tv Beyond 100 Days BBC News September 11, 2019 7:00pm-8:01pm BST
you're watching beyond 100 days. demands for the recall of parliament, after scotland's highest civil court rules its suspension on monday was unlawful. the three scottish judges said the prime minister's decision had been motivated by brexit and the ‘improper purpose of stymieing parliament'. the government say they are waiting for a final decision from the supreme court next week. opposition mp's say the parliament should be recalled immediately. america's foreign policy does not follow precedent or any predictable path. so what happens next? now that the national security advisorjohn bolton, is out of the picture. i hope we have left in good stead that maybe we haven't and may be we
have, i have to run the country the way we're running the country, we are doing very well, respected all over the world again. also on the programme. the republicans hold two house seats in north carolina, while president trump took credit for the victory, is he the reason these safe seats are in play? and the perfect way to mark the founding of your city, walking the tightrope between the two tallest buildings. hello and welcome, i'm christian fraser in london, michelle fleury is in washington. scotland's highest civil court has ruled borisjohnson‘s prorogation of parliament was unlawful. a panel of 3 judges found in favour of a cross party group who were challenging the prime ministers move. the court of session judges said they were unanimous that mrjohnson‘s decision to suspend, was for "the improper purpose of stymieing parliament";
that he had misled the queen, and therefore the decision was "null and of no effect." however, in a separate ruling published today regarding the challenge in england before the high court, we got a differentjudgment. even if prorogation was to advance the prime minister's political agenda, namely brexit, rather than the preparation of a queen's speech, said the threejudges, this was political and not an area for the court to enter. so, on tuesday the supreme court will pull all these cases together from england, scotland and northern ireland to make a final decision. notwithstanding that judgment, there have been calls today from all sides of the opposition for parliament to be recalled immediately. it is a landmark ruling, when a court — this time, in scotland — rules that it's unlawful to prorogue parliament, the issue will now go to the supreme court next week. we did everything we could to prevent the prorogation of parliament, that is actually shutting down parliament, which is what the prime minister has done, in order to prevent
questioning and debate right through to the middle of october. let's speak now with our political correspondent chris mason, who's in westminster i dare say number ten is glad it is friday tomorrow! where are we up to today? isn't it thursday tomorrow? you are right! just shows how long i have been on this brexit story, it is starting to take its toll.|j have been on this brexit story, it is starting to take its toll. i know it hasn't regard for their reporters to fact check presenters within the first five seconds but i was momentarily confused. it has been quite something for british politics. here we are with the courts involved. there have been many consequences of brexit for british politics, not least the expansion of our vocabulary. only la st expansion of our vocabulary. only last week did we learn the proper
definition of prologue. the court was talking about stymeing. try spelling it. it is interesting because on the one hand, he is in a battle with the court which will come to a head next tuesday. —— stymieing. politically, this could be quite useful for borisjohnson because we know he is shaping up to a general election contest where he is likely to see this as a contest between the people and the establishment and he will put himself on the people's side. and if he is seen to be doing battles with the courts, who might be seen to the fleeting viewer or listener to be standing in the way of brexit, even if the legal argument is more complex than that, that could be politically quite useful for him, evenif politically quite useful for him, even if it is awkward right now. for viewers outside of the uk, there is a bit of confusion given this ruling
today, why isn't parliament or why can't parliament be recalled immediately? let new reassure you, the confusion spreads to every corner of this country as well as the world. there is confusion here in the westminster postcode around why parliament isn't back up and running already. because interpretation of the court in scotland was that it is now parliament's call to decide whether or not it should start meeting again and curiously even though it has not officially started meeting again, some mps have been going on at sitting on the green benches in the house of commons to make the point that they would rather be in their ina that they would rather be in their in a formal setting. the speaker of the house of commons who announced his imminent departure just a couple of days ago, said it was up to the government to decide whether or not to stop proroguing parliament, rather than a decision for the speaker. what is also intriguing is the government decided against trying to prevent the court's
decision in scotland being enacted immediately, which they could have done prior to this meeting with the supreme court. as things stand, a court has decided that the prorogation of parliament is illegal and parliament has not started setting again. the government will wait till tuesday to decide exactly what it does, the spending on the decision of the supreme court. thank you chris for trying to unpick some of that with us here on wednesday. if you're confused as to why we are getting different from different courts across the uk then lets try and bring some clarity. for historical reasons, the united kingdom does not have a single unified legal system. there is one system for england and wales, another for scotland, and a third for northern ireland. the decision today was taken by the court of session, the highest civil court in scotland. its decision, that suspending parliament was unlawful, makes it the highest court in the land to have ruled on this matter so far.
