anthony scaramucci is an excommunications director. this interview from the white house was recorded earlier today. so the chief of staff was literally sworn in about 52 minutes ago, so he is setting in place the procedures by which he will run the white house internally. where anthony fits into that you would have to ask general kelly. we'll talk to anthony. but let's give him more than 52 minutes and find out later in the week. we didn't need that long. here is a quick recap of how we got here. i love the president. and i'm very, very loyal to the president. when mr scaramucci got the job ten days ago, the white house press secretary, sean spicer resigned over that appointment. then last week, mr scaramucci publicly the then white house chief of chief of staff, reince priebus. he was replaced last week. that was seen as a win for mr scaramucci. but mr priebus‘ replacement, generaljohn kelly, demanded mr scaramucci's removal in turn. mr scaramucci's attack last week may have made that an easier sale. the president certainly felt that anthony's comments were inappropriate for a person in that position. and he didn't want to burden general kelly also with that line of succession. mr scaramucci was actually the second communications director, following mike dubcic, who resigned in june. the current national security adviser, hr mcmaster, is also the second. the first, mike flynn, resigned after misleading the vice president on issues around the russian influence scandal. irritation with the investigation into that scandal eventually led to president trump firing the fbi director, james comey. we also know the president may about be about to fire his attorney—general, jeff sessions, because mr sessions recuesed himself from that investigation. maybe general kelly will make the white house work. but they've had a humiliation on health care in congress, that russian links investigation is rumbling on, and it's still not a normal white house. that was from chris cook, put together quickly. our north america editor, jon sopel, joins us now from outside from outside the white house. so, john, how many in dc saw that coming as quickly as that? i would love to tell you that we all saw that coming, the truth is i was in the white house briefing room a few hours ago, and we were sitting around shooting the breeze and saying, you know what, it all suddenly feels a very much great deal calmer, compared to last week. donald trump going on holiday at the end of the week for a couple of weeks. it's probably going to be a slight lull now and then probably absolutely nothing to do for a couple of weeks. and then we were sitting, and then came be flashed at anthony scaramucci was going. not quite quiet, then. even — we understand that mr scaramucci was escorted off the premises. ten days ago, he was seen as the answer to donald trump's prayers on communication and press relations. now gone, departed. briefly, one should say this is incredibly absorbing. every minute we're talking about the personnel and comings and going, not talking about health care, defence or global problems, paris climate deals or anything. and i think that's why it is important for general kelly to have notched up this victory today but for future victories. he wants to bring a sense of order, process, a chain of command, a proper reporting structure into the white house so that when you are dealing with issues like, i don't know, north korea, or even domestic policy questions, you've got a white house that is pulling in one direction, not going off in different directions with everyone briefing against each other, which has been the hallmark of these past six months. thank you very much. if you were watching on wednesday, you would have seen what i think was the only overseas broadcast interview with anthony scaramucci in that post. it was our very own emily matlis who captured that scoop. you had a close up glimpse of the chaos. even before this happened there was a joke doing the rounds that the former apprentice boss one donald trump thought he had to eliminate one person each week, he somehow misunderstood the role of president. now we're on more than one a week. i spoke to him exclusively for the bbc for newsnight less than a week ago, and truth be told, here was a certain amount of chaos even then. to put it in context, i was standing pretty much wherejon was, that interview should never have happened. scaramucci was walking past behind me, taking selfies, as is the want of trump administration, before that infamous dinner. that was an sean hannity and president trump himself. when i realised who it was, i pulled out my ear piece and i tried to lure him onto newsnight. it was the thing that anyjournalist in my position would have done. the curious thing was that he didn't seem to need to refer upwards. he didn't ask me what i was going to ask him about. he didn't need to know how long the interview would be or what it was about. he was flattered. he came on without knowing... that's kind of what we like about the guy. as a journalist, he is about as good as it gets. when i asked about the british story of the day, the brexit deal, chlorination chicken to coin a phrase, he fessed up, "i know nothing about your chicken story. i promise if you come back in a week's time, i will know chicken ioo%." i will be wordperfect. —— i will