Andrew Muller

You're listening to the Monocle Daily, first broadcast on the 9th of July, 2026.

The United States and Iran exchange further missiles and insults. Nigel Farage prepares to contest Clacton again. If he's listening, it's in Essex. And should men wear shorts in the office? Obviously not, but dissenting opinions may be briefly tolerated. I'm Andrew Muller. The Monocle Daily starts. Hello, and welcome to the Monocle Daily. Coming to you from our studios here at Midori House in London. I'm Andrew Muller. My guests Tina Fordham and Somnath Batabhaal will discuss today's big stories and we'll visit the spot where Beirut cools off. Stay tuned. All that and more coming up right here on the Monocle Daily. This is the Monocle Daily. I'm Andrew Muller. I'm joined today by by Tina Fordham, geopolitical strategist and founder of Fordham Global Insights. And Somnath Batabhaal, lecturer in Media in Development and International Journalism at soas. Hello to you both.

Somnath Batabhaal

Hello. Hello.

Andrew Muller

Good evening.

By way of light introductory banter, you both, it turns out, either have or shortly will have books to flog. So let's get it over with. Somnath, yours is out in the UK sooner, so you go first.

Somnath Batabhaal

It's out on the 16th.

Andrew Muller

That's quite soon of this month.

Somnath Batabhaal

Next week, the launch party is on the 21st. And you are coming for that?

Andrew Muller

I believe so, yes.

Somnath Batabhaal

Fantastic. Red river is a love story between men and women. Boys dying for their nation, refugees trying to find places to survive, separatists trying to break away from nation states. It spans about 70 years. Moves between India, Bhutan, Bangladesh and England. And you have read it?

Andrew Muller

I have read it.

Somnath Batabhaal

You might give it a plug.

Andrew Muller

I'd be perfectly happy to listeners, I have read it and I enjoyed it. You can have that quote for the

Somnath Batabhaal

COVID Thank you very much, Andrew.

Andrew Muller

Tina, what is yours going to be about?

Oh, it's already written.

It's finished.

Yes. It's going to be published September 3rd. It's called Mad World and the subtitle is A Geostrategy Survival Guide for Leaders. So between the two of us, oh, gosh, you've got some serious reading fare.

It's all covered. Who is your ideal target audience for this book? I know that's an incredibly annoying question to ask authors. Cause every time I've been asked it, especially by publishers, I've replied, anybody willing to pay for it, after which they can use it to start their barbecue for all I care.

Well, I have to admit that was my, my gut reaction. But my target audience is anybody who is either a government leader, a business leader trying to make decisions, you know, even a parent, or a human trying to navigate a world that seems and is much more complex than the one that we all grew up in, and yet one where there are many opportunities and lots of amazing things. And so what I'm trying to prevent with this book is people who kind of shut down when it comes to global affairs, the news avoiders, that sort of thing, and say, yes, the world is different, but change is inevitable.

Well, that eases us nicely into our first item. We start in Iran, with whom hostilities appear to have been well and truly resumed by the United States. The US military claims to have struck 90 targets in Iran overnight by way of further retaliation for Iran taking potshots at a couple of tankers attempting to negotiate the Strait of Hormuz earlier this week. Iran claims to have launched at US Bases in Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain. And several more Iranian missiles have been shot down en route Jordan. The exchanges also had the effect of delaying the final laying down of Iran's late Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Well, Tina, on the subject of leaders having to make decisions, do we perceive any sort of thing even faintly resembling an exit to strategy on the part of the US Yet?

Well, Donald Trump said in Ankara at the NATO summit that the ceasefire was over, but it was always the case that the memorandum of understanding was wafer thin, since I know you like a Monty Python reference. But markets decided that the war was over and oil prices plummeted to a really very surprising $67 a barrel now back up 6%. But your question about endgame, how can you have an end game when you didn't define the war aims? What we have now really is a trap. It's not the kind of quagmire that, say, Vietnam was in, that give it time. Well, there aren't foreign troops or U.S. troops there. But when it comes to the global economy and the impact on all of us in our everyday lives, with inflation and food prices and possibly a food crisis in Africa and any part of the world that needs the Strait of Hormuz to be open, we're kind of back on to the disruption. And what I think is really important about this, given that the Strait of Hormuz was functioning completely without being controlled by anyone as an international waterway, is that Iran has learned that using the Strait of Hormuz as a loaded gun that it can hold at the head of not just Donald Trump but the global economy gives them way more power than the nuclear weapon or nuclear capacity that they've been working to develop all this time. It opens up a whole new kind of set of risks.