above the high court in england, which gave the government a green light last week. but, as you can see, the supreme court in london sits above all the appeal courts in the uk in civil cases. which is why it will take the ultimate decision next week. let's speak now to elaine motion, one of the lawyers representing mps in the scottish case that was ruled on today. let me pick up that point chris made earlier. according to the court, it was parliament's earlier. according to the court, it was pa rliament‘s call as earlier. according to the court, it was parliament's call as to what they did next and yet the speaker appears to have handed it to the government? i haven't seen what the speaker said, but quite clear that the order was made null and void and of no effect which means it every existed. we go back to the 27th of august, the day before prorogation. so it is as if the prorogation never occurred. and therefore, we have written to the speaker today and to various other individuals within
government, to make this abundantly clear, that the government could have asked the court of session to suspend their judgment to have asked the court of session to suspend theirjudgment to keep the prorogation alive. they chose, for whatever reason, not to do that. and the supreme court have made it clear in their roles are that you cannot —— rules, the judgment in their roles are that you cannot —— rules, thejudgment of in their roles are that you cannot —— rules, the judgment of the lower court will remain in full effect unless it has been suspended by that court. except in exceptional circumstances. so i am confused as to why people are confused that this is not, this light has been wiped clean, and business as usual should be taking place in parliament. ultimately, the decision is for the queen. she ends prorogation with her ministers advice. so the cortisone to the queen that the decision is numb and void because showers said
to? —— showers favourite to. the convention, as many people know is that the queen mother follow advice given to her and she has to accept, she accepts that advice and takes it on trust that it is correct. if she was misled, that is another matter for another day, but the court certainly considered that the reasons that were given to the public domain for the prorogation we re public domain for the prorogation were not the real reasons for the prorogation itself. and we brought forward affidavits and factual evidence to the court to show that. we will have to leave it there, thank you so much forjoining us. we're joined now by andrew mitchell, conservative mp, who joins us in westminster.
thank you very much forjoining us on the programme. good evening. your pa rty‘s on the programme. good evening. your party's reaction has been to cast doubt in some way on this verdict from scotland ? doubt in some way on this verdict from scotland? the judges must always be respected. but they do not always be respected. but they do not always get it right. and you had a decision today in a scottish court, which seems to me to be quite different to the decision that was made ina different to the decision that was made in a parallel case, in london. next week, on tuesday, the supreme court will have to decide what the position is and i think we should wait until the supreme court decides next week, and see what flows from that. if the supreme court was to rule next week that boris johnson had light of the queen, would his position be untenable? i'm not sure thatis position be untenable? i'm not sure that is what they are being asked to
rule on, and the english court in the pastor suggested this is not really appropriate area for the judges, the scottish court has taken a different view and we will see next tuesday. there isn't much to be gained from having parliament come back later this week and there is quite a lot to be gained given that we are in a general electioneering i'iow we are in a general electioneering now for letting these party conferences go ahead now. —— general election error. election get conferences go ahead now. —— general election get more hours after the la st election get more hours after the last three years of talking in the house of commons, over the next two or three weeks doesn't seem to me to be likely to move the dial on this very far. the key thing is to leave oi'i very far. the key thing is to leave on slst of october, preferably with a deal and then we can start to heal the tremendous divisions which are
cut arising our country at the moment. and the sooner we do that the debtor, in my view. the royal politics, the view on the country will probably depend on where you stand on the brexit debate and there are signs in samples that people stand behind borisjohnson and what he is doing. —— some polls. but they will not want chaos and there is the whiff of chaos about this? i'm not sure that is right, with great respect. i think we need to leave on the slst october. i don't feel it is a much in london, but i could in my constituency in the west midlands, we from london, that people want this done now and we should say to ever friends in europe we are going to go on the slst of october, but hopefully we are going to go with a deal because that is in everyone's interest. there is no doubt today, you have on the news and seen it, that negotiations are taking place and we need this summit meeting. on october the 17th and 18th, to deliver a deal that parliament can't live with. so that we can leave in
good order on the slst of october. —— parliament can live with. but i really think we should leave on that date and bring these divisions which i have described, you have seen it in the borisjohnson i have described, you have seen it in the boris johnson family, i have described, you have seen it in the borisjohnson family, i feel it in the mitchell family as well, these divisions are across our whole country. we cannot do that until we have honoured the result of the referendum and left the european union. always great full for your time, thank you very much. us national security advisorjohn bolton was either fired or he resigned depending on whose account you believe. either way, it leaves the us secretary of state mike pompeo as the last man standing in donald trump's foreign policy team. many are hailing bolton's departure as good for diplomacy. he was seen as a problematic advisor, but after a string of high level departures, could it be bad for stability? john bolton becomes the 18th cabinet level official to leave president trump's administration