be word perfect. unfortunately that won't happen. there was an impromptu and that is being kind, seat of the pants attitude, notjust for me, but for him. the way it's played out, it points to a deeper structural issue about the way the white house runs. this is the curious thing. i talk to members of the trump administration quite often, notjust scaramucci and the grown ups, shall we say, are keen to point out, they tell me, ignore the schtik. that is their way to say, there is a lot of stuff which is part hysteria, it's noise, it's the tweets, it's the press briefings, it's president trump making a lot of noise around was going on. he says behind all that, there is actually a strategy. there is something going on smoothly beneath the surface, that the media doesn't see because the rest is entertaining. there is a sense tonight that john kelly has come in and decided to tighten the ship. one member of the administration told me in confidence, they always get excited when they see "recognisable adult behaviour" from the trump administration. that equates to a good day for them. perhaps this is general kelly's way of saying it is not enough to go round telling me like me to ignore the schtick, we have to shut down the circus, kill all the clowns, make the fanfare go away, and make people know there is a strategy to the white house. thanks. joining us now from new york is jacob weisberg — editor in chief of the online news website slate and the presenter of the trumpcast podcast. well, jacob, the big question is is kelly going to instil some discipline on this tumultuous white house? well, first let's pause to savour for a minute what we've just been through. in your wonderful interview last week, scaramucci said he wasn't a back stabber, he was a front stabber. but he didn't go quite so far as to say he would be a front self—stabber with such proficiency. i mean even in this white house where the shelf life of aides seems to range between milk and yoghurt this was incredibly swift. i think general kelly has a difficult task before him. i have no doubt that he can function effectively as a gatekeeper for donald trump. the question is whether president trump will allow himself to be gate kept. we know what a strong chief of staff looks like in the white house and how they operate. there have been many examples over the past several presidencies. that means the president must not have separate private channels of communication and trump has shown zero ability to do. trump is seen... and some of his staff has professed it as a philosophy, that chaos is a way of getting things done, smashing systems that are broken and need replacing, and this is all part of disruption. do you think trump is persuaded, deep down persuaded, that is not the way to get things done, that you need just a bit of traditional governmental competence? no, i don't think he is persuaded. i don't know that chaos is his theory, but it works for him. creating more chaos at the very least always changes the subject when he's in trouble from one crisis to another. i think you've seen even in the last week, which is by any standard about a chaotic as the white house has gotten. of course, trump tweeted this morning that there is no white house chaos. but what it's done is it's removed the possibility of attention for anything other than trump. so the democrats tried to roll out their plan for the mid—terms, senator schumer and nancy pelosi announced their better deal which is their big initiative heading towards the mid—terms. there was no oxygen left for it. i mean it was just a brief flurry because within a few hours, trump was attacking his own attorney—general and within a few days, he was bringing in scaramucci and you know, there's only so much space in the news. no—one was really able to get to anything beyond trump's chaos. no room for politics as normal. just in terms of who's up and who's down, which are the different donald trumps, if you like, is going to prevail? the big question is steve bannon, who has been a bit quiet in the last week. where is he out of all of this? well, it's funny — bannon, bannon — he got in trouble for appearing on the cover of time magazine with the headline that suggested he was the real power rather than trump. there's nothing riskier to do in the trump white house than claim the lion's share of the attention. but i do think bannon has learned his lesson. i mean, he's been much less visible and prominent. there is an interesting new book about him and trump out, but he doesn't seem to be making any effort to put himself in front of the cameras the way anthony scaramucci obviously was doing all of the time. so i think bannon has hopes of survival but how he will get along with the new chief of staff and the various other officials, it remains to be seen. you wouldn't want to predict longevity for anybody in the white house. on the other hand, you would have to say kelly is looking pretty indispensable at the moment because trump, it would be embarrassing to lose kelly in the next three months, and the way they were talking about him at the press briefing this evening — as having full authority, new structure and discipline, everybody in the white house is reporting to kelly, you have to think now, trump is trusting this guy. i would remain sceptical. i think trump will do what he wants