Somnath therefore, does the United States essentially have a choice between doing this forever, that is continuing to go back and forth with Iran every so often, or just saying, okay, fine, Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz now.

Somnath Batabhaal

Well, look at the way we have changed. Iran has changed the discussion from nuclear proliferation, nuclear weapons to state of Hormuz and trade. In a few months, the entire conversation has completely changed. And that's the kind of asymmetric conflict. On their terms, on their terms. And they know that they can inflict more pain on their people than America can do to their citizens. So this is a long term game. As the summer goes on, prices go up, cost of energy will rise, and there is another secondary shockwave which is coming. Fertilizers. By next year, we'll see agricultural products costing much more because about 30 to 40% of seaborne fertilizers go through this state of Hormuz. So it's a brilliant tactical game. Today's strikes, though, especially on the railway lines and lines which are connecting China and Russia, shows that America is serious about playing this game, perhaps much more than it was a few weeks back, that tactics might be changing very quickly, so we'll have to wait and see. But Iran has shown that it can take a lot of pain.

Andrew Muller

Tina, to return to your earlier point, I think you're right. I think one of the things that Trump has done here is given Iran something much better than a nuclear weapon. I mean, this they can, I mean, I mean, using a nuclear weapon, that's pretty much a, you get to do that once, basically, whereas this they could do potentially forever at really very, very little expense. President Trump is claiming yet again on an aeroplane somewhere that the Iranians are extremely anxious to make a deal. I don't know if anyone is still bothering to count how many times he said this, but do you think even he believes that at this point?

Well, I mean, let's disentangle that. First of all, I'm going to gently push back on the idea that Iran can do this forever because as we speak, new pipeline infrastructure and alternate routes are being developed. They can still cause a lot of problems. And you know, quite clearly they, and I think they're right. They believe that they can inflict pain longer and their people will absorb pain longer than Americans who, you know, can't even go without air Conditioning, unlike us here. Here in Britain, where I work in an office that's 31 degrees, that's about 90 to my friends in back in the States. So this is something that they can do. But also it's not only Iran that can do this. There are other waterways. I mean, I have clients who are maritime lawyers and shipping companies, the Straits of Malacca and others. You can monetize and weaponize anything now. And so that is where the second and third order effects of what IR has been able to do are so significant. And also the Gulf countries really wanted to put this behind them. You know, speaking about the funeral, they sent representatives, right? They want to, if not kiss and make up, then at least go back to business.

Somnath just on the funeral, which does now appear to have concluded, this is, of course, Iran's former Supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. We still have not, since his death, seen or heard anything of his alleged successor, his son, Mujtaba Khamenei. One assumes, slash hopes, that the United States and others have a better idea of who is actually making the decisions than we in this studio do. But is there a point at which this ambiguity is actually quite working for Iran? They can diffuse the responsibility somewhat?

Somnath Batabhaal

Very much so. I mean, Donald Trump's statement is that he never mentions any leader anymore. It's always there. It's plural. So no one owns responsibility. And that when you cannot identify someone who is taking responsibility, things become much more difficult. And it is in this perhaps gray zone that Iran is being able to play their cards well.

Andrew Muller

We will move along to Australia, which is currently hosting a visit by India's Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. The headline of the trip thus far is the conclusion of an agreement under which Australia will export uranium to India. The two countries have had a nuclear cooperation operation Agreement since 2014. But Australia has been cagey about supplying India with actual uranium due to concerns that it might be used not to power reactors, but build weapons. The new exports will fall within safeguards established by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The two countries also issued a joint, if vague, declaration of greater cooperation on defense and security matters. Somnath. The practical upshot of this would appear to be if it all goes as advertised, that India gets more reactors and cleaner energy, both of which it massively needs. Australia gets another customer, which will do Australia no harm. Is this one of those things where everyone's a winner, or are you about to tell me it's more complicated than that?

