this programme contains some strong language. hello. is the tide turning against privatisation? as shareholders of britain's biggest water company today refused to put up half a billion pounds towards a rescue plan for the debt—ridden thames water, could it — and others — be renationalised? we'll explore what's

going right and what's going wrong with privatisation, and talk to labour live about their plans for levelling up if they win the next election. did the post office cover up the truth? it knew, when it was arguing in court that its subpostmasters must have been guilty of theft and fraud, that its own defence was untrue. the bbc has seen the evidence. we'll get reaction from this former subpostaster, convicted and jailed, after being accused of a shortfall of £59,000. also tonight... as the crypto king and fraudster sam bankman—fried is sentenced to 25 years in jail in the states for money laundering, what does his fall from grace mean for the future of cryptocurrency?

and crypto—skeptic ben mckenzie. and yet, now, you, us, taxpayers subsidise those private firms to the tune of billions of pounds every year. so is the tide turning against privatisation? economics editor ben chu

and political editor nick watt. then, what is happening with macro i? then, what is happening with macro 1? w ., , ., , then, what is happening with macro 1? the fact that these thames water shareholders — 1? the fact that these thames water shareholders have _ 1? the fact that these thames water shareholders have refused _ 1? the fact that these thames water shareholders have refused to - 1? the fact that these thames water shareholders have refused to put - shareholders have refused to put this extra money into the company doesn't make nationalisation eventually inevitable —— thames water. but it does make it a lot more likely it would otherwise have been. if it does happen, it wouldn't been. if it does happen, it wouldn't be a willing nationalisation and no doubt ministers would try and get the company back into private hands as soon as possible. some would say that would be the wrong thing to do and there is plenty of nationalised industries and there is plenty of nationalised industries in other countries that show public utilities can be delivered by nationalised companies in an efficient way, especially things like natural monopolies perhaps, where people don't have the ability to move around and shop with their feet. ability to move around and shop with theirfeet. but critics ability to move around and shop with their feet. but critics would say there is plenty of examples of nationalised industries which don't

have what people want and don't behave in an ethical way and we should be wary of regarding it as some kind of panacea.— some kind of panacea. look, in all of this in one _ some kind of panacea. look, in all of this in one sense, _ some kind of panacea. look, in all of this in one sense, we _ some kind of panacea. look, in all of this in one sense, we are - of this in one sense, we are children_ of this in one sense, we are children of— of this in one sense, we are children of the thatcher revolution if we _ children of the thatcher revolution if we like — children of the thatcher revolution if we like it — children of the thatcher revolution if we like it or not. tony blair famously— if we like it or not. tony blair famously described thatcherism as a necessary _ famously described thatcherism as a necessary act of modernisation. so we went— necessary act of modernisation. so we went from widescale state ownership to the private sector playing — ownership to the private sector playing the absolutely key role. but look at _ playing the absolutely key role. but look at what happened. when we had the global— look at what happened. when we had the global financial crash, we had the global financial crash, we had the stale — the global financial crash, we had the state underpinning the banks. when _ the state underpinning the banks. when we — the state underpinning the banks. when we had the pandemic, we had a conservative — when we had the pandemic, we had a conservative chancellor of the exchequer paying millions of wages through— exchequer paying millions of wages through the furlough scheme. and then they— through the furlough scheme. and then they find themselves back in state _ then they find themselves back in state hands, done through necessity rather— state hands, done through necessity rather than — state hands, done through necessity rather than an embrace of state ownership — rather than an embrace of state ownership once again. but i wonder if we _ ownership once again. but i wonder if we are _ ownership once again. but i wonder if we are moving into a new era, in an era— if we are moving into a new era, in an era that— if we are moving into a new era, in an era that was initially championed lry an era that was initially championed by one _ an era that was initially championed by one of— an era that was initially championed by one of the initial foot soldiers of the _ by one of the initial foot soldiers of the thatcher revolution, who played — of the thatcher revolution, who played a — of the thatcher revolution, who played a significant role in bringing her down. guess who i am

talking _ bringing her down. guess who i am talking about. of course, it talking about. of course, it is michael— talking about. of course, it is michael heseltine. think of the rejuvenation of those city centres done _ rejuvenation of those city centres done by— rejuvenation of those city centres done by michael hesitating, big state _ done by michael hesitating, big state intervention, stimulated private — state intervention, stimulated private sector money and he is of course _ private sector money and he is of course a — private sector money and he is of course a great believer in devolving powers _ course a great believer in devolving powers -- — course a great believer in devolving powers —— michael heseltine. and listen _ powers —— michael heseltine. and listen to— powers —— michael heseltine. and listen to this, whitehall talking about— listen to this, whitehall talking about how it has become too passive and overly _ about how it has become too passive and overly centralised and look at this, _ and overly centralised and look at this, we _ and overly centralised and look at this, we will turn it on its head, delivering — this, we will turn it on its head, delivering a _ this, we will turn it on its head, delivering a far more active central government to give local leaders the levers _ government to give local leaders the levers needed to turbo—charge their areas _ levers needed to turbo—charge their areas. could have been written by michaet— areas. could have been written by michael heseltine, written by keir starmer— michael heseltine, written by keir starmer and angela rayner in the times _ starmer and angela rayner in the times. what are they talking about? a big _ times. what are they talking about? a big state _ times. what are they talking about? a big state intervention if they win the next _ a big state intervention if they win the next election. the publicly owned — the next election. the publicly owned great british energy to invest in clean _ owned great british energy to invest in clean energy. and that devolution of powers _ in clean energy. and that devolution of powers and talking about giving powers _ of powers and talking about giving powers to — of powers and talking about giving powers to local authorities if they want _ powers to local authorities if they want to _ powers to local authorities if they want to take transport back into public— want to take transport back into public ownership. and you are hearing — public ownership. and you are hearing from senior labour figures language they have not been that

