The video dives into the ongoing conflict in Ukraine amidst other global issues, such as trade tariffs led by the United States under Donald Trump's administration. The discussion highlights the current situation in Ukraine, where tensions with Russia persist despite peace overtures and military aid agreements that seem less favorable for Kyiv. Furthermore, the debate extends to the international response, with European defense ministers meeting in Brussels to discuss strategies. The U.S. appears less engaged with Ukraine, possibly due to shifting priorities like tariffs and distractions with global negotiations, particularly focusing on China and Iran.
In the video, you get a profile of Ukraine's President, Volodymyr Zelensky, and his evolving role from a comedian-turned-wartime leader to a negotiator attempting to align with Western powers, especially the United States. The tension in his relationship with Donald Trump is examined, with historical references to unsolved political baggage between the two leaders. Navigating this uneasy diplomacy remains vital for Ukraine's future stability as it relies heavily on American support amid dwindling enthusiasm internationally.
Main takeaways from the video:
Please remember to turn on the CC button to view the subtitles.
Key Vocabularies and Common Phrases:
1. tariffs [ˈtærɪfs] - (n.) - Taxes imposed on imported goods, typically as a form of trade policy by a government. - Synonyms: (duties, levies, taxes)
As I say, this has been the week of tariffs.
2. ceasefire [ˈsiːsˌfaɪər] - (n.) - A temporary suspension of fighting; a truce. - Synonyms: (truce, armistice, peace)
Ukraine and Europe still needs the might of America, despite whatever comes out of Brussels with the coalition of the willing, they still need America's might to be there to say, look, you can do the peacekeeping, you can put the thousands of troops on Ukrainian soil after a ceasefire is signed.
3. diplomatic experience [ˌdɪpləˈmætɪk ɪkˈspɪrɪəns] - (n.) - Experience in managing international relations, typically by a country's representatives abroad. - Synonyms: (foreign affairs knowledge, international diplomacy experience, global relations expertise)
He's the special envoy for Donald Trump who previously had not really any diplomatic experience at all, is that fair to say?
4. momentum [moʊˈmɛntəm] - (n.) - The impetus gained by a moving object or course of events. - Synonyms: (impetus, drive, thrust)
I think the momentum we saw in February, March has sort of waned slightly.
5. prerogative [prɪˈrɑːɡətɪv] - (n.) - A right or privilege exclusive to an individual or class. - Synonyms: (privilege, right, entitlement)
Well, James, I'm going to argue as a Ukraine correspondent that Ukraine should be on the news every day. That's kind of my prerogative.
6. transformation [ˌtrænsfərˈmeɪʃən] - (n.) - A thorough or dramatic change in form or appearance. - Synonyms: (conversion, change, metamorphosis)
And I think we're seeing him go through another transformation from wartime leader, a president who banged the drum and said, we're going to fight for as long as it takes, and you need to give me as much military aid as possible for the future, my country
7. fatigue [fəˈtiːɡ] - (n.) - Extreme tiredness, typically resulting from mental or physical exertion or illness. - Synonyms: (tiredness, exhaustion, weariness)
They don't want to hear that there is a growing fatigue when it comes to Russia's war in Ukraine, a fatigue that people here feel.
8. admiration [ˌædməˈreɪʃən] - (n.) - A feeling of great respect and approval. - Synonyms: (respect, esteem, high regard)
clearly he represents Donald Trump, a growing American fatigue with this war, but also he holds an admiration for Vladimir Putin.
9. totemic [toʊˈtɛmɪk] - (adj.) - Of or relating to a totem or symbol; emblematic. - Synonyms: (symbolic, emblematic, representative)
You know, the totemic famous example of nationalization for decades.
10. viability [ˌvaɪəˈbɪlɪti] - (n.) - Ability to work successfully. - Synonyms: (feasibility, practicability, workability)
The viability of steel making in the UK and specifically the viability of British Steel in Scunthorpe
Is Donald Trump still interested in Ukraine-Russia peace talks? - BBC Newscast
All week the world has been talking about a trade war, but in Ukraine, a real war rages on. Has Donald Trump forgotten about that? Has he moved on? That's what we're going to discuss on this episode of newscast. Hello, it's James in the studio. And in the second half of this episode, we're going to be talking about whether the UK government is going to step in to rescue the British steel industry, to nationalise it potentially. But right now, remember Ukraine, we're going to go back to that. What's happening in the war. And we have on the line from Kyiv our very own Ukraine correspondent, James Waterhouse.