in just over two and a half years. he's also his third national security adviser to leave their post, after michael flynn and h r mcmaster. bolton's dismissal paves the way for secretary of state, mike pompeo, to have a greater say over the catalogue of foreign policy issues currently facing the white house. here is president trump on the dismisaljust a short time ago. we were set back very badly, when john bolton talked about the libyan model, and he made a mistake. and as soon as he mentioned that, the libyan model, what a disaster. take a look at what happened to gaddafi with the libyan model. and he's using that to make a deal with north korea? and i don't blame kim jong un for said afterwards and he wanted nothing to do with john bolton and that's not a question of being tough, that's a question of being not smart. to say something like that. joining us now is former us defense
secretary, william cohen. what do you make of this idea that mike pompeo is now essentially the last man standing when it comes to donald trump's foreign policy team? i don't think it will mark much of a change. i want to pick on what christians are just a moment ago about chaos. —— christian said. my friend wrote a book called callsign chaos. a book about leadership and it should be the callsign for the president of s it should be the callsign for the president of 5 country. it has been chaotic for some time and i think john bolton has been there, or was there, for 17 months. and it took there, for 17 months. and it took the present 17 months to decide that he was not carrying out the policies he was not carrying out the policies he wanted. i don't think anyone who can come and will make a difference. i think can come and will make a difference. ithink mike
can come and will make a difference. i think mike pompeo will be the last man standing, hopefully only 17 months, for the president in office. but the president is his own man, as such and decides, and disregards advice, but i think thatjohn bolton did to the president a favour. in terms of how he came out on afghanistan. for the president to invite the taliban to cap david, especially on a day as sacred as today, the 18th anniversary on the attack, 911. —— camp david. forthe president to turn it into a spectacle, where you see that i am the only one who could solve this problem. in fact, it would be a very dangerous thing for us, as i think it has been dangerous for us to deal with north korea, without having a common understanding about the terms of any kind of agreement are going to be. and the president turns anything upside down, says let's shake hands and worked the details out later. he has done basically the same thing in trying to get the taliban to come to camp david. sol
think bolton did a favour in that sense for afghanistan at least. you have seen this pattern before with donald trump and the intelligence community where he rejects a lot of their advice and basically lays down, follows his own counsel. is that what we are going to see here in foreign policy terms? and what is your view on that? i think we will. i think secretary mike pompeo will endorse whatever the president wants to say. the president is entitled to have people that he respects and expects them to be loyal. but that loyalty is always being taken to the limit of expect them to lie on my behalf, if i make a mistake it isn't my mistake. this wasjohn bolton's problem in korea. it wasjohn bolton's problem on venice well. it is always somebody else's problem and he never accepts results ability for having make mistakes, now including having one of his
subordinates encourage the weather service to lie about something that everybody understands was a case where he was the one who put the additional alabama in the point of being at risk. so the president deserves the people that will support him, but i think it calls into question his wisdom, his insight, his inability to understand the process of negotiation. you have to work out details first before the top leaders come in and she can. he does itjust the reverse. let's shake cans and work it out later. —— shake cans and work it out later. —— shake hands. ithink shake cans and work it out later. —— shake hands. i think it puts us in greater danger that he has embraced kimjong—un, greater danger that he has embraced kim jong—un, president putin, virtually every dictator on the planet, saying i can work with them if only i can deal with them directly. i do not need my staff and my administration to work out the details so that we can have some
kind of takeaway that benefits the united states. as you say, so many people in the administration working in an acting capacity. in truth, since you remark about 9/11 commemorations, this administration has not been tested in any crisis not of its own making. if there was something similar to 9/11 today, with the white house cope? russia one of the reflect the silence of the lambs. there are no republicans on the hill who will challenge the president on anyissue, who will challenge the president on any issue, certainly in their area of concern. the present has taken. that is a breach of separation of powers, so that is a breach of separation of powers, so the president is able to do these things, he does not have
advisors who can contradict him and give him contradicting advice and he does not have a senate in particular that will stand up to him. and say this is not right that he would bring the taliban to cap david where we are paying tribute to the lives that had been lost. so he doesn't have good people who will take him oi'i have good people who will take him on within his administration at he does not have a converse you will challenge him. we will have to leave it there but thank you very much. worth picking up the point about acting, or secretaries in acting positions. look at this list. you have the chief of staff, homer security which was a position created 9/11, national intelligence fema which is without a permanent secretary at the time of hurricanes.