confident of using in recent years. listen— confident of using in recent years. listen to — confident of using in recent years. listen to what angela rayner had to say last _ listen to what angela rayner had to say last week when i said to her, are you _ say last week when i said to her, are you talking about renationalising bosses? well, i will certainly give people the option to do that. because the point is, if you're not getting value for money, then too often now, people feel like they're not able to pull the levers to say, this public service is not working for us. we want it to be directly controlled, so that we can have an impact and make it better. we've seen it with the rail. we've had a big debate around avanti and the contract with avanti trains. we've said we'd bring that back into public ownership once those contracts are up, because we want value for money. ifa if a company like thames water does end up being renationalised, is there a danger investors might look at the uk and go, it is kind of uninvestable?— at the uk and go, it is kind of uninvestable? ., , ., uninvestable? that is the word the shareholders _ uninvestable? that is the word the shareholders of _ uninvestable? that is the word the shareholders of thames _ uninvestable? that is the word the shareholders of thames water - uninvestable? that is the word the l shareholders of thames water gave about the company given the requirements made of it by the government and regulators. in terms of absolute rewrite, labour are changing their tune slightly on

nationalisation from where they were. —— in terms of absolutely. what are labour going to do in their power? they have said they are not going to use so much public investment, they will rely on private investment to deliver their really ambitious plans for the economy. and if what thames water are saying is right and this does make private investors less willing to put more money into the uk, that is very bad news if it does happen for keir starmer and rachel reeves. thank you, both. let's talk to conservative mp sirjohn redwood, former minister in margaret thatcher's government and one of the architects of privatisation, and mariana mazzucato who is a professor at ucl. she's also the author of "mission economy: a moonshot guide to changing capitalism", which has influenced current labour policy. welcome, both. so john welcome, both. sojohn redwood, michael gove today described the leadership of thames water is a disgrace. he said that customers had

been taken advantage of by successive management teams that have taken out profits and not invested as they should. is have taken out profits and not invested as they should.- invested as they should. is he riuht? invested as they should. is he riht? i invested as they should. is he right? | think _ invested as they should. is he right? i think privatisation - invested as they should. is he right? i think privatisation is l invested as they should. i3 us: right? i think privatisation is best when you combine private capital coming in with competition. and i think it was a great pity we didn't introduce petition into water, limited competition was introduced into scotland and it is quite possible to have a procompetitive model. but on your programme tonight, surely the worst case you are going to be looking at is a nationalised industry. it is the post office that has treated its subpostmasters so badly and lied to people. a long and has lost 1,400 million pounds of taxpayers' money. it can only trade tonight with a very qualified audit because it is receiving almost limitless amounts of money from the treasury to pay the bills of the losses. thames water has been investing well over1 billion a year and its cost of

hospital from the private sector about 8%, with the mixture of equity it is providing, it is perfectly reasonable in the light of current market circumstances. the reason it hasn't invested even more to tackle the disgrace of sewage going into our rivers is that the regulator decided that it couldn't allow bills to go up sufficiently to make more rapid increases in capacity. 4.5 billion is going into that big project in london, where london itself was under great pressure because there simply wasn't enough capacity for a growing city.— capacity for a growing city. mariana mazzucato. — capacity for a growing city. mariana mazzucato. is _ capacity for a growing city. mariana mazzucato, is it _ capacity for a growing city. mariana mazzucato, is it simply _ capacity for a growing city. mariana mazzucato, is it simply a _ capacity for a growing city. mariana| mazzucato, is it simply a regulatory failure? ., ~' mazzucato, is it simply a regulatory failure? ., ~ , ., failure? no, ithink it is a corporate _ failure? no, ithink it is a corporate governance - failure? no, i think it is a i corporate governance failure failure? no, i think it is a - corporate governance failure and failure? no, i think it is a _ corporate governance failure and we should _ corporate governance failure and we should remember this debate about privatisation and nationalisation is very old _ privatisation and nationalisation is very old and the rest of the world has moved — very old and the rest of the world has moved forward. you have companies like orange or edf in france, — companies like orange or edf in france, these are hybrid, orange hybrid _ france, these are hybrid, orange hybrid company is a public and