Hi, James. Hello, James. And John Foreman is also with us. And John is a former defence attache to Moscow from the UK and also Kyiv, and now associate fellow at Chatham House. Hello, John. Hello, James. Right, as I say, this has been the week of tariffs. We haven't actually talked about Ukraine all that much this week and the peace talks and the so-called coalition of the willing of these Western nations, particularly European nations, but defence ministers are meeting today in Brussels. And James, what is your take on whether we have made a mistake here by just ignoring something really significant that's been happening this week because we've been completely swept away by tariffs?
Well, James, I'm going to argue as a Ukraine correspondent that Ukraine should be on the news every day. That's kind of my prerogative. But I think the story now from here in Kyiv is one that isn't really changing, but it's the way it's not changing, which is the story, if that makes sense, because you have these overtures of peace, you have the meeting of this so-called coalition of the willing, you have this American energy deal as it tries to get a cut of Ukraine's future wealth and in return for military aid in the future, which is continuing to look less favorable to Kyiv. And all the while you've got tens of thousands of Russian troops, says President Zelensky, says the head of his armed forces gathering in Russia's western Kursk region. And it seems they say that Russia has started its spring offensive with the sort of hardening of the ground, the more favorable conditions, although you wouldn't know it now, I'm surrounded by snow.
So in that sense, and this is what Ukraine argues, nothing has changed. Russia is still pursuing its original objective of trying to take as much of Ukraine as possible. And that is despite America continuing to spearhead these ceasefire efforts. What's your assessment about those ceasefire efforts, John? Where do you think we stand? I think the momentum we saw in February, March has sort of waned slightly, especially as the White House has got consumed by tariffs and Steve Wykoff has been diverted often to speak to Iran. You know, we had a series of meetings going backwards and forth, but it's been very little since the. He's the special envoy for Donald Trump who previously had not really any.
Any diplomatic experience at all, is that fair to say? Well, he had no diplomatic experience whatsoever. And what's interesting, actually, is how he's being used over the serial professionals in the State Department and perhaps at the cost of Mr. Rubio, the Secretary of State for the United States. So I think there has been a sort of itis of activity, lots of momentum in the sort of gap, and who knows what's going on in the background. But as James says, I think Ukraine does matter. I think that Russia is going to press forward to try and maximize its gains before you ceasefire. But I think we were a long way away from where the ceasefire proposal was for Americans to Ukrainians maybe a month ago, unconditional ceasefire. Then it was broken down to Lancy and air and then seen what the ceasefire hasn't held at all. So I think the path to a ceasefire and then even beyond that to peace talks and peace agreement is long, twisty and hard to discern at present.
Yeah. And the man walking that path is Volodymyr Zelensky, the leader of Ukraine. And James, you've got a really interesting profile and different. I've read lots of profiles of Zelensky, but this one was really interesting because you were charting how he has changed over time or in some ways not changed. And you were suggesting that some people think that's maybe been a problem. Just would you outline what you're saying in it, James, for us? Yeah. I mean, President Zelensky's path from comedian, primetime comedian to wartime president is well documented. We all know about that now. But he has evolved, I think. You know, I go to countless briefings here in Kyiv. He holds press conferences. And you sort of look at his mannerisms, you look at the expressions on his face, you look at the things he says on the record or off the record.
And I think we're seeing him go through another transformation from wartime leader, a president who banged the drum and said, we're going to fight for as long as it takes, and you need to give me as much military aid as possible for the future, my country. That kind of messaging, his critics say, has impaired him with the Donald Trump administration. They don't want to hear that there is a growing fatigue when it comes to Russia's war in Ukraine, a fatigue that people here feel. You can hear the sirens behind me to this day. And so the feeling is, is that he has to change and become a negotiator. And I think we're starting to see that now. We're seeing him dance to Donald Trump's tune, voicing his gratitude for America's continued help, but also he's having to stand up for the interests of his country as well. So we're seeing a lot of background negotiation. But of course, he's still fighting this war.
As you can hear, you know, there is no kind of let up. And I think I sort of reflected on this transformation we're seeing as to how much of a more authoritative figure he is in Ukraine. He casts a much more lonely figure internationally. And I think, you know, in times of war, power is concentrated on very few people. And his critics say that is a bad thing in some respects because his will won't be bent. But ultimately, he is going to have to bend to Donald Trump's vision for peace. James, do you need to go? We're okay at the moment. We've got a security guy that will let us know if we do. There's a, there are different levels of air raid sirens. Sometimes it's a Russian jet that takes off inside Russia.