you can see from the list, the concerns the secretary was pointing to, senior people who are not permanently in place. what is interesting is that you can understand many of those positions the administration might want to circumvent the process of getting people approved but in the case of the chief of staff, that is not up require congressional approval. so does that undermine his role at the top, the threat of dismissal always hangs over him. interesting. the results from that last mid—term election race we told you about yesterday are in. republican, dan bishop, narrowly won north carolina's special election, holding on to the reliably red district for donald trump who held a rally in the state the night before the election. dan bishop linked his success to donald trump's agenda in his victory speech. the area which covers the suburbs outside charlotte has been a republican seat since the early 1960's. but the close election
highlights the challenge both parties will face in next year's presidential election. for more we'rejoined by reid wilson from the hill. he won by about 4000 votes in an area that donald trump won easily in 2016. president trump carried the district by 12 points in 2016 and as we dive into the numbers, we see a similar pattern as happened in the 2018 mid—term elections. the suburbs outside of charlotte got a bit more democratic. this used to be the bedrock of north carolina republicanism. now, it is two points more democratic than it was years ago when it happened the first time around. the difference is that some more rural voters turned out at higher rates and ended up giving the republican candidate a wider margin that has predecessor had that had been vacated. so we see these two countervailing trends in american politics, rural voters aligning more
and more with republicans well suburban voters shift away from republicans and the democrats. this district was too conservative for that shift to end up in a democratic victory. i want to talk about the economy and how much of that is going to be a factor going forward. you look at paul numbers out suggesting that trump's position is slipping. you have this tweet from him today saying again criticising the head of the federal reserve. let me relate to you. —— read it to you. he then goes on to basically say that we are missing a once—in—a—lifetime opportunity because of boneheads.
is that the trump administration running scared went come to the economy? he won the election in 2016 ona economy? he won the election in 2016 on a knife edge. he basically won by 77,000 votes over a course of three state in the upper midwest. he knows he is walking a very fine tape wrote —— tight rope. he has very little chance if he does not understand that the us economy is slowing down and the federal reserve has not raised interest rates enough to be able to make the steep cuts they did during the 2010 recession. so they are operating on a thin margin as well. president trump needs, the only time he pulls over 50% is among vote rs only time he pulls over 50% is among voters asked how he is doing on the economy. there is an increasing anxiety amongst voters that
recession isjust anxiety amongst voters that recession is just around the anxiety amongst voters that recession isjust around the corner after a decade of rebounding. when you look at the electoral map, there isa you look at the electoral map, there is a trend. republicans are moving into the rural districts and the democrats are moving into suburban areas. can the gop when the house back without those suburban areas? they need the 218 seats to get a majority and they can win it back but it requires winning those suburban districts that flipped so heavily against them. the suburbs are always the battle grounds in american politics and the shift in large part on how the voters feel on the president of the united states. the republicans took back the house in when president obama was under the water. now the democrats are doing the same. this is beyond 100
days from the bbc. coming up for viewers on the bbc news channel and bbc world news, more on that bombshell for the british prime minister, after a scottish court ruled that the decision to suspend parliament was unlawful. the weather we had today was the remnant of hurricane dorian. once that little bit of rain cleared through, some places saw some beautiful sunshine. behind me, through, some places saw some beautifulsunshine. behind me, is oui’ beautifulsunshine. behind me, is our next lump of cloud. also annexed tropical weather system. the re m na nts of tropical weather system. the remnants of tropical storm gabrielle. it stays quite breezy. by the end of the night quite drizzly and murky for the hail is and north—west and we start to see some rain into north west and scotland.
we will see some outbreaks of rain during tomorrow, brisk winds once again, but between these two elephants, a wedge of humid tropical air -- air elephants, a wedge of humid tropical air —— air france. there we will see rain moving across northern ireland and scotland with the odd heavy bust here and there. the weather front weakening all the while. a fairly windy day, to the north—west of our band of cloud and rain, 12 be fairly cool and fresh but remember to the south—west that wedge of humid air so the parts of the south—west could get up to 24 degrees. a fresh feel to the weather on friday, light winds and a lot of sunshine. temperatures on the about 20 in cardiff, plymouth and london,
some showery rain across the western side of scotland courtesy of a frontal system. as we go into the weekend, we will see what weather fronts approaching northern and western parts of scotland, for the south, high pressure comes increasingly dominant. for many of us on increasingly dominant. for many of us on saturday, northern ireland, southern scotland, england and wales, plenty of sunshine to come, more cloud bringing outbreaks of rain, and temperatures will start to climba rain, and temperatures will start to climb a little bit. up to 22 degrees in the south—east, even warmer possibly into sunday. we could see some patchy rain across the northern half of the uk.
you're watching beyond 100 days with me michelle fleury in washington, christian fraser is in london. our top stories: scotland's highest court rules borisjohnson suspended parliament illegally to avoid scrutiny of his brexit plans. there are questions over the direction of travel for american foreign policy, after president trump fires his national security advisor. also on the programme: we'll hear from the us college students who say high levels of debt is preventing them from pursuing careers they're really interested in. plus, why as humans, we so often mis—read someone. bestselling author malcolm gladwell joins us in the studio to discuss his latest book.