to do. but i think it places limits around trump's behaviour and probably the most important is it will make it very difficult for trump to fire the independent counsel robert muller. because i think kelly would probably lay down in front of a truck on that one and trump would be faced with the choice of embarrassingly losing his new chief of staff or going through with what he probably does want to do. thanks very much. as we sit and reflect on the movie of the moment, dunkirk, and mark the 100th anniversary of passchendaele, it is possible to be optimist being about the state of the world or pessimistic. optimistic because we haven't been involved in a war on the scale of the first and second world war in 70 years. we have lived through an era of moderation. but economists used that term, great moderation, just before the financial crash. the quiet can foretell the storm. and it is hard not to look at world affairs right now without concern, whether it is the conflicts that have erupted in the middle east, the deteriorating relationship between russia and the us or the potentialfor a north korean ballistic missile to strike the west. is it time to worry? passchendaele from the sky after the battles of the first world war. just 80 miles from britain, a scene of total devastation of the kind that most of us have not experienced. today, the shape of passchendaele is unmistakably the same yet it is now just a pleasant belgian village, proof that the world can escape the darkness of the past. and yet new darkness can come, the world today is undeniably in a volatile and brutal phase. we will handle north korea. we will be able to handle them. it will be handled. we handle everything. thank you very much. no one has worked out a way to deal with the clear and present danger of north korea, a country led by a single—minded dictator with nuclear weapons. this weekend he tested another ballistic missile, fired it in the direction ofjapan and rails against the us. is this the most foreseeable way to imagine a million or more people dying right now? making for an unstable backdrop, the jostling of global powers. trump blames china for not dealing with north korea and has new problems with putin. each leader has something to prove, the world struggles for an equilibrium. vice president mike pence was in estonia today. no threat looms larger in the baltic states than the spectre of aggression from your unpredictable neighbour to the east. the cold war was of course, in the sense simple. what do i mean by that? that you had two great blocks, the warsaw pact on the one hand, nato on the other, where it that compare to today? it is not so simple, it is much more complicated, there are more actors on this difficult stage and therefore, it is, in my view, more difficult to handle. for those in syria, they're probably already feels like the end of days, conflict that has already lasted longer than world wars one and two. the medieval violence of so—called islamic state adds to the sense of desperation. it cannot kill on a nuclear scale but has taken terror well beyond its own territory. and syria is just one conflict in the region that is fraught with explosive potential. first you have to know what happens when an atomic bomb explodes. of course in the nuclear age, there have been periods in the past where we have felt that the end is nigh. usually human beings are capable of stepping from the brink, but the danger is one thing leads to another as it did before the first world war. one problem triggers the next, reaction leads to overreaction. care must be to ensure that what is relatively minor does not either by some intend some wire or by accident grow into something more serious and more threatening. a bbc war game exercise last year managed to arrive at a scenario of tactical nuclear weapons being used in europe. the americans have decided not to take our advice and have used a tactical nuclear weapons to take out a target in russia. it would be nice to dismiss such outcomes as television talk are not the real world but the worrying thing is that the years of peace in europe have been historical exception, rather than the norm. let's reflect on how serious the threat to the west and the world are. james jeffrey was deputy national security advisor and a us ambassador to iraq — he's in washington. brian lord was the deputy director of gchq, responsible for intelligence and cyber operations — he's in bristol. and patricia lewis is a nuclear physicist and arms control expert who is the research director for international security at chatham house. i would like to start at patricia maybe you can help me, do you the possibility of what one might call a big war between major powers in the world in the next 20 or 30 years? yes i do. i see it as a possibility if we do not learn the lessons of history. so, the bad news is that it is very complicated and there are two major hotspots and there are other smaller ones. we do not quite, we never know what will tibet off, but the good news is that we can learn from history. we do know what has happened before and we have learned a great deals of the end of the second world war, the un, all of its structures has helped us prevent conflict and we know almost everything we need to prevent conflict, it is a question of having the political will to do it. to people