Sometimes it's the threat of drones flying in from occupied territory across the Russian border, or there's a ballistic missile threat. It's been a. This is just the way of Ukrainian life, to be honest with you. You know, the air defenses. There were six ballistic missiles that hit here over the weekend. And we understand that there was a, you know, there was a, the air defenses can't keep every missile out. So we've got the data, the intelligence that tells us when we have to move. So if I do, I'll let you know. I'm aware that we're probably going to. Might need to let you go in a minute. So just let me ask you one more question, and that is you mentioned the relationship between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump. And you mention, I think essentially that in many respects the Ukrainian leader was demanding things, and maybe he wasn't as good at being diplomatic in his dance around Donald Trump. I mean, I was struck reading it, about how far back that antipathy on Trump's side goes.
You know, arguably right back to the point where, when he was running for reelection after his first term, Donald Trump, and he was trying to get Zelensky to investigate his rival Joe Biden's son. And Zelensky wouldn't do so. I mean, there's a bit of that and then there's a bit of just his general attraction and Donald Trump towards autocrats and particularly Vladimir Putin, who, you know, he's never called him a dictator, but he's called Zelensky a dictator. How important is repairing that relationship now for the Ukrainian people? It is vital, James. And you're right, there is a path to this point. We can't ignore recent history. You know, I think in more recent times, when we saw Zelensky and Trump stand outside Trump Tower in September last year, where when Trump was the Republican nominee and their body language was awkward, it reflected a lack of chemistry.
You know, perhaps Donald Trump, you know, remembers this phone call, the transcript of which got him led to his first impeachment. That phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky, clearly he represents Donald Trump, a growing American fatigue with this war, but also he holds an admiration for Vladimir Putin. And we all know about what happened in the Oval Office now, that now infamous row when President Zelensky went in there, you know, he showed him pictures of emaciated prisoners of war, Ukrainian prisoners of war. And Donald Trump I don't think was up for that and his vice president certainly wasn't. And we all know about the row that ensued, the shouting match and Zelenskyy's defensive body language. But the point is this. Zelenskyy's European allies in the time since have convinced him to take a more compliant tone with Donald Trump, to reiterate his appetite for peace, to say that Donald Trump's leadership will get us there because of the unescapable fact, the inescapable fact that Ukraine and Europe still needs the might of America, despite whatever comes out of Brussels with the coalition of the willing, they still need America's might to be there to say, look, you can do the peacekeeping, you can put the thousands of troops on Ukrainian soil after a ceasefire is signed, but if Russia has another go, breaks the frozen contact line, we will step in with airstrikes or intelligence sharing or more.
And as long as Europe and Ukraine does not have that, it's going to go it alone in the long term. And then you're talking about a threat of aggression that doesn't just affect Ukraine, but Europe on a wider level. That is certainly the argument Zelenskyy is making. It's really interesting to get your perspective. Stay safe. We're going to let you, if you need to get off the roof. James, thank you very much. Lovely to talk to you. Cheers, James. No worries. Cheers, John. Take care now. John, sorry for bearing with us there, but I thought we just needed to keep speaking to James before we lost them. There are no bombs falling in Suffolk so I quite understand why we want to let James go, to be honest. Exactly. Thanks very much. Right, we are going to have a quick listen to something which is the UK Defence Secretary John Healy at the start of this meeting in Brussels of defence ministers today, the so-called coalition of the willing. So let's play that and then we'll have a chat about that. Here it comes.
There are 30 countries here today, 30 countries bound by a simple belief that peace is possible and we must be ready for when that peace comes. That's why the work of this coalition is so vital. We're stepping up, we're serious. We're sending a signal to President Putin and to Minister Umarov and the Ukrainian people. We stand with you in the fight and we will stand with you in the peace. There's John Healey there saying we stand with you in the fight and we will stand with you in peace. Is it just extraordinary to remember, just to state it once again? You know, here's a meeting of nations supporting Ukraine, discussing how they can support Ukraine and in war and hopefully in the end in peace. And the US isn't there, I think. Well, I think that was came clear when Pete Hexeth, the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense America came and said Ukraine's basically a European problem. And that back to James's point, Russia, the US isn't strategically interested really in the Russian Russia relationships. He wants to pivot towards China.