today's ruling by scotland's highest civil court that the suspension of the uk parliament was unlawful, sets the scene for a blockbuster session in the supreme court next week. the court is only a decade—old and never before has it heard a case with such immediate and far reaching political implications. and yet it is remarkable how little we know about it, compared to the supreme court in the united states, where the appointment of the us judges is highly political. not so in the uk. at least not yet. the uk court has 12 judges, nine will sit on this case on tuesday. the president of the bench there in the centre is lady hale of richmond. but remember this is an appeals court, so there are no witnesses, they are not deciding the facts here, they sit to interpret what the law is. they set what is known as the doctrine of precedent.
a case hugely important then, to the uk constitution. let's speak to drjoelle grogan, a lecturer in law at middlesex university. on that final point, in this next week, we are going to get a landmark moment in the british constitution where the court decides whether a prime minister, for whatever political purposes, has the power to prorouge parliament, must be a seismic moment. everything in brexit has been seismic, but you are right. in constitutional terms, the separation of powers between what is political and legal, and matter for the courts, and what is only a matter for government and parliament, this question will be seismic. we pitted at the top of the programme, the ruling from the three judges in scotland today is a higher court, the ruling from the high court, the english court is taken of you that this is intensely political, that even if his ulterior
motive was to close down parliament, to shrink the debate on brexit, that is his right. and if the supreme court upholds the scottish view, what are we going to get in the future? we are not going to get the courts intervening in every decision to prorogue parliament? as a matter of law and is a matter of the courts, their natural position in this is not to be involved in politics. in fact, again, brexit in and of itself and the questions that are arising from brexit also unprecedented in a way that we would not see, it is so unusual to see these basic questions of what is parliament sovereignty and whether there should be debate on whether they should not be debate, and ultimately what does the law mean in the uk. these questions are not asked in a supreme court because there has never been a previous, and
after brexit, unlikely to see these situations arising. you talked about the nature of the questions being raised by brexit, one of them is can the advice the prime minister gives to the queen be deemed unlawful? this is the big division that we are seeing between the courts in england and in scotland, the court in england said it cannot be considered unlawful because there is no judicial or legal standard by which we can evaluate a political decision, evaluate a political motivation. but the scottish court said that is, and this is the basic principles. if you are trying to stymie parliament, if you're trying to frustrate parliament to debate, the point of parliament, then that isa the point of parliament, then that is a standard that can be used to evaluate the decision. quickly, could they uphold both the scottish ruling and the english ruling? as a matter of law, they are two
different legal systems. they do appeal to the same final court, the supreme court is the final court, the final decision in the uk. as a matter of law, it could be found that the decision was lawful under scottish... under english law, sorry. i'll be very strange affair was opposite. lawful under english law but unlawful under scottish law. but in that situation, it would be unlawful. very interesting. i got the day is wrong at the beginning of the day is wrong at the beginning of the week, so don't worry! thank you very much. fascinating. in the late 19th century friedrich trump emigrated to the united states and through a series of ventures that ranged from selling horse meat, opening a boarding house and running a brothel, donald trump's grandfather amassed a small fortune. he set the foundations of the trump dynasty. the money he earned set up his son, fred trump, who featured 100 years later on the forbes list of the richest americans. donald took over trump management company in the 1970s, a role now occupied by his two eldest sons
donald junior and eric. but the actual succession of the trump dynasty is not clear. i'm joined now by mckay coppins, a writer for the atlantic who has just written a piece called the heir, looking at the history and future of the trump family. in the uk, we are used to having a sort of royal family, this in the uk, we are used to having a sort of royalfamily, this notion in the uk, we are used to having a sort of royal family, this notion of dynasty is, in america, in theory, that does not exist but in reality... in theory, america was founded in revolt against monarchy and we have this mythology around the idea that we do not have a strict class system stop the reality is we are quite adept at preserving our own form of royalty. if you look at the ruling class in the united it is dominated by dynastic families and the trump tee on their exception. as you laid out so well in the introduction, donald trump's wealth and status as built largely
on the past two generations of the trump family and now he is setting up trump family and now he is setting up his own children, nutter sparked a bit ofa up his own children, nutter sparked a bit of a succession battle that is playing out by the scenes. in fighting going on, jockeying for position, rivalries between don junior and ivanka. you talk a lot about don junior, political force, you create an aid to donald trump saying that he said his son was not the sharpest knife. that is right. i think fred very long time, ivanka has been the favourite daughter, the favourite child and president trump always saw her as his heir apparent. she was meant to be the next phase of the trump empire. in november 2016, the family business change for them. they went for it being about real estate and television, chipping about politics and in politics, it turns out that ivanka is a bit
button—down, a bit cautious for trump is among supporters, whereas donjunior has trump is among supporters, whereas don junior has emerged trump is among supporters, whereas donjunior has emerged as a sort of folk hero to the american right where he is travelling across the country and banging the drum and really become a political celebrity. he is seen now really become a political celebrity. he is seen now more really become a political celebrity. he is seen now more ascendant than ivanka. with that in mind, had you think their roles are going to evolve over their roles are going to evolve over the next year, it is crucially important to donald trump to get out there and speak to the base? if ivanka does not do that very well, because she is a new york business woman, who comes to the four? that is why so many people in the president's orbit see donjunior is the ascending figure in the family. ivanka has really spent most of the la st ivanka has really spent most of the last couple of years in the white house, trying to burnish her credentials as a policymaker, political player and mingling with the global elite. now that we are
