14/11/2011 Newsnight

Roll up that map, we shall not need it these ten years. The British

Prime Minister is supposed to have said that when he heard about

Napoleon's crushing victory in 1805. The map of Europe is now about to

be redrawn in the wake of the euro crisis, but David Cameron didn't

manage anything quite as res nant tonight.

-- We sceptics have a valid point, we should look skeptically at grand

plans and utopian visions. We have a right to ask what the European

Union should and shouldn't do. should Britain try to do to the

political organisation of which we are part. We will hear from among

others, the man who was once one of Britain's European Commissioners.

President Assad's troops continue their violence, as The King of

Jordan says it is time for him to go. A glimpse into the thriving

cottage industry of phone hacking on day one of the Leveson Inquiry

into the media. Also tonight: have acted in way that violates my

obligations to my family, that violates my, or any sense of right

or wrong. We talk to the New York Attorney-General who tried to clean

up broad street and got brought down by a sex scandal. How did a

culture of greed take such firm root in American business. The

stuffest challenge to Europe since the Second World War, was the way

the German Chancellor put it today. We're no closer to the lasting

solution to the euro cries s but everyone agrees if there is one, it

will carry the stamp "made in Germany". Astor David Cameron, he

claimed tonight to be a natural secretaryic, yet maintained that

Britain had no -- sceptic, yet maintained that Britain had no

choice but to remain in the EU. They support the two-tier Europe,

with Britain some how in the outer teir. What should Britain be trying

to achieve. Europe has been shaped by centuries

of shifting alliances and conflicts. Not so great for conflicts, but

great business for the couldn't tent's map makers. Every few years

-- continent's map makers. This is 1870, pru,ia at the centre, hand

reaching for the low countries. France, flinching, weapons raised

and Britain an old hag, the caption reads "angry and isolated". You

could probably construct just as humorous a map as the modern Europe.

Maybe slightly less funny Silvio Berlusconi has gone, but funny,

nonetheless. What hasn't changed is the serious point, the central

position of German power at the heart of the continent, with a sort

of spiral of reaction from the other countries around it. With

Britain, or Britain on the side lines there, deciding how best, if

at all, to get involved. Over 140 years have passed between that map

and the Prime Minister's speech tonight at the Mansion House.

Costumes of some, however, that are more 189th than 21st century. The -

- 19th than 21st century. The Prime Minister talked about a Britain

that won't leave the EU, but help shape it. And in words that will

annoy some Liberal Democrat colleagues, he talked about we

sceptics being right to question plans. Now is the question to ask

what kind of Europe do we actually want? For me, the answer is clear,

one that is outward looking, with its eyes to the world, not gazing

inwards. One with the flexibility of a network, not the rigidity of a

block, whose institutions help by connecting and strengthening its

members to thrive in a vibrant world, rather than holding them

back. Mr Cameron talked of a generational shift, one has post

Cold War rather than post Second World War. But we were no nearer

finding out where Britain will reorder Europe, and more

specifically what the British blueprint looks like. Some think

the Prime Minister needs to get on with mapping out his ideas. There

is a real danger with David Cameron of being seen to stand on the side

lines. There are 17EU countries inside the eurozone, but another

ten who are outside it. Some of them are slated to join, I will be

astonished if they actually do. There is a renegotiation coming,

the map of Europe is about to be redrawn. And David Cameron should

be in there, leading that and providing ground for renegotiation.

How might the map look. The 27EU countries are forming into

different groups. The 17 countries that use the euro in a core,

leaving Britain among the ten peripheral countries, perhaps

marginalised in their influence. But, it is argued, if the euro at

some future date breaks up, other countries may join the periphery,

Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain or Ireland. Unfortunately it won't

work that way. If you talk to countries like Poland, or Sweden,

they don't want to be part of a group led by Britain. Many of the

ten not currently in the euro want to join the euro. Like Poland. And

are prepared to put up with the rules and regulations required, and

want to be part of whatever organisations and clubs the Germans

establish for the eurozone. Other countries like Sweden, which don't

intend to join the euro any time soon, still don't want to be

associated with the British. The British have rather a bad

reputation as being against integration. David Cameron and

Nicolas Sarkozy are, in front of the cameras, at least, all Bonn hom

me. But behind the scenes there is -- bon homie, there is exasperation

at us barking from the side lines. Could Britain change the grouping,

threatening to veto to sort out the euro unless we got what we want at

the same time. I was in Berlin talking to Mrs Merkel's adviser,

they are clear that any British attempt to veto the new treaty

would lead to Germany and its partners going ahead with something

else, another treaty, which doesn't require a British signature,

outside the framework of the European Union. If the Germans are

wanting to play the game of saying they are not listening, I think we

have to really assert ourselves. There is no way that the ten

countries inside the European Union, who are not in the eurozone, should

allow themselves to be tampered by the Germans and the French, simply

because they have got themselves into a mess, form ago currency,

which some of us warned wouldn't work.