So you're now seeing he co chaired the beating which is done tomorrow. The contact group which actually on supply of weapons to Ukraine last time pegseth with Healy, now Healey's got the chair and also on the coalition of willing. But Americans have never really been in the coalition of winning. I was in meetings, in planning meetings in Northwood two weeks ago. The Americans weren't there at all. This is very much being seen by the White House as a European effort. And going back to James's point, I don't think the Americans are willing to provide a backstop at present. And that is a serious problem for this coalition because Mr. Starmer said that the force wouldn't deploy without a backstop. Yeah. And the other I suppose related question to that is backstop or not, does Europe have the capacity? Or maybe the answer isn't Maybe you can't take the backstop out of this question. Actually. Does Europe have the capacity to provide meaningful support for Ukraine without the US?
I think the 30 countries can. I mean, we're still in the early stages now. You know, the process has been the politicians told the military to plan, the military went away, did some planning on some broad options. Those have been presented to the chiefs of defence staff, including Abradikin, and now the ministers are going to consider it at this meeting today to review the planning to date and also look at the options. But of course, that's all on paper. Ultimately, you'll need some firm commitments of forces to back up those plans, and I think we're not there on that yet, but I think you probably could say 30 countries could provide a reassurance force. They could provide air forces to draw the skies. Perhaps in Western Ukraine they could deliver training and allow the Ukrainian army to be reconstituted. If. If we ever get to a ceasefire. But we don't have a ceasefire. We don't know the terms of the ceasefire. And then again, the bigger question I think for me is what happens if the ceasefire breaks down before or during the negotiations for lasting peace? Then what?
And I think that's what alarms the Americans and that's what alarms the number of members of the coalition, the willing. Yeah, yeah. You just mentioned Northwood, a meeting in Northwood. What was that, John? Just tell us a bit more, if you. If you can, about that. Yeah, sure. So if you remember, Mr. Starmer came out and said, you know, now's the time to operationalize the planning. And that was the political meeting of all the sort of heads of state, prime ministers, and then the various planning teams from the coalition of winning went to Northwood, which is in northwest London, which is the site of the permanent joint headquarters, which is the UK's mil strategic headquarters. And they were tasked by the politicians to come up with some options to deliver this force. Now, I can't get into details because I know what they were planning, but in broad terms, that's the process. You know, the war. War and peace are political acts, military works, politicians. The politicians set the framework for the military to plan. They went off and did that and now they're coming back with those considerations, detailed considerations, to go back to ministers and say, okay, here's the various options.
Which ones don't you like? Which ones do you like? Which ones should we develop more? Which ones should we ignore? Yeah, well, it's really interesting. I mean, I'm aware that you can't really give us too much detail. But are they making progress here? Well, I think if you look to the overall planning process, I think they have, you know, we've gone from very early stages, maybe In March when Mr. Starmer held meeting in Lancaster House, to now ministers considering more detailed options. But I think that's this stage where options are narrowed down. And also Mr. Abradekin and his French counterpart, the French Chief of Defence staff, were in Kiev, I think, earlier this week or last week. They've come back with their ideas. It's all going to mash together and ultimately, as you know, in our system, military of people, civil servants, advisers and ministers decide and those lead ministers of the 30 countries are now going to have to thrash out what they is politically acceptable and look at, you know, what's the risks, what's the reward, what forces are available, how much they want to press forward, shall we say, towards the east, and how much they want to stay back in the west of Ukraine.
So I think all that is up for play. But again, it doesn't really matter at this stage how far they are along because without details of any ceasefire, then they won't deploy in the first place. It's really interesting to hear your take on it all. John, thanks so much. Lovely to talk to you. My pleasure. Thank you. So, the defence industry we were just talking about there is one of many which requires, among a lot of other things, steel. And so do lots of other things require steel, electric vehicles, wind turbines, building new homes and railways, lots of things the government would like to do to generate growth and as we mentioned yesterday, theme parks as well. But there's a problem. British steel is in trouble and that's what we're going to talk about now with Henry Zeffman, BBC Chief political correspondent.