private — hybrid company is a public and private entity. with corporate governance, it depends how we govern those _ governance, it depends how we govern those companies. if they are just maximising their shares and we allow private _ maximising their shares and we allow private equity companies like mcquarrie to overly give out in the end of— mcquarrie to overly give out in the end of the — mcquarrie to overly give out in the end of the profits that are being earned — end of the profits that are being earned instead of reinvesting them into better infrastructure, they are 'ust into better infrastructure, they are just being — into better infrastructure, they are just being given out as dividend payouts~ — just being given out as dividend payouts. let just being given out as dividend -a outs. . just being given out as dividend -a outs. , ., , ., payouts. let me put the example of welsh water — payouts. let me put the example of welsh water which _ payouts. let me put the example of welsh water which is _ payouts. let me put the example of welsh water which is a _ welsh water which is a not—for—profit organisation run for the benefit of customers. it is having problems. it the benefit of customers. it is having problems.— having problems. it is also polluting _ having problems. it is also polluting the _ having problems. it is also polluting the load - having problems. it is also polluting the load of - having problems. it is also| polluting the load of rivers. exactly, _ polluting the load of rivers. exactly, that is exactly the point that neither nationalisation or privatisation or the utopian answers. _ privatisation or the utopian answers, —— are the utopian answers. we need _ answers, —— are the utopian answers. we need to— answers, —— are the utopian answers. we need to look at concrete structures. 61 macau is about a quarter— structures. 61 macau is about a quarter of— structures. 61 macau is about a quarter of the size of ofcom so the regulators— quarter of the size of ofcom so the regulators can be well funded and well resourced or regulating and regulating borlee —— ofwat. it has been _ regulating borlee —— ofwat. it has been a _ regulating borlee —— ofwat. it has been a failure of regulation and

corporate — been a failure of regulation and corporate governance of the deregulated system where instead of allowing _ deregulated system where instead of allowing in infrastructure, we have allowed _ allowing in infrastructure, we have allowed 72— allowing in infrastructure, we have allowed 72 billion leaders —— litres of sewage — allowed 72 billion leaders —— litres of sewage into the thames over the last three _ of sewage into the thames over the last three years, that is crazy. sir john last three years, that is crazy. ’5 " john redwood, if taxpayers end up bailing out thames water, what message does that send out to investors? i message does that send out to investors?— message does that send out to investors? i think that will be a ve bad investors? i think that will be a very bad outcome _ investors? i think that will be a very bad outcome and - investors? i think that will be a very bad outcome and i - investors? i think that will be a very bad outcome and i hope . investors? i think that will be a - very bad outcome and i hope there will be a negotiated settlement because very clearly, the regulator has to allow the water industry to collect more from us customers in order to speed up the improvements and the increasing capacity. that is what the argument has been about. but what message would it send? rather than have a monopoly model, you need a public sector regulator making these calls. if they had a competitive model, you wouldn't get that problem. the great success of privatisation which nobody talks about because it is such a great success as telecommunications, internet, phones, mobiles, that kind

of thing. we had a dreadful system very constrained by the lack of capital government could provide it and by the lack of choice and competition and we now have one of the best modern systems in the world, full of competitive companies.— world, full of competitive comanies. ., , . ., ., ., companies. that sector would not have become as _ companies. that sector would not have become as competitive as i companies. that sector would not i have become as competitive as it is had have become as competitive as it is bad there _ have become as competitive as it is had there not been this massive global— had there not been this massive global technological wave around semiconductors which reduce cost. this is— semiconductors which reduce cost. this is also— semiconductors which reduce cost. this is also a — semiconductors which reduce cost. this is also a very particular sector— this is also a very particular sector which has not been characterised by much innovation, it has been _ characterised by much innovation, it has been allowed to work as a monopoly— has been allowed to work as a monopoly and a financial eyes monopoly. it is basically the worst case of— monopoly. it is basically the worst case of all— monopoly. it is basically the worst case of all situations. but it is unfair— case of all situations. but it is unfair to— case of all situations. but it is unfairto compare it case of all situations. but it is unfair to compare it to telecoms which _ unfair to compare it to telecoms which if— unfair to compare it to telecoms which if you look at the technological innovation context, this is— technological innovation context, this is extremely different. butl this is extremely different. but i could also _ this is extremely different. but i could also mention _ this is extremely different. but i could also mention british - this is extremely different. emit i could also mention british airways, sirjohn rowe world. but then there are banks and trains and energy companies which have had to be bailed out —— sirjohn redwood. because it hasn't gone well. well,