Somnath Batabhaal

No, I think, I mean, this is A good one, or at least on the face of it, it seems to be that. But look, I mean, one of the reasons India has managed perhaps to get most countries in the west, global north rather on its side is because it was very clear. And look, I'm not, I do not speak for the state. Let's be very clear from the very beginning, from the time of Nehru and Indira Gandhi, it was very clear about its nuclear ambitions. It wanted a nuclear weapon. It also wanted a civilian nuclear program. It was never a part of and it never signed the NPT. The 2008 waiver which was allowed, and this is the same waiver which allows India to now be partners with Australia, is that their programs are very sharply divided, civilian. And it has open access, it has, as far as we know, never, never handed nuclear technology or any components of it to non state actors. So it's this clear, unblemished record allows countries to deal with India despite it not being part of npt. That's one side of it. Second, I think India acts as a strong counterweight for Australia to China and Russia and therefore on the face of it, a good new customer and a reliable one. And the third point of course is India's growing population and energy need. That's very important to move away from fossil fuels into other forms of energy production. And this should be another very big step towards it.

Andrew Muller

I mean, Tina is, I mean, India would seem at all sorts of levels to be a more comfortable partner for Australia than China might be. There is of course a shared descent from the British Empire, shared language, shared love of cricket, etc. Do you think this is a win win for both?

Well, as a geopolitical strategist, I was actually thinking about it a bit differently. I mean, I see this as ticking boxes of a few themes that I think are really important right now. One is bilateral deals that are kind of, but bilateral light. So this is a kind of a fairly narrow trade deal with a little sprinkling of security and we are seeing a proliferation of these right now. Remember Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, France has offered to share its, its nuclear umbrella. And these are consequences of a much more insecure world and one where the United States has withdrawn effectively its security guarantee. I think the problem is that in international relations theory anyway, we talk a lot about trust. So the trust between the interest, the narrowly defined interest between Australia and India are clear, as you laid out, they've got some things in common in terms of wanting to counterbalance China and everything else. But how deep does that relationship go? How Long can it last between leaders? This is one issue with democracies. Eventually people leave. I think the other thing that this deal highlights for us is the intensified interest in clean energy. And I think it is really important to differentiate between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. The war in Iran and indeed the war between Russia and Ukraine also have just highlighted dependence upon fossil fuels. I've been saying that nuclear power would take off for a long time. Europe's been late to the party with the exception of France, including us in the uk, the coalition government talked about this and decided not to do it. Something that has left us with I think the most expensive electricity in Europe in fact. So, you know, I think it makes a lot of sense but I would be cautious about, you know, kind of breaking out the champagne. I think it is what it is.

Somnath. I do want to ask about the sideshow aspect of this as well because a Narendra Modi visit overseas I think is unlike any visit overseas by any other leader of any other country in that other leaders when they go overseas do not get absolutely enormous crowds filling football stadiums to bask in their presence. Something like 25,000 people turned up at Dockland Stadium in Melbourne to see Narendra Modi, which is somewhat shameful. Well, it's somewhat more than turned up to See North Melbourne vs Gold coast the other week though in fairness that wasn't much of a game and neither of them are terribly good teams. But nonetheless, how do we account for that? That is absolutely extraordinary. I mean, certainly if Anthony Albanese turned up at Dockland St. By himself, he would be lucky to get 25 people.

Somnath Batabhaal

Well, Narendra Modi is an extraordinary populist leader and the Prime Minister of the most populous country in the world where everyone who can flees. And a lot of them have fled to New Zealand, Australia, America.

Andrew Muller

Except they seem really happy to see him when he turns up.

Somnath Batabhaal

Yes, that's the, I mean, but none of them want to return to the country, the depreciating rupee falling economy. So those things are masked over. But there is this idea of this glorious nation which is quite far away and therefore. Okay, but he has, you know, unhappily, I have to admit that he has this mass adoration and the right wing Hindu majority of India, most of them love Narendra Modi and that's about 70% of the population of 1.5 billion people. So that's the, you know, so 25,000. I'm surprised. It's quite, you know, most Australian Indians shunned Him. So that's fantastic.