Hi, Henry. Hi, how are you? Very well, Henry, it's very good to see you. You're more than BBC chief political correspondent, you're Henry of Newscast. Thank you. Thank you. Now, with so much chat this week about tariffs, Henry, so much we're seeing actually a real world example of the impact of tariffs that predates all of this discussion and that is the future of the UK steel industry. And there's been a lot of discussion about this this week, hasn't there? Yeah, there really has. And definitely part of this story is about tariffs. President Trump imposed tariffs on steel before the last week. Long milestrom of global tariffs and wherever that's got to universally, he singled out steel and aluminium and a few other things. First, that's part of the picture Here. But actually what you have here is a longer running broader question about the viability of steel making in the UK and specifically the viability of British Steel in Scunthorpe. And the owners of British Steel and Scunthorpe, a Chinese company called Jingyi, say it is not economically viable and it is going to have to close.
Yeah, and the government doesn't want that to happen, presumably. But then there's a question about whether or not they don't want it to happen to the extent that they want to nationalize it and run it. I mean, there's a time gone by when British Steel was the very zenith of nationalized industry. You know, the totemic famous example of nationalization for decades. Absolutely. And I think it's possible, more than possible, plausible, that the government may well end up nationalizing British Steel. They don't want to, though. What they want is what they call a commercial solution. What that means is they want Jingyi or some other company if, if one could be found, to continue running British Steel as a private business. Now, the reason this has become such an acute problem this week, James, is because to keep these blast furnaces running in Scunthorpe, you need various raw materials, among them coal, coking coal, as it's known.
And those involved in the production process say that the coal which is imported can take as long as 45 days to arrive once it's been ordered. Now, the coal, the next batch of coal has not yet been ordered. And the fear from those involved in the steelmaking is that if it's not ordered, basically within a day or two of us speaking now, then it's going to arrive too late. The blast furnaces are going to have to be closed down. And once they're closed down is basically too expensive and potentially even physically too complicated to turn them back on. So that would just inevitably mean the end of British Steel. What the government has done is say to the owners of British Steel, okay, we, the government, will order that coal for you. We'll pay for it. That will keep steel production going. We still don't yet know if the company Zheng Yi, have accepted that offer essentially, or whether they want out even sooner than that.
But even that offer to buy coal is really just an attempt from the government to buy something that's even more precious to them, which is time. And just to be clear, and I've been reading up on this, Henry, maybe you have too, because I'm not an expert on the steel industry, but as I understand it, the. This virgin steel production is to say, using blast furnaces to produce the highest quality of steel, and that the transition in the industry is towards electric arc furnaces, which are much more environmentally friendly and cheaper to run and also require fewer staff to run. And that's what's happened, for example, in Swansea Bay at Portolbot, that they're moving towards electric arc furnaces. But as I understand it from my reading here, the. The danger of that or the potential problem with that is they cannot necessarily, although this is, I gather, debated, produce the highest quality steel necessary for some industries. So, if I understand it correctly, that's where we are. A transition in the UK from one type of steel making to another, and whether or not that's a sensible road to go down. Exactly right.
So one of the things a bit before this all came to a head this week, one of the things that the Government has done to try to keep British Steel going is offer a £500 million grant to smooth that transition or make the transition cheaper to those electric arc furnaces. But British Steel or their parent company have said that's not enough for it to be economically viable for them. But there is a bit of a paradox, isn't there? Because one of the arguments made by the proponents of nationalisation is that it is a security question for the UK whether it wants to be able to make that highest quality steel in the uk, but that would necessitate, as you say, keeping the blast furnaces on, rather than transitioning to electric arc furnaces. And the blast furnaces are much more expensive and also, as you say, require more staff. But then again, we come to a bit of a paradox, because one of the arguments for nationalisation is that it's to protect the 3,000 or so jobs there. But inevitably, some of those jobs, if it transitions, as it's to going currently meant to do, to electric furnaces, are going to go over time.
If you pull all of that together, you can understand why the Prime Minister is taking such a close interest. And indeed, we've heard from Keir Starmer this morning, so let's have. Just have a. Well, I say this morning, it's 10 past 2 now on Thursday afternoon, but we heard from him earlier. Let's have a quick listen to Sir Keir. Well, we're in talks in relation to Scunthorpe. I know from being at Scunthorpe just how important that is, not just for the workforce, but for the community more generally. And we have, you know, demand for steel likely to go up, not down. So it's very important we do everything we can and that's why I've said all options are on the table because I know just how important this is. Now Henry, you mentioned the steel strategy which I've been reading the government, it's called the steel the Plan for steel which strikes me as seven words where three would do. I mean that's just the same thing twice. But anyway I've been reading it and let me just, if you don't mind, I'm going to pull out some bit that I bits I thought were quite interesting facts in here. Please do.