entering the re—election campaign, donald trump has seen getting re—elected as the top priority and donjunior isjust re—elected as the top priority and don junior is just a re—elected as the top priority and donjunior isjust a much more valuable tool when it comes to that priority than ivanka is, who has remained kind of behind—the—scenes and does not have the simple with american voters that don does. the thing about political dynasties, the picture, namely donald, might not have control who does succeed him. we have seen this and other families. jeb bush was meant to be the promised one and then it was george b who rose to the fall. it is possible, perhaps that is encouraging to don junior. that is absolutely right. this is an important distinction. if this was stellar business dynasties first and foremost, trump would have a lot more authority to kind of a point has chosen as the next ceo of the company, for example. but voters often abandon the best side plans a
political patriarchs and i think what we are seeing happened now is that while ivanka still is the president's favourite, his kind of god child, don junior president's favourite, his kind of god child, donjunior has more natural talent when it comes to the particular types of politics that donald trump practices. —— his kind of golden child. thank you. i was thinking what the solution to this is, it is to be an only child. which i am. i am not saying the phrase the dynasty is that big. if you are the only child, you do not have any of these problems. that is all i'm going to say. i was going to say you and me both. hillary clinton said they were sick of ongoing dynasties. that was one of the reasons. indeed. back—to—school season is in full swing here in the us. and for many university students, that means taking on more debt. student loans are now the second biggest source of personal debt in america, higher than credit
cards or car loans. a report by the oecd says students in english higher education forked out an average of $11,800 during the last academic year. we have put it into dollars for you. quite significant but dwarfed by the costs in the us, where private bodies like the elite ivy league universities charged on average $29,300. that said, the public universities in the us where the majority of students go, are cheaper than the uk, with average fees of $8,800. the bbc‘s laura trevelyan met two groups of students, those just starting school, and others about to enter the real world, and has this report. freshman year is an exciting time for students on american university's campus in washington dc. but those who've taken out loans to help pay the cost of nearly 67,000 a year, like maddie and amelia, are diving into debt. i'm looking at about 10,000 per year, which is a lot lower than lots of my peers but it's
still above the national average. so when you graduate, you'll owe $40,000. at the very least. amelia's education is costing her even more. so coming here, i have to pay for about $30,000 a year myself, so that's about $120,000 in debt when i graduate. so it's a lot of money and it's very stressful. already both students are worrying about how this debt will affect their ability to do the public service jobs they dream of. i can't afford to go into non—profits and still pay back my dad. i can't do what i want to do, i can't do what i'm passionate about, i can't do what i'm most equipped to do and that hurts me and that hurts my community. for seniors at american, likejen and ryan, it's now time to face reality and pay back those loans. i would love to be au until may, like i've had a really awesome time here. jem's going to owe 40,000 and she's graduating a semester early. just in tuition, without even figuring in my housing, that's
going to save me around $15,000. so, i mean, i really can't justify three more months in school for that price. and for ryan, who once dreamed of more study, he doesn't want to borrow even more money. i was thinking about going to law school after graduating and now that's totally out of it. i'm definitely not going there because it's like you can't continue to suffice with that cost, you know, just weighing over your head all the time. it'sjust not possible. the amount of student debt in america is overwhelming. a staggering $1.5 trillion is owed by 44 million people and the total just keeps on growing as the cost of tuition goes up and up. it's not surprising that one million people default on their student loans every year and the national conversation about how to respond is becoming louder and more urgent. we've now seen proposals by presidential candidates talking about debt cancellation, and in the numbers you see that even people without student loans are are supportive
of these propositions. i think it's a testament to humanity that we don't make other generations suffer just because the prior generation did. this generation though is mired in debt and calling for change. we're trying to create a society in which you're able to follow your dreams, you're able to have, quote, the american dream. but the american dream today is not what it used to be. it's so much harder to achieve because we're coming from a place of debt. college should be a time of expanding horizons, yet the student debt crisis is narrowing options for so many young americans. you're leaving with 40,000 in debt but has it been worth it? right now, i do feel like it has been worth it. i think in six months when the loans hit, i'll maybe have a different answer. laura trevelyan, bbc news, washington. this is beyond 100 days. still to come — why do we think
we're a betterjudge of character than we really are? it's a common trait, according to author malcolm gladwell. hejoins us in the next five minutes. the president of zimbabwe has called for national unity as the body of his predecessor, robert mugabe, returned back to the capital, harare. mr mugabe died last week in singapore while undergoing medical treatment. shingai nyoka sent this report from zimbabwe. the liberator of zimbabwe who became an oppressor is back on home soil. the country is divided over robert mugabe's legacy, the independent hero whose 37—year rule was marked first by prosperity and later economic ruin. a specially chartered flight carrying his body arrived in harare from singapore. stricken by grief, robert mugabe's widow grace, along with other family members, made the journey. also paying homage was
president emmerson mnangagwa. he'd been mugabe's right—hand man but then he engineered his downfall using the army to end his rule. today he praised the memory of the leader he deposed. the light which led us to independence is no more. but his works, his ideology will continue to guide this nation. in the minds of many zimbabweans, mugabe died years ago when he was deposed. but his arrival home in preparation for his burial puts finality to the life of a figure who towered zimbabwean politics for over 40 years. his body will lie at his mansion overnight. a state funeral service attended by heads of state will be held on saturday.