the banks were bailed out because the banks were bailed out because the bank of england and the regulators decided to bankrupt them and that was i think very bad monetary policy. they allowed far too much expansion are banks and then they put the brakes on far too severely. i warned them against both those stupid policies and obviously, there was a cost to taxpayers which was eminently avoidable and extremely regrettable. we must have intelligent regulators. to intervene. _ intelligent regulators. to intervene. what we should avoid which _ intervene. what we should avoid which happen both with the banks and has happened with so many different sectors _ has happened with so many different sectors is _ has happened with so many different sectors is you get the state coming in to boil— sectors is you get the state coming in to boil out —— to bail out the mess— in to boil out —— to bail out the mess and _ in to boil out —— to bail out the mess and when things go well, the profits— mess and when things go well, the profits go— mess and when things go well, the profits go private, so privatisation is rewards — profits go private, so privatisation is rewards and public is the risk which _ is rewards and public is the risk which we — is rewards and public is the risk which we saw with the financial crisis _ which we saw with the financial crisis and — which we saw with the financial crisis and we often see with a bailout. — crisis and we often see with a bailout, the financial crisis and we often _ bailout, the financial crisis and we often see — bailout, the financial crisis and we often see with a bailout mistake comes— often see with a bailout mistake comes in— often see with a bailout mistake comes in and fixes the mess and sells— comes in and fixes the mess and sells it _ comes in and fixes the mess and sells it at — comes in and fixes the mess and sells it at rock bottom prices like we did _ sells it at rock bottom prices like we did with the post office. that is definitely— we did with the post office. that is definitely not something we want to repeat _ definitely not something we want to repeat in_ definitely not something we want to repeat in this sector. as was said in the _ repeat in this sector. as was said in the discussion, if it is brought international hands, it should be

done _ international hands, it should be done for— international hands, it should be done for strategic reasons and not for administration reasons which then— for administration reasons which then the — for administration reasons which then the taxpayer has to pick up a very problematic company. what we actually _ very problematic company. what we actually need is an industrial strategy. that weird industrial strategy— strategy. that weird industrial strategy which is huge right now in the united — strategy which is huge right now in the united states and by the way, that doesn't mean picking winners, it means _ that doesn't mean picking winners, it means having a goal. for example, the chips _ it means having a goal. for example, the chips act— it means having a goal. for example, the chips act in the us is $400 billion— the chips act in the us is $400 billion being given to semiconductor companies _ billion being given to semiconductor companies conditional they not be financial— companies conditional they not be financial eyes, they are not supposed to take out the profits and -ive supposed to take out the profits and give it _ supposed to take out the profits and give it back to shareholders, there are conditions those profits go back into production, that they use energy— into production, that they use energy efficient supply chains, they paid a _ energy efficient supply chains, they paid a living wage and improve living _ paid a living wage and improve living conditions, this is a modern day capitalism. living conditions, this is a modern day capitalism-— living conditions, this is a modern day capitalism. thank you, both. but the post office _ day capitalism. thank you, both. but the post office has _ day capitalism. thank you, both. but the post office has not _ day capitalism. thank you, both. but the post office has not been - the post office has not been privatised, it has been nationalised throughout. the privatised, it has been nationalised throu:hout. .,, privatised, it has been nationalised throu:hout. , . privatised, it has been nationalised throughout-— throughout. the post office, yes. you 'ust throughout. the post office, yes. you just said _ throughout. the post office, yes. you just said it _ throughout. the post office, yes. you just said it had _ throughout. the post office, yes. you just said it had been - throughout. the post office, yes. | you just said it had been privatised and i'm afraid you were wrong. it and i'm afraid you were wrong. it was royal mail. and i think you also said at the beginning the post office had been privatised, but it

is royal mail. thank you both very much. let's talk now to labour's shadow education minister catherine mckinnell, mp for newcastle north, about privatisation, but first, about their local election campagin which they launched today. how can you level up without spending any money? think the 14 years of decline and chaos and lack of strategic plans is costing our economy and it is costing our economy and it is costing households greatly, we know that living costs are soaring, but people are paying more and more in tax, but they haven't got services, that meet their needs, whether that is is a dentist, whether it's a gp or whether as you mentioned, previously, buss that take you to work and to school, so, i think we

have had enough of a conservative party that has focused on itself and its internal leadership wranglings and we need to focus on the country and we need to focus on the country and that will make a huge difference, labour has a clear plan as to how we can do things differently, working in partnership where local communities to drive economic growth, that is the only way we are going to see that prosperity we know people need but also that development in our local communities, that will, that will create that prosperity that every household is looking for. it create that prosperity that every household is looking for. it sounds like ou household is looking for. it sounds like you are _ household is looking for. it sounds like you are prom _ household is looking for. it sounds like you are prom missing - household is looking for. it sounds like you are prom missing the - household is looking for. it sounds l like you are prom missing the same as the conservatives back in 2019. great rhetoric, but no money? we have not great rhetoric, but no money? - have got things where we made specific spending pledges so, in... not for levelling up. in specific spending pledges so, in... not for levelling up.— not for levelling up. in education, we will ensure _ not for levelling up. in education, we will ensure that _ not for levelling up. in education, we will ensure that we _ not for levelling up. in education, we will ensure that we will - not for levelling up. in education, we will ensure that we will invest| we will ensure that we will invest in more a teaching workforce and make sure that funds opportunities for people, but, i mean, in terms of levelling up, i mean the government