Andrew Muller

Well, sticking with the subject perhaps of bewilderingly popular demagogues to Clacton, which is more than its MP has ever done. Thanks for coming out. Try the veal. Earlier this week, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage announced that he would resign from the House of Commons, thereby forcing a by election in Clacton in which he proposes to stand with a hope of one, winning back the seat he occupies anyway, and two, deflecting scrutiny of his financial arrangements, which include trousering five million quid from a Thailand based crypto guy and accepting further largesse from a convicted fraudster. Every major party has declined to stand a candidate, making Clacton effectively a showdown between Farage and perennial novelty candidate Count Binface. Yes, this tedious attention seeking irritant forever standing in by elections in order to get himself on television, found amusing only by the worst kind of tittering, simpleton will run against Count Binface. Tina, is it clear what Nigel Farage is doing here? By which I am asking you on behalf of what I'm sure is a baffled international audience, what is the point of any of this? Why leave a seat in order to stand for it again?

Well, it's also the way that he did it, because he tried to kind of stir up the drama, didn't he? He said, At 2pm I'm going to make an announcement about my political future.

I know people. He was going to visit his constituency.

Well, I, you know, in, in political analyst circles, which admittedly is a very niche, you know, place to be where I am. Rumors going around he's unwell, you know, all kinds of things. I mean, people took it seriously. And then he pulls this stunt. And then the stunt is, is met by another stunt by Count McBinface, who I think is very funny, which I guess makes me, what did you say? A tittering, tittering simpleton.

Half w. Not half wit, merely simpleton.

Half wit's cleverer than a simpleton. Okay, you know, I won't take the bait, but I think political satire has its place. But I also think you're right, that it runs the risk of this by election, this artificial, pointless by election kind of dissolving into farce.

Oh, I think it has dissolved. I think the dissolution has occurred.

Not sure Farage can escape forever though, because we're talking about large sums of money.

We are.

And we're also talking about Russian money. And in my kind of day job looking at security and defense, last time I checked, Russian gray zone attacks against the UK doubled in the last year. So these are serious allegations. But we end up, I think in this country gravitating toward the entertainment for, you know, for sort of cultural reasons. I will leave to the natives since I am a citizen, but not a native.

I don't think we actually have a native available.

No. And that explains what's wrong with this country.

I know, like these foreigners coming over here and appearing as panelists and indeed

hosts on with opinions on UK politics,

on their current affairs podcast, etc. Somnathes, a casting vote from you. Are you amused by Count Binface and other novelty candidates? A good lord or not?

Somnath Batabhaal

I'm not. I refuse to answer this only, but I'll say this, that the odds go into politics. Odds.

Andrew Muller

It's not a trick question.

Somnath Batabhaal

It is a trick question. He's saying, am I loyal to him or you?

Andrew Muller

No, he asked if it was funny.

Is it funny? Is Count Bin face amusing? So I'm not.

Somnath Batabhaal

He does, you know, I do grin when I see him on TV once in a while. I mean, I don't find him.

Andrew Muller

You got two twittering simpletons.

Somnath Batabhaal

I mean, I don't call him a

Andrew Muller

simpleton, but I mean, Somnath's trying to have a few quid each way over here.

Somnath Batabhaal

Yes, yes, yes. But the odds have shortened 4 to 1 for yes.

Andrew Muller

See, I, I was, I checked earlier. I was, see, I was seeing eights. Do you think that's good value?

Somnath Batabhaal

Then you might, you know, bid a few pounds on him.

Andrew Muller

But the real risk is that when people, anyone who's involved in surve design of any kind, if you offer people the option of either don't know or none of the above, well, you must never do that because most people will choose that option. If you want to get real results, whether it's opinion polling, political polling, favorite types of yogurt or orange juice, you've got to have clear choices because human behaviour is such that people will go for none of the above.

But on that subject of clear choices and thinking with strategist hat, as I was saying in the introduction, all the mainstream major parties have just said this is ridiculous and we want nothing to do with it. That's an easy call for almost all of them who would not have had a hope of winning anyway. But should the Conservatives have had a run at this because they used to absolutely own Clacton? They won this in 2019 with 72% of the vote. They got 28% last time. Farage won it, obviously, but 28% plus everybody else's votes plus the votes of people who are annoyed with Farage for doing this, plus the fact that in by elections you tend to get a lower turnout anyway. If they'd found a decent candidate, wouldn't this have been worth a crack?

It's probably a missed opportunity. And, you know, does Farage end up benefiting? I mean, I think Count Binface, who I sometimes get mixed up with, Bodie

McBoatface, again, a symptom of the same British tendency towards trivial.