whether he will be buried privately, as some in his family desire, or at the national shrine is still being negotiated, as state and family haggle for the body of the man who liberated zimbabwe. shingai nyoka, bbc news, harare. it is something all of us will have experienced at one point or another. we will have just met someone and without giving it adequate time, we conclude things about their character. logically we know we shouldn't rush to judge, but we do anyhow. so why these misguided judgments? are we just unable to understand the people around us? malcolm gladwell is the author of talking to strangers, a book that looks at interactions between strangers and why they often go awry. here is a stranger? is that someone in your immediate circle, someone
you have never met before, how do you have never met before, how do you define that? i think many people fall into that category. the crucial thing is they are not a member of your intimate circle. if you think about the broad super of human history, we evolved into communicating with people who are either directly related to us all members ofa either directly related to us all members of a close—knit community or client. now we are forced to deal with, and we want to do with people ofa with, and we want to do with people of a wide variety of different relationships, i classify all of those other strangers. at the start of the book, you give the example as sandra bland, she was a major as he was pulled over in texas in 2015, and resulted in her being jailed and she ended up taking her life. he said that was a misunderstanding. -- you said. this is one of the string of high—profile cases involving
police encounters that seized popular attention a few years ago. it was the one that affected me the most. heartbreaking. a completely innocent person gets into an ordinary conversation with a police officer, it goes off the rails. if you look, we have the transcript of the conversation, it forms the text of my book. you go through it, you see of my book. you go through it, you see that it is one misconception and a rush to judgment and misunderstanding, piled upon another, that ends up having tragic consequences. you are another, that ends up having tragic consequences. you are sympathetic to the policeman in that case, does that mean he gets a free pass on what many people argue that was recess vices that led to those misconceptions? i certainly misconceptions? icertainly am misconceptions? i certainly am trying to understand why he made the misjudgments he did. lam why he made the misjudgments he did. i am exceedingly critical of the core of the book's argument, i am
exceedingly critical of the loss of the policing that put him in a position where he was forced to make sense of a stranger under conditions of duress. i think one thing we are 20 do with this book, when we come to these problematic encounters between individuals, to move our focus from exclusively focusing on the individuals involved to looking at the broader context and the structures that underpin the relationship. is it human nature, malcolm, which is too trusting, is itan malcolm, which is too trusting, is it an instinct that we may meet someone, it an instinct that we may meet someone, i meet lots of people, politicians are all very nice people, i take them at face value initially, but then i find there's something behind it, and agenda? is that a human nature that we presume the good and everybody in the first instance? it is. yes, in fact, that is when the principal arguments in the book. it is the work of a man
called default tree. he says we have evolved to be trusting. much of a society that we have built is based on trust and trust allows us implicitly believing the speech of others, strangers, is what allows us to build organisations, to have a functioning society, to have government, all these wonderful things. it means, however, every occasion, not that often, but we will occasionally become victims of deceit and we are ill—equipped to deal with those who set out to systematically pull the wool over our eyes. systematically pull the wool over our eyes. in the context of what is happening in our world politics at the moment, is that significant? this idea default truth is about interpersonal communication. what we are saying in politics at the moment isa are saying in politics at the moment is a distortion and the integrity of functioning of institutions, so the
institutions we built, it is a slightly different question. i am quite eager in this book not have words like trump and brexit associated with it. it will probably sell. i joke associated with it. it will probably sell. ijoke that i'm the only book released without the word trump in it. we are going to have to leave it there. are we alone in the universe and are their other planets that could support life? these are the questions that test our limits of the universe and we could be little closer to finding answer. crucial to finding other life is water and scientists believe a planet some 650 million, million miles away, has water, supports an atmosphere and has a good ranges of temperature to support life. our science correspondent, pallab ghosh, has the report. the night sky is littered with stars. around them are planets. could some of them be like the earth? scientists think that this one,