have talked a good talk on levelling up have talked a good talk on levelling up but in reality the gap in earnings between london and every region has grown since 2010, we are talking on average £17 a head in the north, so, they havejust talking on average £17 a head in the north, so, they have just not levelled up our community, quite the opposite. i levelled up our community, quite the o- osite. ., levelled up our community, quite the o- osite. . . levelled up our community, quite the o- osite. ., ., ., ,., opposite. i am asking about your lan, if opposite. i am asking about your plan. if you _ opposite. i am asking about your plan. if you win _ opposite. i am asking about your plan, if you win the _ opposite. i am asking about your plan, if you win the election. - opposite. i am asking about your l plan, if you win the election. there is no extra money and there is certainly no extra money for local councils. and you know how stretched they are. we councils. and you know how stretched the are. ~ .., councils. and you know how stretched the are. ~ ., , councils. and you know how stretched the are. ., , councils. and you know how stretched the are. ~ ., , . they are. we can do things so much differently to _ they are. we can do things so much differently to the _ they are. we can do things so much differently to the way _ they are. we can do things so much differently to the way they - differently to the way they have been done, we know that the current government has focused on very short—term objective, short—term plan, local governments have to come cap in hand, year on year, there are is no long—term strategic planning, for how to truly develop a community, so labour would ensure it was accompanied by a growth plan with a clear strategy and we make sure the power are devolved. what

with a clear strategy and we make sure the power are devolved. what if the strategy — sure the power are devolved. what if the strategy doesn't _ sure the power are devolved. what if the strategy doesn't work _ sure the power are devolved. what if the strategy doesn't work and - sure the power are devolved. what if the strategy doesn't work and what l the strategy doesn't work and what if it takes five years to work? what you are say it seems like honestly we can do it better than the conservatives but through is no extra money, trust us, we can do it better. i extra money, trust us, we can do it better. ~ ., ' , ., , extra money, trust us, we can do it better. ~ ., ' , ., better. i think, after 14 years of chaos, better. i think, after 14 years of chaos. that _ better. i think, after 14 years of chaos, that we _ better. i think, after 14 years of chaos, that we failed _ better. i think, after 14 years of chaos, that we failed in - better. i think, after 14 years of chaos, that we failed in this - chaos, that we failed in this country, i mean we are talking about people not wanting to invest in this country, i think a lot that is driven by the chaos we have seen in government for too long and i think people have almost got used to it, and have forgotten that things don't have to be so chaotic, we can really invest in growth, we can have an industrial strategy, that focuses on creating that stability, within communities and that capacity within communities and that capacity within communities to build from the bottom up, and make sure that, i mean take public transport, in my area, we have a metro system that is absolutely crumbling, anyone will tell you it is very hard to get to

work at the moment, we have buses if they do turn up, they rarely meet, match up, so you can't connect to anywhere, and i think you know, we want to see those powers to bring that back under public control, and make sure that a local transport system works for a local community, but that has to be done at the right level, so labour's committed to making sure we end those devolution deserts where... flan making sure we end those devolution deserts where. . ._ deserts where... can i ask you about- -- _ deserts where... can i ask you about... don't _ deserts where... can i ask you about... don't have _ deserts where... can i ask you about... don't have that - deserts where... can i ask you - about... don't have that combination of owers about... don't have that combination of powers to — about... don't have that combination of powers to drive _ about... don't have that combination of powers to drive that _ about... don't have that combination of powers to drive that growth - about... don't have that combination of powers to drive that growth in - of powers to drive that growth in their area. of powers to drive that growth in their area-— of powers to drive that growth in their area. ., , ., their area. one of the ways labour sa s it their area. one of the ways labour says it will — their area. one of the ways labour says it will drive _ their area. one of the ways labour says it will drive growth _ their area. one of the ways labour says it will drive growth is - their area. one of the ways labour says it will drive growth is it - their area. one of the ways labour says it will drive growth is it will i says it will drive growth is it will change the planning laws, that it will, keir starmer uses the phrase we are the builders no the blocker, the times reported that 49 lain mps have tried to block more than 4600 affordable homes in their constituencies since 2019. is it is reported you tried to block a children's home in your area because you said residents were worried that the care facility would monopolise