I skim read it very bleary eyed at about 5:15 in the morning a few days ago. So I've forgotten. Have I read most of it? Every single word. Maybe not, but I've read a lot of it anyway. One thing I thought was really striking was that according to the OECD club of mostly rich nations, the gap between production and demand is enormous. The world is producing way, way more steel than it needs. So much more that in 2023 it was 45 times the entire UK steel production capacity. So in that sense you can understand why a business might have a problem. The other thing I thought was interesting was that steel accounts for more than 80% of the material required to produce a wind turbine. So you know, that's interesting in terms of the transition to renewable energy and you know, well there's a couple that's probably enough.
The other thing Henry, that strikes me just with my other hat on in my other job as Scotland editor for the BBC is that the closure in 1992 of the Ravens Craig steel plant at Motherwell in North Lanarkshire is regarded and still for many on the left as the sort of totemic example of what they regard as the Margaret Thatcher's disastrous deindustrialization strategy. My old, the brilliant, my old brilliant colleague Kenny McIntyre, the late Kenny McIntyre, political correspondent used to call it a hulking monument to an industrial dream that died. And that's coming up again because there's some questions in Scotland about, well, if the government's considering nationalizing something in Lincolnshire, why for example, is it not doing more to help preserve the future of say the Grangemouth refinery in the Firth of Forth? And I'm hearing similar things, I'm sure you're hearing them too from Plaid Cymru in Wales, for example, saying, well hang on, the Port Talbot steelworks, you know, we've lost 2,800 jobs with the closure of the blast furnaces there. So you know, there's quite a lot of politics in this as well, isn't there?
There really is. And I think you've just very eloquently set out why this is an issue that the Prime Minister is taking such close attention. And Reform, by the way, snapping at his heels. Well, exactly. And there was a really extraordinary photo op on, I think it was Monday evening this week, when Nigel Farage, obviously the leader of Reform uk, posed at the Scunthorpe Steelworks in workers overalls, holding trade union literature. And I thought, okay, if Reform really do come for the sort of traditional Labour working class base, although it's a bit more complicated than that, many of them have moved away from Labour in various directions over many years. But if they really do come for them, if they really do go to Reform, that's going to be quite a significant photo which symbolises some of what's happened here, because for some time Reform UK have been calling for the nationalisation of British steel.
It's a really fascinating thing and it's all given much more significance as well, because on May 1, there's local elections in various parts of England and Reform will need to put their money where their mouth is. They're doing very well in the polls. Is that real? May 1 is a very big test of that. And that's why Nigel Farage is doing things like that, campaigning very hard, including in Lincolnshire, where Scunthorpe is, where there's an inaugural mayoral election taking place. And you'll be able to get a full list of candidates for all of these local elections, including in Lincolnshire, on the BBC News website.
Now, we'll be coming back to this, I'm sure, but you've got another story today. Henry, we've dragged you in to talk about this. Maybe drag's a bit unfair, but what's your story? I came running to talk about steel, but I'm also very happy to talk about civil service reform or civil service cuts. And whether you describe it, I think, as civil service reform or civil service cuts actually probably tells you something about where you stand in this argument. And it is an argument we've heard, haven't we, for a month or more, really, that from various senior ministers, often appearing with Laura on a Sunday, that they want to reform the civil service, that it's too expensive, but also that it's not working in the right way.
And memorably, that weird phrase from the Prime Minister towards the back end of last year when he accused too many civil servants of being comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline, that kind of made people sit up and go, oh, okay, this is a government which is not necessarily completely satisfied with the way in which the machinery of government works for it. Well, that whole programme is being led by Pat McFadden, one of Keir Starmer's most senior lieutenants and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which is a very complicated way of saying he's the Minister in charge of the Cabinet Office, a department which sits at the centre of government. And he told his teams today that 2,100 of the 6,500 jobs at the Cabinet Office, so about a third, are either going to be cut through voluntary or managed redundancies or moved to other parts of Government over the next two years.
It's significant. It's a higher proportion than I think many people were expecting. And it's a sort of statement of intent, I think, for the rest of government. Cutting a third of your staff through voluntary redundancy is hard, isn't it? That's a big, big chunk. Well, and one of the points that's being made to me by some of those who are actually sympathetic to what the government wants to do here, but sceptical slightly of the way in which they're going about it, is if you're trying to do it through voluntary redundancies, what tends to happen, they say, especially in the Civil Service, is that those who would easily be able to get another job in another field or in a related field, are the ones who take a generous voluntary redundancy package to leave as quick as possible. But the people that the Civil Service might want to lose, frankly, the worst performers are the ones who might hang around in that scenario.