which is 650 million million miles away, has the potential to support life. astronomers have discovered more than 4000 planets, orbiting distant stars. the new one is about the right distance from its sun to be able to support life. its temperature is between 0—40 degrees celsius. it's around twice the size of our own earth and it has an atmosphere that we now know contains water. so, the big question is whether there really are living organisms on this world. light from the planet's sun filters through its atmosphere, before it reaches the earth. that light contains a faint imprint of the chemicals in it. in this case, up to half of it is made up of water. detailed analysis of the starlight, published in the journal nature astronomy, shows this peak, where the light has been absorbed by water vapour. all of a sudden, we have the possibility in the next decade
to understand what is the nature of this world, how they formed, how they evolved and, in some cases, whether they can support life. i think it's just mind—blowing. telescopes are becoming increasingly powerful. soon, they'll be able to detect gases in the atmospheres of distant planets that could only be produced by living organisms. within the next ten years or so, we will know whether there are biomarkers or chemicals that are due to life in these atmospheres. scientists hope to discover, possibly quite soon, whether life is unique to earth or teaming on worlds across our galaxy. pallab ghosh, bbc news. i would be amazed if there was not life out there. if you are afraid of heights, then you may want to look away now. we are going to show you some pictures from moscow of a tightrope walk between two of the city's tallest towers.
look at that. 350 metres in the air. and all of it done without any harnesses. the group were from russia, france, germany and canada they walked 245—metres, and survived, to mark the founding of moscow as a city 872 years ago. ican i can barely look at that. where is his stick? someone is flying a drone around him as well. i know! we think that is a new world new record, although the measurements are still being checked. i can't help but think of 9/11, there was the famous titrate talk between the two towers. —— tight rope have you tried the bungee cords between the two trees?” rope have you tried the bungee cords between the two trees? i cannot do a bungee jumping. i could between the two trees? i cannot do a bungeejumping. i could fall between the two trees? i cannot do a bungee jumping. i could fall off the pavement. imagine having jasvinder
sanghera being 350 metres up in the air. -- sanghera being 350 metres up in the air. —— imagined being. back for more hi wax tomorrow. goodbye. goodbye. good evening. the remnants of what was hurricane dorian, a much weakened feature, no longer hurricane. some places us in beautiful sunshine, some speckled shower clouds showing up on the satellite picture across scotland and northern ireland. behind me is the next lump of pride, this is also an ex tropicals system, the remnants of what was tropical storm gabrielle. as we go through tonight, many places will be dry with clear spells, they wind is lighter than they have been today, it stays quite breezy. it turns drizzly and murky during the end of the night, we start to see some rain into northern ireland in western scotland as the
re m na nts of ireland in western scotland as the remnants of tropical storm gabrielle had our way. we will see some outbreaks of rain during tomorrow, brisk winds once again that between these two weather fronts here, a wedge of humid, tropical air, he will feel the effects of that particularly across england and wales. —— you will feel. cloud amounts will increase quite quickly from the west. we will see rain moving across northern ireland and scotland. the odd heavy burst here and there but as the rain thinks its way down, it will tend to fizzle. the weather front weakening of the wire. another fairly windy day, there is the wind gusts through the afternoon. it is going to be fairly cool and fresh, but to the south—east, that wedge of humid air, parts of the south east could get up to 24 celsius. the committee will be swept away southwards as we get into friday. —— humidity. the temperatures only up to 20 and cardiff, plymouth and london. some
showery rain across the western side of scotla nd showery rain across the western side of scotland courtesy of a frontal system keeping its way through. as we go into the weekend, the weather fronts approaching northern and western parts of scotland, the high pressure becomes increasingly dominant. for many of us on saturday, for northern ireland, southern scotland, england wales, plenty of such aid to come. more cloud bringing absence of rain across north—west of scotland. the temperatures start to climb a little bit, maybe up to 22 in the south—east, it could get warmer into that. some patchy rain on sunday in the northern half of the uk.
this is bbc news. the headlines at 8pm. anti—brexit mps demand that parliament be recalled, after scotland's seniorjudges rule the prime minister's decision to suspend it for five weeks is unlawful. the advice given by the government to her majesty the queen to prorogue parliament from 9 september to 14 october was unlawful. and therefore, the prorogation itself is unlawful. chanting: shame on you, shame on you! the case was brought by a group of opposition mps in protest against monday's five—week suspension of parliament. now for every moment parliament remains prorogued, the british government are breaking the law. so we, as politicians, are calling for politician to be recalled so that we can get on with scrutinising