parking, in 2021 it is reported you spoke out against government plans to make it easierfor developers spoke out against government plans to make it easier for developers to build home, you said i am contacted by constituents who are deeply concerned about the scale and pace of housing developments across newcastle's outer west. so are you really not the blockers? so newcastle's outer west. so are you really not the blockers? 50 i newcastle's outer west. so are you really not the blockers? so i mean, what ou really not the blockers? so i mean, what you could _ really not the blockers? so i mean, what you could add _ really not the blockers? so i mean, what you could add on _ really not the blockers? so i mean, what you could add on that, - really not the blockers? so i mean, what you could add on that, is - what you could add on that, is without the infrastructure that is needed, without the strategic planning that is needed, to make local communityings function, and we have seen in my local area for example, we have seen a very large housing development, and no shop for the first 12 years i was elected, and... ., .., the first 12 years i was elected, and... ., ., ., and... you can always find a reason. it has to and... you can always find a reason. it has to be — and... you can always find a reason. it has to be done _ and... you can always find a reason. it has to be done you _ and... you can always find a reason. it has to be done you can _ and... you can always find a reason. it has to be done you can always - it has to be done you can always find a reason _ it has to be done you can always find a reason to _ it has to be done you can always find a reason to put _ it has to be done you can always find a reason to put up _ it has to be done you can always| find a reason to put up objections can't you. find a reason to put up ob'ections can't ou. ., , ., can't you. no, there is no objections _ can't you. no, there is no objections to _ can't you. no, there is no objections to building - can't you. no, there is no objections to building the j can't you. no, there is no - objections to building the housing, it is building housing without the

strategic planning involved which is why labour wants to hand those powers to mayors to make sure that you don'tjust have planning done in silos that you have it done on a strategic level and can make sure that the infrastructure is there, because i think that is what people really struggle with at the moment, is none of the public transport work, there is not enough gps, there aren't even shops in some places so to bring together that strategic level of planning, and labour wans to give that power to communities and make sure that mayors have that strategic overview so we have communities that work and drive that economic growth we want to see. thank you for talking to our audience. just when you thought you cldnt be any more shocked by the scandal of the post office's horizon it software and the wrongful convictions of hundreds of subpostmasters, another revelation comes along to take your breath away.

the bbc�*s uncovered documents which show the post office spent £100 million of taxpayers' money fighting its own subpostmasters, even though it knew its defence was untrue. it's astonishing. the document reveals the post office was shown evidence by 2017 that losses could be due to errors in the horizon it system or remote tampering. but publicly, in court, it kept arguing in the bates v post office ltd case that theft or mistakes by sub—postmasters must be to blame. the post office has said today it would be "inappropriate" to comment. let's talk to janet skinner, from hull, who used to be a subpostmaster. aged 35, she was sent to jailfor nine months, after being accused by the post office of a loss of £59,000. janet, skinner thank you forjoining u your reaction to this document first of all?— first of all? anger. it's gut wrenching- _ first of all? anger. it's gut wrenching. it _ first of all? anger. it's gut wrenching. it feels - first of all? anger. it's gut wrenching. it feels like - first of all? anger. it's gut i wrenching. it feels like every single postmaster has been punched

again. it isjust, it isjust, it is just very frustrating. it again. it isjust, it is 'ust, it is just very frustrating._ again. it isjust, it is 'ust, it is just very frustrating. if you had known this. — just very frustrating. if you had known this, when _ just very frustrating. if you had known this, when you - just very frustrating. if you had known this, when you were - just very frustrating. if you had | known this, when you were part just very frustrating. if you had - known this, when you were part of the group action back in 2017, 2018 when you took legal action against the post office, how might it have changed things?— the post office, how might it have changed things? well, they wouldn't have been able _ changed things? well, they wouldn't have been able to _ changed things? well, they wouldn't have been able to waste _ changed things? well, they wouldn't have been able to waste millions - changed things? well, they wouldn't have been able to waste millions ofl have been able to waste millions of pounds, filing us through court system. i mean we had it with second sight back in 2013, it was the same sort of thing then, throwing money way, rejecting anything that was wrong with their systems, covering it all up, then fighting us in the high court as well. is there anything left to shock you, do you think in the way the post office has behaved?— office has behaved? no, not really, i think it office has behaved? no, not really, i think it is — office has behaved? no, not really, i think it is just — office has behaved? no, not really, i think it isjust going, _ office has behaved? no, not really, i think it isjust going, it _ office has behaved? no, not really, i think it isjust going, it is - i think it isjust going, it is going to get worse, and there is

going to get worse, and there is going to be more information but i think what annoys me the most is, it is deloitte who has done this report, the and why didn't they bring that to attention of anybody? why is it something that surfaced now? ., . why is it something that surfaced now? ., , ., ., , ., the now? that is a great question. they could have — now? that is a great question. they could have preventing _ now? that is a great question. they could have preventing that - now? that is a great question. they could have preventing that court - could have preventing that court case, do you know, the 555 of us that went to that court case, they could have prevented that and they could have prevented that and they could have prevented that and they could have saved a lot of time, money and tear, and the tears have been from the postmaster, not from the post office.— been from the postmaster, not from the post office. what do you want to see ultimately _ the post office. what do you want to see ultimately then _ the post office. what do you want to see ultimately then janet? _ the post office. what do you want to see ultimately then janet? justice. i see ultimately then janet? justice. accountability. _ see ultimately then janet? justice. accountability. what _ see ultimately then janet? justice. accountability. what does - see ultimately then janet? justice. accountability. what does that - see ultimately then janet? justice. | accountability. what does that look like? arrest. _ accountability. what does that look like? arrest, people _ accountability. what does that look like? arrest, people held _ like? arrest, people held accountable, _ like? arrest, people held accountable, sent - like? arrest, people held accountable, sent to - like? arrest, people held i accountable, sent to prison, like? arrest, people held - accountable, sent to prison, having confiscations made against them, losing all of their asset, the same way we have been treated. i mean i was, i was lost myjob in 2006, i