like me who feel it is inconceivable because we are too sensible now to do these silly things and let one thing led to another and trigger a war, what we would surely sit down and sorted out... that is not what human beings do. if you look through history, people make mistakes, people get angry, they often misinterpret, we have seen many occasions were something has happened and there has been an overreaction. jamesjeffrey, do you basically agree with patricia said there? only partially. the reason we have not seen a return to the first half of the awful 20th century is that during an after world war ii, the united states and the european partners added countries around the world and have created a global collective security system with financial trade, role of law and other aspects but at the centre is collective security. by won the cold war and was dealing with regional problems such as saddam hussein since 1989 but now we see the rise of russia and china who want to challenge that system and to some degree are cooperating with the regional actors such as north korea and iran. the whole complex of threats taken together is quite formidable. you are saying that you would link the different things, the north korea situation, thejostling between the big powers, these are all linked in your view? not a conspiracy against the west but that people are organising with a mind to weakening the west? there is no overall battleplan that beijing and moscow have agreed on, they have a common ally of interest in undercutting the american security system because it stands in the way of their alternative system which you people in europe understand from the 19th century, it is great powers, expanding their influence until they run into another great power. that is what led to the first world war and the second world war. we have tried over the past 70 years defied a different way forward and they are challenging that and even though they do not coordinate on every issue, there a high degree of commonality and the un votes to block action against north korea and iran, and they challenge it. brian lord, tell us if you believe a big war is a possibility or whether you're on the more optimistic and? i think a single big war is highly unlikely but what we are seeing, i would agree that what we are seeing is a challenge of traditional western approach to the world. all we also are living through, is a world where the rigidity of borders is being broken down by technology, trade communication, the availability of information is now no longer as controlled as it was. we have an increasingly bellicose north korea and russia plane its usual geopolitical games, whether it is a virtual real space or cyberspace and we have a white house which is perceived from the outside to be unusual and certainly unpredictable. what i would say is the risk of a miscalculation is extremely real and a miscalculation is in effect will have the same effect as a real conflict. patricia made that point as well. war may itself be very different and as an expert on cyber security, one of the things we need to think about is not thinking what it looks like an 20th—century terms but potentially, is cyber the form it takes on the 21st—century? i don't think it is as binary as that, you have the ability for states to be able to use activity online to be able to exert geopolitical effect all the way through to destructive effect. one of the areas for miscalculation is we are looking at an area of the world where there are still no rules of engagement, the ability to confuse is very high and the ability to hide or deceive and put whose ever is' she want an activity is very high understanding by a public of what a cyber attack means, the lack of understanding of the capability of the adversary is very different. it all plays into this confusion which if people want to make a miscalculation or want to give the impression of making a miscalculation, just continues to increase the risk. patricia, to me it would look like north korea is in a different category to all the other risks, more than the middle east, because north korea, there is an unaccountable dictator, it is not like the former soviet union, there is not a system that he is a part of, it is just what he wants to has got nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. he is not the only one with nuclear weapons and he does not have them yet, he has ballistic missiles but as far as we are all aware, he is not at the point where he can make the missiles with a warhead. there is still time to play for. north korea is different as a country, it does not have any friends and it has many enemies. it is very unpredictable and we cannot understand what they will do. in the middle east it is unpredictable, however and we have the west coming up against russia, front to front, right in the middle of a battle space. as brian said, it has got cyberspace in there as well, another set of tools. we have turmoil in the middle east in the gulf, we have israel still, do not forget that, it is very potent. all of these could be the serbia is, or the triggers. jamesjeffrey, i am interested in your take on north korea, do you see it as slightly different to some of the other risks, because the potential for massive harm is there, if they get the final formula for nuclear weapons. it is the most