Yes, indeed. You know, so they can be conflated. This tendency we have to kind of come up with this sort of pointless alternative. Count Bin Face has a chance to possibly do the right thing or provoke another response and not actually run in the end. But at what point is Farage investigated? I do think it's important to remember that populists like Farage are also on the back foot because of their previous allegiance to Donald Trump. And, you know, when you're a populist and a nationalist first and you've got an American president who talks about undermining sovereignty of European nation states, you know, that's a bit awkward. So, you know, Farage has benefited from a lot of trends, but he may be. He may have peaked.

Well, to the office now and the question of appropriate deportment therein. This is the time of year in the Northern hemisphere where some deeply disreputable men will decide to excuse themselves from the rule regarding shorts, which is to recap that these are only ever permissible in public on male humans over the age of 18 if worn for the express purpose of participating in sports. Although obviously, if ironically, the correct leg wear for the only summer sport which actually matters, that is test cricket, is trousers. Horrifyingly, we have miscreants of this sort right here at Monocle. Here, first of all, is one the of them Fernando Augusto Pacheco.

Somnath Batabhaal

You need to be comfortable, you know, I think, or sometimes you are kind of in inhumane conditions. You see, I think of police officers or, or even bus drivers here because

Andrew Muller

they have to be in such a small cubicle, you know, in.

Somnath Batabhaal

In very hot weather. So I think it's about human rights as well.

Andrew Muller

That was Fernando Augusto Pacheco Monocle's knees. Desk Chief Somnath, you are wearing shorts to fend yourself.

Somnath Batabhaal

I wore this when I knew that this topic would come up. So I'll take this seriously.

Andrew Muller

Almost certainly a mistake, but go off.

Somnath Batabhaal

I'll try this. I think one of the reasons shorts are looked down in office is its long association with childhood.

Andrew Muller

We wore strong and Correct association with children, with childhood.

Somnath Batabhaal

And when we go to high school, we'll get our first pair of trousers and so on. But as Auguste says, conditions. You know, Augusto's mention of policemen, bus drivers suddenly took me back to images of British men in colonial times wearing their shorts and their topis, going around.

Andrew Muller

See? And you say this like it's a good thing.

Somnath Batabhaal

No, What I was agreeing with Auguste was that conditions force you to change wear accordingly. It will not descend into what you fear might be shorter shorts. It's a negotiated, you know, conversations.

Andrew Muller

Slippery slope.

Somnath Batabhaal

No, it's a negotiated slope, Tina.

Andrew Muller

According to polling, 68% of British people are fine with this. What has become of the nation of Wellington, Drake and Nelson?

This is a very serious question. And I too pondered the colonial uniform point and gave it some serious thought. But remember that I'm originally from California, and in California, on a wedding, formal only means wearing trousers. Right. It doesn't mean a morning suit or anything like this. So I come from a place where shorts and a T shirt are the uniform for everything. And I hate it.

Correct.

I think it is a missed opportunity. And I don't believe people should be uncomfortable either, by the way.

Oh, I think they should.

You think they should. I'm not advocating for hair shirts, but I am a person who, you know, who wears high heels, you know, in all but the most, you know, hazardous conditions. Because I do think that clothes make the person and it's about making an impression. The thing about shorts is they are not serious. If you want to be taken seriously in whatever thing you happen to be doing, don't wear shorts.

This is all entirely correct, Somnath.

Somnath Batabhaal

This conversation can go on.

Andrew Muller

Have I rescued myself from being a simpleton?

You absolutely have. I'm prepared to. To chalk off the laughing at count bin face thing. You have ridden to the rescue when you were needed. Somnath, where would you be on? Because this came up in the office earlier. These are the things we talk about. The kilt.

Somnath Batabhaal

It's a Scottish national dress.

Andrew Muller

Well, yeah.

Somnath Batabhaal

And if Scots or someone wanting to be impersonating a Scottish person wants to wear a kilt, they will wear a kilt.

Andrew Muller

You wouldn't wear one yourself. As opposed to.

Somnath Batabhaal

I am not, you know, I would wear a dhoti or a kurta.

Andrew Muller

See, that is both a sensible and dignified outfit.

But a kilt is.

Somnath Batabhaal

I'm not going to rise to that.

Andrew Muller

No, no. The kilt, I believe, is also a sensible and dignified outfit.