was, i was lost myjob in 2006, i was sent to prison in february 2007, i lost everything and in the space, that was in space of six months and they had no evidence to prove theft. how much more evidence do they need to take against the post office? janet, thank you for talking to us, we really appreciate it, take careful we really appreciate it, take carefu ., ~ we really appreciate it, take carefu ., ,, , ., we really appreciate it, take carefui_ thanks l we really appreciate it, take - carefui_ thanks janet. thanks janet. russia's invasion of ukraine may not be in the headlines as much as it once was, and much of that conflict is far away from the public gaze and cameras, especially on the frontlines of the eastern donbas region. that inspired award—winning documentary makerjamie roberts to give helmet—mounted cameras to several ukrainian units ? to allow them to record the war in a way that no film—maker could. the story of one of those units has just been released, as the astonishing bbc documentary ukraine: enemy in the woods. jamie gave our international correspondent, joe inwood, the previously unreleased footage of one of those units ? the 28th mechanized brigade ? as they cleared mines and built roads to the front lines.

and there's some strong language in his report. watch this. what was that? mortar. russians are shooting us. gunfire. when humanity destroys what it's created, it always looks epic, for sure. it is a dangerous journey to the eastern front. using the cover of darkness, ukrainian engineers of the 28th mechanized brigade are on a mission to clear mines and build roads. the russians are there. this was the russian positions, by the way. this summer, it was

russian positions. our guide is eugene, from the devastated city of mariupol. so our guys hit assault like this, on the open field. all of that, we recaptured. four kilometres or six kilometres. you must have lost a lot of guys. yes. but we gained the high ground. so keep a distance a little bit, so we won't be killed by one shell. but because we received the military aid too late, while everybody was discussing, thinking, doubting the russians, they built a very solid defensive line. like in world war i, you know? sometimes, it has concrete in it as well. so, it made impossible to quickly push forward. that cost lots of life, really, lots of life. the biggest danger here is the drones.

the thing is that russians start to produce drones in the factories, and we're doing it with the help of volunteers. this is different. it's like, you know, an amateur cooperative of people against the whole manufacturing. they are getting ready for a long war. they're rebuilding their economy for a long war. they're ready to fight to the last russian. and they know that they will never finish. you know, they can conscript everybody, they could. we cannot afford that. this is the problem. we need to fight with quality against the quantity. but right now, it's almost impossible to do. as you can hear, this is a firefight. we're not far from the... these trenches are in the eastern donbas region, where the fighting has been fiercest.

keep your head down. they are about 100 miles north of mariupol, where eugene lived before the war. my home was destroyed by russians. it's a graveyard now. sometimes, i watch videos from mariupol on telegram. i doubt that there are words to describe this. but this is the thing that will leave a very deep scar inside everyone who suffered. again. filmmakerjamie roberts was on the front lines to give soldiers helmet—mounted cameras, allowing war to be captured from a unique and dangerous perspective. russians are shooting us. did you hear? the bbc team saw the cost

in ukrainian lives. two weeks ago, the man on the left, konstantin, was killed by a grenade in this exact spot. maxim — callsign, palomar — is a lead engineer. hisjob is to build roads and to clear mines. oh, yeah. it is dangerous work.

they call this the road of life. it allows ammunition, food and troops to get to the front, and casualties and bodies to come the other way. weather, constant use and russian shelling means it needs to be repaired almost every day. we send in basically on the front line. but the road is shitty here, so we need to make a road for them. i talk to my british friends and they say, "we're tired of war". how can you be tired of war when you never took part in it, when you live in a comfort, in a comfortable environment? the problem is that this war is not only about ukraine, it's about the whole world. they don't realise that this thing is happening here, it might happen at their homes. we now go into the mine, for demining work. there are a few mines lying

there, so maks needs to make a safe passage. anti—tank mines like these require hundreds of pounds of pressure to set off. despite that, this is dangerous work. although maks is one of the most experienced in the ukrainian armed forces. the whole field is mined, that one as well. ukraine is the most mined free country in the world now, so there will be lots of work for them in the years ahead, even after war. when, before the second world war, britain, chamberlain thought that if they will give hitler a few countries, he will calm down. well, we all remember

how it all went. now, 70 years has passed, 78, and we're in the same place again, doomed to repeat the same mistakes we did. watch this. with the fuse removed from the body of the mine, it can be fully deactivated. security position. why are you fighting now? for the revenge. we're loading these mines. the mines will not be destroyed, but redeployed, as part of ukraine's defensive lines. without the cover of darkness, the return journey is even more dangerous.