immediate crisis and it is very very dangerous because it does have nuclear weapons and it can at least strike with nuclear and commercial weapons the civilian population of south korea. yes, it is special. on the other hand, it is not something in and of itself, like saddam hussein in iraq or serbia 1015 years ago, this is a country that is enabled by china. i disagree it does not have friends, its long—range missiles are now mobile, which is very threatening because they are on chinese trucks. those trucks are not something they have 30 years ago, they are recent additions, the chinese are enabling in many different ways, the north koreans basically to use them as a chess piece against the united states and the western pacific and that is a real danger to us and to the entire region including ultimately the chinese. we need to leave it there. thank you very much indeed. plenty to worry about. anita roddick found international fame as the founder of the body shop back in the 70, 80s and 90s. she before anyone spotted the potential of the ethical economy — business promoting itself as having a mission bigger than making money, she built the company in an unconventional way, and her character played a huge part in its success. but she died a decade ago far too young, having been diagnosed with hepatitis c. she had contracted it decades earlierfrom a contaminated blood transfusion received while giving birth. well, a couple of weeks ago, the government announced that there will be an inquiry into the scandal of contaminated transfusions, an issue about which the daughter of anita roddick understandably feels strongly. sam roddick has been speaking to our special correspondent katie razzall. you know what, she was one in a million. she challenged the unchallengeable. she challenged the stock market, she challenged business, she challenged her peers and the way business was done and she did it in a way that was braver than whatever is in existence today. welcome to the stepping up video... for 30 years anita roddick did not realise she had unknowingly contracted hepatitis c from contaminated blood. her daughter remembers the moment her mother broke the news and explained the cause was the blood transfusion she received after complications giving birth to sam. she got it through the transfusion when i was born. and you know i could really hear the vulnerability in her voice. because my mum really feared death. so she had a phrase which was, isn't it amazing, sam, every year you pass the date of your death and you don't know it. thousands of people contracted hepatitis c, some got hiv and we know about that now. to step back from it and think, she went into hospital to have a baby and she came out with this disease and did not know about a that time. for her to be able to contract that during something that was such a kind of, and normal procedure, is really sad. the strange thing is, even i felt responsible, like i, somehow, that sense, it is ironic, because you think as a baby, i can protect my mum, she was going on, she was pregnant with me. there is that first level of irrevocable, unconscious guilt, it isjust ridiculous, but it still exist. and if she had found out earlier, what would that have meant? she could have had a treatment, really early, possibly at the time, but she could not have it because of her high blood pressure, she could not get a liver transplant, she was literally deteriorating. she was exhausted. she could have got a lot of medical assistance. could she have survived much longer? i think she could have. who do you blame? personally, i love the nhs, i actually think it is the backbone of british society, i would fight for the nhs the whole time. the people who were making money out of this large pharmaceutical corporations, that is who i kind of they are the ones, who really violated good governance. did your family think about suing? no, we aren't people who sue. but at the same time, we are very financially independent. the best way we can serve is by highlighting this issue and appealing for people to come forward if they've needed or had the procedure of a blood transfusion during the dates that have been highlighted and to get tested. i mean, i personally, you know, think that anybody who has been affected, who doesn't come from my financial background should sue. there has been a huge law suit in america of bayer and a number of corporations held responsible. imean, i mean, what was that, six... i mean, in the billions got paid out. the prime minister announced an inquiry recently into this, what was your reaction to that? there needs to be a true independent inquiry. i think it is now about stepping forward and really trying to put the pieces together about why and how this occurred and those responsible should be held accountable. i definitely believe when you actually look at the significant amount of contaminated blood, it seems impossible for there not to be an enormous number of people that this touches. it must have been incredibly painful to watch your mother deteriorate. yeah, it was incredibly painful. it was incredibly painful to see somebody so powerful, so effective, so energetic, somebody who has a lust for life really have to face her limitations at a time where it was cut short. like, you know, our family had a huge loss. but the world had a huge