It's not about the knees. It's not the knees, male knees you object to.

I'm not a huge fan, if I'm honest.

But it's the garment itself of shorts, not the showing of the male hairy knee.

Somnath Batabhaal

But, but here, I mean, look, every throughout the century and just seriously, clothes have always been kind of tailored to local conditions. In the west, it's because of cold climate. We wear trousers in the tropical climates. We have on other things, inner shorts, dhotis, lungis, and that's the way it is. And if temperatures get hotter, Augusto is right, we will. Despite you grumbling, Andrew, we will. Our length of our trousers will get shorter and shorter.

Andrew Muller

I'll never wear shorts in a public setting.

Somnath Batabhaal

Now you won't.

Andrew Muller

Tina Fordham, Tina Fordham and Somnath Battambayal, thanks for joining us. Finally, on today's show, to Lebanon, where Noor Amelia Hilda visits a gallant collection of concrete platforms and saltwater pools on Beirut's coast that has outlasted Lebanon's apparently eternal conflicts and crises.

Noor Amelia Hilda

Situated on Beirut's western shoreline is a beach club that has attracted generations of sunseekers for over seven decades. The sporting club is more than just a place to soak up some sun. It is a beloved institution that has endured through the city's many cycles of reinvention. Its appeal becomes clear the moment you arrive. To get here, drive along the corniche until we spot the Almanara Lighthouse. Once the landmark is in view, you'll know that you are on the right stretch of beach. Inside, concrete terraces cascade down towards saltwater pools and a rocky jetty extends out to the sea beyond. The view opens onto the dramatic silhouette of Raoulshi, better known as Pigeon Rock, set against the glittering waves of the Mediterranean. While many beach clubs have sprouted along Beirut's coastline over the years, it is the simplicity and Old World charm that keep drawing generations to return to sporting. Its minimalist whitewashed concrete slats, plastic deck chairs and sun bleached umbrellas embody an unpretentious and effortlessly charming atmosphere that feels distinctly nostalgic. While there have been updates over the years, the club retains much of the same character that defined the place when it first opened in 1953 by Lebanese entrepreneur Josh Abu Nasser. One of the first beach clubs of its kind in the region, Sporting sits on one of the last few remaining private stretch of beaches in Beirut and was named after the sparting date in Monte Carlo. In its early years, sporting operated on a strictly members only basis. Membership was largely granted through word of mouth and shaped by a philosophy of shared values and camaraderie as Beirut entered the golden age in the late 1950s through to the 1960s, the club earned somewhat of a reputation as a favourite horse, the horn of the jet set crowd attracting the city's artists, politicians and entrepreneurs who would come to seek sun and solace from the bustle of the city. While sporting is often associated with nostalgia of the city's golden era, its history equally lies in its ability to withstand many of Lebanon's turbulent periods. When the Lebanese civil war broke out in 1975, the owners decided to keep the beach club open. Remarkably, the club remained open throughout the 15 years of the civil war and continued to open for business through the waves of political and economic turmoil that followed, including the 2020 port explosion, offering a sense of normalcy amid uncertainty. Today, Sporting Club is run by the second and third generations of the Abu Nassa family who have kept the same easygoing spirit alive. Membership is no longer exclusive and is open to all, but the spirit of community and like mindedness has remained the same. Come summer, the terraces come alive with a diverse crowd of regulars and newcomers. Teenagers leap off the rocky jetty while fishermen cast their lines into the sea. Families linger over long lunches of tauk sandwiches, burgers and sama kabissui or crispy fried whitebait fish on the concrete. Young and old lounge around working on their tents as groups of men settle into games of carts and backgammon. Over 70 years have passed and yet sporting continues to welcome generations to the same views, seaside rituals and warm hospitality that have defined it over the years. In a city defined by constant reinvention, it shows that there is comfort and a certain luxury in the places that remain unchanged.

Andrew Muller

That was Monocle contributor Noor Amelia Hilda, reporting from Beirut. That is all for this edition of the Daily. Thanks to our panelists today, Tina Fordham and Somnath Bhattabayl. Today's show was produced by Hassan Anderson and researched by Josefina Estradnagla Gomez. Our sound engineer was Christy o'. Grady. I'm Andrew Muller here in London. The Daily is back at the same time tomorrow. Thanks for listening,

Noor Amelia Hilda

Sam.