when humanity destroys what it's created, it always looks epic, for sure. away from the front lines, eugene takes the team to see the destroyed town of svyatohirs�*k. this village was occupied. you will see the devastation here. hopefully, no minefields. are you a religious person? i believe that if god exists, he doesn't care about us. he wouldn't let all this happen. no. that footage was part of the project that produced the documentary ukraine: enemy in the woods, which you can watch on bbc iplayer. and twice a week, every week, download the bbc podcast ukrainecast, where myself and vitaly shevchenko keep listeners right up to date with what's heppening in this war, which is now in its third year. this is 32—year—old

sam bankman—fried. once the golden boy of cryptocurrency, just 18 months or so ago, he was a corporate titan and one of the youngest billionaires on the planet. today, in new york, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison for defrauding customers and investors through his now—bankrupt firm ftx. cryptocurrenices were predicted to revolutionise and democraticise the world of finance. so, what does his fall from grace mean for theirfuture? ben's back. when the cryptocurrency exchange ftx collapsed and its founder sam bankman—fried was arrested in december 2022, there was lots of talk of the bubble bursting and of a crypto winter. here's what bitcoin, the most famous crypto currency, was trading at then. around $16,000 — well down from its $60,000 peak a year earlier. but look at what's happened

to the price since then. it's shot up again, to around $70,000. that's an increase of more than 230%. other cryptocurrencies — like bnb, ethereum and dogecoin — are also up strikingly since november 2022. one, called solana, is up by even more than bitcoin. so winter would appear to be over. why the bounceback? well, one factor is that injanuary, the american financial regulator the securities and exchange commission, headed by gary gensler, allowed new funds to be established by major mainstream financial platforms, making it much easier for more ordinary people to speculate on cryptocurrency. so a flood of new money — some $50 billion — has gone into crypto and, rather inevitably, that's lifted their prices. that doesn't of course imply that these prices will stay up. crypto evangelists argue they are the future of money, of course, and bitcoin a kind of digital gold, owing to its ultimate fixed supply. but financial regulators

everywhere — including the bank of england governor andrew bailey — are at pains to stress that people should only ever put cash into these cryptocurrencies if they are prepared to lose it all. and most economists are very sceptical, to put it mildly, of these things, generally regarding them as speculative assets driven by hype and greed, rather than any fundamental value or utility. these are, by the way, different from the central bank digital currencies, which are being looked at by the federal reserve and the european central bank. the value of these — in terms of pounds, dollars dollars and euros — would be state—guaranteed, unlike things like bitcoin or ethereum. yet any hopes regulators and economists had that crypto would disappear now appear forlorn. cryptocurrencies, for good or ill, seem to be here to stay. and that raises the question of what should be done about them, because they do pose challenges. they're often used by criminals, money launderers and terrorists to move money around and receive payment without detection. the more they are used,

the easier that potentially gets. and the cryptographic "mining" of some of these digital assets, especially bitcoin, involves masses of energy, contributing in no small way to increasing planetary greenhouse gas emissions. the biden administration is exploring a tax on the energy used to mine cryptocurrencies as a response. the fundamental challenge for governments and regulators when it comes to crypto is walking the fine line between allowing adults the freedom to make bets and speculate — including the freedom to lose money or to potentially be defrauded — and protecting others, who aren't involved, from the potentially damaging spillover consequences of that freedom. let's talk to ben mckenzie, who is an actor famous for the 0c and gotham, and co—author of easy money: cryptocurrency, casino capitalism, and the golden age of fraud. ben mckenzie, you had met sam bankman—fried, what is he like and what do you make of his sentence? well, the sentence seemed fair, the judge that the difference between

what the prosecution was asking for, 40 to 50 years, and what the defence was asking, four to six. he settled at 25. these are serious charges. sam was convicted of six counts of fraud and one charge of money laundering. to be honest with you, it was very strange to watch the proceedings in person. i interviewed him right before his empire collapsed and i had the sneaking suspicion that however this was going to play out, it was not going to end well. and sure enough, it didn't for him and for the millions of people who lost money on his exchange, ftx. let of people who lost money on his exchange. ftx-— of people who lost money on his exchanue, ftx. ., ., exchange, ftx. let me ask you more broadly about — exchange, ftx. let me ask you more broadly about the _ exchange, ftx. let me ask you more broadly about the american - broadly about the american regulators and how they have allowed financial institutions and ordinary investors to get involved in crypto, so it is kind of legitimising it, you might argue. the last time you are on newsnight, you called it a hierarchical ponzi scheme still feel the same? . ., ~ hierarchical ponzi scheme still feel the same? , ., ,, , the same? yes, and i think there is more to come _ the same? yes, and i think there is

more to come here. _ the same? yes, and i think there is more to come here. -- _