loss too. she was the first company to open up a creche in herfactory, so people could breast—feed and continue on caring for their children during lunch time. i think that was, shows how she loved her workforce and wanted to create a humane environment. the fact that she changed eu law and got the ban of animal testing — got the ban of animal testing in the eu showed how complished she was when she put her mind to do. all her campaigns were phenomenal, the recycling, the sourcing. she was the first person to take fairtrade out of the charity sector and put it into the commercial environment. you don't seem to be either bitter or angry, but maybe that's just... i'm not angry. i'm sad. there's bitterness which will eat at your own soul. and part of my utilising my anger is by being available to highlight this issue and trying to encourage and support people to make those accountable be accountable. that's a really healthy way to channel your — my anger, anyway. presumably you miss her every day, do you? oh, yeah, i miss her every day. to break their speaking. —— drawn. —— sam roddick, there. the directors of the collapsed kids company — including camilla batmangelidge and alan yentob — have been told that they face proceedings to bar them from serving as company directors. any such disqualification does have to be tested in the courts. chris cook broke the story of problems at kids company, and is with me.. what did we learn exactly today, chris? we know that the eight final directors at kids company, plus camilla batmangelidge, who wasn't director at the time, will be all considered culpable for the collapse of the charity and way it was run. they face between two—and—a—half and six years, if the process goes through, disqualified from being able to hold offices of responsibility in relation to companies. it is quite a serious research. if they get somebody to act on their behalf, that person themselves can get disqualified. it reflects the serious problems at the charity. if you look down the list of things you can be disqualified for, there are a few things you can tick off. terrible record keeping. they claimed to have 15,000 clients. we still only have records of around 2,000. they used to run what they referred to as the bully strategy, telling people if you don't put us money we'll collapse and what will happen to the children? you are then that really living on the edge. the gap between the trading while insolvent, which gets you disqualified is pretty thin. is it normal for charity trustees or directors to be told they can't run companies? is it fair take someone running a charity and apply this sanction? if we want charities to have real responsibility it probably is fair. you can't have a situation where people are allowed to do this as a hobbyjob and it has no consequences. because what these charities do really matter. you think large charities like kids company, which got £47 million of public money, this is not a trivial thing. the role it played in people's lives isn't trivial. the trustees have to take it seriously. chris, think you much indeed. is it right that details of the sexual relations of charles and diana be made public? channel 4 is controversially poised to play recordings of diana talking in detail about the breakdown of her marriage and titbits are filtering out. diana was preparing for her interview on panorama, but the tapes go further than the programme itself. but is diana entitled to some kind of privacy in death, of a kind that she was rarely accorded in life? with me now are the historian and biographer, tracy borman, and the guardian columnist dawn foster. dawn, i think you think channel 4 are right to basically show these tapes and give us the full story. why do you think that is true? why so? i think first of all, there's a really huge public interest in diana. we saw that in 1987. we see it now. people are fascinated by her, by what happened to her in life and also, exactly how different she was to the royals. i think for me and many other people she felt stage managed in life. she felt really cloistered and bound by the royal family. this gives us a chance to learn more about her and what she maybe would like to have said, if she hadn't been in such a — a kind of, you know... are people trying to stop channel 4 doing it, are they the ones trying to control the media ? or trying to control diana? or does it matter what diana thought would happen to these tapes when she recorded them or what she wanted at the time? i think it's very difficult to say what she may have wanted to be put out there. but i think thta in death obviously we have a huge interest in her. equally, there's so much we don't know about her that maybe people want to know. i think the fact she was speaking to somebody else about it, preparing for panorama and clearly wanted to get some of this out there, is maybe a hint that she wanted more of her personal life out there. let's be honest, nbc have shown a lot of this in the states. you can track it down if you want to. it's not quite as unknown as it might be. do you see any historical significance or anything that we'll learn from watching this channel a programme? as dawn said, there isn't much new in terms of revelations. but i think the point is that they weren't necessarily intended for broadcast. i do think that it's