So there are definitely some concerns, even from those supportive of the government there. On the other hand, the view of government, and we saw this a bit with the announcement about closing down NHS England, the quango that runs the nhs, and merging it into the Central Health Department. The other thing going on here is that there are. There is a view at the top of government that, especially in the Cabinet Office, there are people doing stuff that is also being done elsewhere in Whitehall, in other government departments, that just is duplicatory work. And so, you know, there's a view that actually, once you start drilling down into who's duplicating work that is already being done elsewhere, actually, it won't necessarily be as hard to lose those people as the headline figures might suggest.
Now, the other thing that we should pick up on with you, I'd really. I'd love to hear what people are saying at Westminster, Henry, is yesterday, when we were recording newscast On Wednesday, it was very dramatic because President Trump made his big announcement about tariffs in the middle of it. What are people saying? Because just as a reminder, we're now at 125%. I mean, punitive tariffs to the extent that it might just arrest almost all trade with China, on China from the United States, 10% on everyone else in the world. Although it should be said there's certain sectors, such as steel, that are still subject to their own tariffs, as we understand it.
But does that not mean that the UK is in a much worse position today than because it was on the lower end and now it's the same as everyone else, including, crucially, the eu, than it was yesterday? That is definitely one point that people are making. Yeah. In relative terms, the UK has lost that slight comparative advantage, or maybe it's just a sort of relative lack of disadvantage. A way in which it's better for the UK Though, is it appears that the tariffs have been reduced to 10% for the EU. And there was definitely some anxiety in parts of government about the implications for that long standing question of trade across the Irish border between Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland, about what that would mean if the Republic, that is the EU had a different tariff rate with the US to Northern Ireland as part of the UK, 10%. Now, that seems to have gone for now or for 90 days.
But I mean, look, overall, James, when I ask people in government about tariffs, I mean, there is just a level of extreme weariness because they often know as little or as much as we do, and they find out about things from Donald Trump's press conferences or posts on Truth Social, just as we do. So I think really, the government is in the same space it's been since before these tariffs were unleashed, since the day they were unleashed and since yesterday, which is they're watching and waiting. They're hoping to sign this deal and they're really just kind of keeping calm and carrying on, to use that awful British cliche. It is basically what Keir Starmer's trying to do here.
And finally, on Friday's episode, Henry, we are going to be answering some questions from newscasters on tariffs. So this is your opportunity as a newscaster. We've got Darshini and Katrina and Alex. So we've got a fantastic, fantastic, amazingly well informed group of people, group of our best newscast friends. Do you have a question for them? Gosh, well, yeah. I mean, I think one thing that I'm curious about, perhaps this is a bit niche, but like you, James, I spent some time As a journalist in the US not as long as you, but I covered the 2020 presidential primaries and then presidential election out there. And one of the things that was happening in the Democratic Party at the time was that you had quite a lot of presidential candidates, most notably Bernie Sanders, but others sort of on the left of the Democratic Party, though it's all relative, saying that over the decades, especially under Bill Clinton and also under Barack Obama, the Democrats had become too keen on free trade and that they'd been too eager to strike trade deals and that that had damaged American industry.
And Joe Biden eventually, I think, sort of acknowledged and absorbed parts of that critique of free trade into the Democratic Party's core thinking. But what you've had over the last week or so appears to be Donald Trump taking an extreme version of that critique and testing it to destruction. So what I'd love to know if we can know this at this point, is are the Democrats now the party of free trade? Are they back to the world of nafta, of reducing barriers to trade and making America wealthy that way? Or actually, are they trying to walk a tightrope where they're saying, well, actually, we would like car factories in Detroit, but we wouldn't do it quite like this in the way that the president did? I don't know. Does that make sense as a question? Of course it does. Are the Democrats the party of free trade? It's a great. That's a much pithier way of saying, well, I just took a while to say, Henry, as great as speech you. Thank you very much. Pleasure. And obviously we want your questions as well, not just Henry's newscasters. So do get in touch. But that's all from this episode of Newscast. Bye bye.
GLOBAL, POLITICS, ECONOMICS, TARIFFS, UKRAINE CONFLICT, BRITISH STEEL, BBC NEWS