC Sounds? Don't forget you can email us anytime. It's newscast at bbc.co.uk. And if you would like to join our Discord community to talk about everything Newscast related, there is a link in the description of this podcast. And don't be scared. It's super easy to click on it.
and then get set up. Or you can WhatsApp us on 0330-123-9480. And I promise you, we read and listen to every single message. Thanks for listening to this podcast. Bye.