So it is not time to pencil in the new map just yet. Frustrating,

perhaps, but how about this First World War handerchief map, where

Germany's central position makes it rather vulnerable!

Shortly before we came on air I spoke to Lord Mandelson, who monk

his many accomplishment, being a former EU Trade Commissioner. I

asked him where the euro had gone wrong? It has given Europe ten

years of moderately strong growth, low inflation, the problem is the

Governments where it has lacked a strong monetary authority, in the

form of the European Central Bank. In my opinion and the opinion of

others has been too legally and operationally constrained. Secondly,

it has not had an effective fiscal governance. It has allowed its

members to go different ways fistically, storing up problems

which have -- fiscally storing up problems which have been way laid

by the financial crash. It is clear the Germans think the only way for

this thing to work is to have a much closer political and fiscal

union within the eurozone? I think everyone is agreed, Germany and

France and others agreed, that we need completely to recast the

fiscal Governments. There needs to be a fiscally unified governance

for the eurozone. Something we haven't had in the past. Where the

disagreement exists, where I mentioned before, is the role of

the monetary authority, the European Central Bank, Germany, in

my view, is in the wrong place. I believe not only can Italy only be

saved by the ECB making absolutely clear that it will be a lender of

last resort, that we will, through the ECB, throw everything we have,

if the market panic spreads to Italy, and I think also a bank that

would stand behind other members of the eurozone that face similar

problems in the future. If we don't do that, I don't think we will get

over the crisis and if we don't do that we won't be able to repair the

original design flaws in the eurozon. There are ten nations --

Eurozone. There are ten nations not in the eurozone, why doesn't

Britain aim to become the leader of that block? Because it has declined

to do so. What Mrs Merkel has done recently, she has said to the Poles

and the British, and said you are out of the euro, some of you want

to come in, and some of you are waiting for the economic

circumstances to do so. Others, if you like, Britain, say you don't

ever want to come in. Her offer was a very, very important offer indeed.

It was to say to the "outs", as we are and the Poles and the others,

we will form a europlus group, supported by a europlus pack, and

we will allow you to sit at the table, and take part and share in

the decision-making, the key economic decision-making that

relates to the eurozone. The British Government, for reasons I

find it almost impossible to comprehend said, no thank you very

much, we don't want to do that. are outside the eurozone, and

outside the eurozone...Not Choosing to be outside the eurozone, but

choosing to be outside it and not showing up at those councils and

bodies where the decision making, and economic discussions of the

eurozone are taking place. So we are doing two things, we are saying

we are not coming into the eurozone, and secondly, we don't want to be

part of any europlus pack, or group, because we don't want to have

anything to do with your decision making either. You still think we

should join the euro? If we are not members of the euro, and nobody is

proposing we should be. You were proposing we should be? Indeed I

was arguing for it. Only a couple of years you claim it had been a

tremendous success? It is a very important point. It is an important

point? We are here now not ten years ago. It was two years ago

when you said the euro had been a tremendous success and we could not

stay out of it indefinitely? I see no point in gloating at the fate of

the euro, or with some sort of smugness and saying aren't we

clever for not being in it. It is nothing to do with smugness or

gloating, I'm merely pointing out to you that two years ago you said

this was a great success and we couldn't stay out of it

indefinitely, do you still think that? And if and when the

circumstances were right, and Britain's advantage to go in, we

should certainly consider doing so. Now? Not now, of course not now.

Some time in the future, you still believe this now? In the meantime

there are a whole set of questions for us, and dilemmas facing Britain,

about our relationship to the European Union, as the eurozone

becomes a tighter and more integrated block. We have to decide

where we are going to stand and what we are going to do in those

new circumstances, and how we are going to deal with the dilemma that

presents to us. When you said Britain cannot afford to say no to

the euro indefinitely, that it was in Britain's national interest to

go into it, you still believe that? Jeremy, there is no proposition, by

me or anyone else, that we should go into the euro. This was your

proposition? In whatever year you are quoting. That was 2003, 2009,

you said it was obviously the case Britain should join the single

currency, you said it is perfectly clear that the euro had been

success? We can play games and score points. I'm not playing games,

I suggest your judgment is flawed because you thought it was such a

brilliant scheme? In what way is my judgment flawed now when I say to

you, if we do not maximise our influence within the European Union,

we are going to become more and more detatched from it, less able

to influence its direction, and less able to stand up to our

interests. Why are you being so defeatist, isn't this fantastic

opportunity for Britain to reshape Europe. Having seen the eurozone

become a calamity? Absolutely there is a chance to exercise more

influence, and I would say this to you too, had we been in the euro,

had we been members of the eurozon. Magistrate mess we would be in

then? We might have been able to avoid the mess that has resulted.