inappropriate. certainly when you look at them as historical documents, the national archives wouldn't release anything unless sensitivity checks had been carried out, including the effect on living persons. of course, there are still some significant others of diana who this will affect deeply i think. you're thinking of the children or charles? i'm thinking of the children more. i understand that there was talk of making a documentary of this ten years ago, it was shelved. the bbc was going to look at this and then backed out when they saw the minefield it was. dawn, does it matter to you the brother, the kids, basically everybody who does speak for diana, who might say they do because they're family — nuclear family, not royalty — if they say we don't want this stuff aired in public, does that not matter? i think public interest is key here. the family themselves can protect themselves from it. equally, when i was at university, i read james joyce's salacious letters to his wife. he probably didn't want them to be in the public domain. but they are. they form part of what we think ofjoyce as a character and a public figure. i think that often what we don't expect to be in the public domain will be afterwards because there is so much public interest in people. is there a time thing here? the national archives say there's a 30—year rule. but only when sensitivity checks are carried out. we have more and more restrictive, i mean when you look at the history of private life, the tudors for example, they laid it all bare and gladly so. they wanted to boast about their marital relations. like scaramucci, say what we think. very topical. they would have wanted their subjects to take an interest in their love lives in all forms. i wonder whether we — you keep saying public interest, it's the distinction between interest of the public and the public interest isn't it and whether there is a public interest in this. for many diana symbolised a sea change in british history. moving to a more open, you know tied in with the advent of blair. people are very interested in how she stood at the crux of history. we're going to leave it there, thank you very much for coming in. that's all for tonight. let's finish by returning to passchendaele. we saw a little earlier, we end with a closer up and sometimes gruesome look at what that battlefield really looked like in the summer and autumn of 1917. the pictures are accompanied by the firemen of the town of ypres sounding the last post. good night. hello. get eating. as the day draws toa hello. get eating. as the day draws to a close, so doesjuly, and as we prepared to welcome in a new month, does it mean we will have a new type of weather? —— good evening. we will stick with the sunshine and showers that we have become so used to. this is the earlier satellite picture. you can see these clubs of cloud circulating around an area of low pressure. we'll see areas of cloud and showers moving through during the night, particularly across northern ireland, southern scotland, into north—west england and wales. many other areas will be dry as we go through the night and into the first part of tomorrow morning. if you are out in rush hour tomorrow, northern scotland is getting with a dry start. both northern ireland will see showers. it could be a washout for liverpool, manchester, and south—west wales. through the east midlands, east anglia, a dry start through the day tomorrow with temperatures of around 15 or 60 degrees the scene. going through the day, south—east england is probably get the most favoured to stay dry. elsewhere, the showers what's on the map. they become widespread. just about anywhere could catch one. some places will get shower after shower, after shower, with thunder and hail possible. briefly, temporarily, with the eight ridge of high—pressure moving on into the early hours of wednesday. that means dry weather, clear spells, but you can see the change out worse by wednesday morning as a band of rain moves to south—west england. that is associated with our next area of low pressure moving on. with the rain, some strong and gusty winds. guzzi gales for some time. the rehn migrants is. some had become of it never reaching north—east scotland, isn't england. when they should be lousy dry. heading into thursday, sunshine and showers till. low pressure a cross sunshine and showers till. low pressure across scotland at this stage. sunny breaks and showers. temperatures 18— 20. friday, more of the same. the further south and east you are, the fewer showers you will see and be more dry weather you will see. a mixture of sunshine and showers of the next few days. that is all from me. good night. welcome to newsday on the bbc. the headlines: president trump brought him injust ten days headlines: president trump brought him in just ten days ago. headlines: president trump brought him injust ten days ago. now, he is out. anthony scaramucci, the white house communications director, is fired. political turmoil in pakistan after the dramatic resignation of shariff. an interim prime minister is to be chosen. a deal to host the summer olympics in los angeles in 2028, paving the way for paris to host the games in 202a. and this chinese woman is heading overseas to get treatment to freeze her eggs, treatment she is not allowed at home. we will bring you her story.