Britain is very good in Europe in saying that proper rules,

intelligently formulated should be well applied, and then enforced. We

are very good in Europe. Let me make the point, we are very good in

Europe at saying to our partners, look, this danger, that elephant

trap is opening up. We have got to anticipate, we have to anticipate a

whole series and set of different circumstances, and we have got to

work together to avoid them. If we had been in the euro, we would be

take orders from Berlin? We weren't in the eurozone, we didn't exercise

that influence, it is now a very big challenge for Britain, both to

help Europe repair what has gone wrong in the eurozone, but also to

create a future, and a direction for the European Union, that is not

just good for the whole of Europe, but good for Britain as well. And

my fear, is that the way in which we are conducting ourselves now in

relation to the European Union, we're not only standing outside the

eurozone for reasons that are obvious to all of us, but we are in

great danger of seeing those members of the eurozone, more

tightly integrated, closely knit, taking their decisions in their

interests, on economic matters, which are of fundamental importance

to our economic future, with us being able to exercise hardly any

influence or power or sway over that whatsoever. You tell me how

that is in Britain's interests, it is certainly not. Lordson, thank

you. With us now are -- Lord Mandelson, thank you. With us is

the former minister Malcolm Rifkind and my guest from Paris.

Isn't the inevitable consequence of what is happening in the eurocrisis,

a marginalisation of countries like Britain? I think it has happened,

you are right to mention it. There is a feeling that the German and

the French have. First of all, there is a two-speed Europe, which

has in way been created by the attitudes of the UK, which is not

in the eurozone, not adopting the binding chartered and of rights,

and neither some provisions of the treaty with regard to justice and

that kind of thing. So I think that, in way, for the first time, there

is a true dilemma, as you remember Churchill said, regarding Great

Britain and the European construction, we are with it, we

are not of it. That was true years ago, but nowadays, when it is felt

that there is no solution of eurocrisis, apart from a strong not

only economy governance of the eurozone, but also a political

integration of this zone of solidarity, of necessary solidarity,

between the 17 and perhaps more member states, for the first time

in its history, since it has access to the EU, Great Britain has a real

choice to be in or out. I think that this choice is right now, and

not later on. Not such a bad thing to be marginalised? We are not

marginalised, the main error madame has made, like many other people

she talks about a two-speed Europe. That implies that all along we will

end up at the same destination, some getting there a bit later than

others. It is not a two-speed Europe. The debate happening in

Europe is actually about what kind of European Union we actually

aspire to. Whether it is a European Union where all countries have to

accept the same level of integration at some date. Or

whether we accept that Europe, not only now, but permanently, will

have diverse kinds of membership, and some of us will never be in the

European single currency, some of us will wish to go further, the

French and the Germans were very good reasons may want more

integration. May want to respect our right not to go in that

direction. And we respect their right to go in that direction.

is this so unappealing to other members of the European Union?

is appealing to some and unappealing to others. Of the 27

countries, 17 are in the eurozone, ten are not. Some are in there.

Most of them are hoping to join it? They were, but I'm not sure now.

That is not the point, each country has the right to make up its own

mind. Europe because it is 27 countries, it will soon be over 30

countries, cannot ever aspire to reaching the same destination and

degree of integration. If it tries to do that it will implode, that is

in no-one's interest. I wonder how much choice France, for example,

really has. The plain fact is, it is Germany that is running Europe

now. And the German position is understandably a great deal

stronger than ever it was, and the orders for Paris are made in

Berlin? Berlin has the leadership at the present time. I admit it. It

is right, and it was the case with the constitution as well, as you

remember. Germany is really now not only facing great issues, that is

to say either to support the euro and make the eurozone survive, or

to be an actor of the collapse of the eurozone and of Europe as well.

I have no problem with Germany taking the lead in so far as we

have choices to make, and we have to tell the truth to our people. I

think that in the UK, for instance, you have to launch a referendum if

Mrs Merkel pushes ahead to a change of the treaty. So the referendum is

the truth. I say that the French, regreting very much the way of the

French Government, addressing the issue of Europe, during the

campaign for this referendum. I think it is absolutely necessary

now that the people of Europe have their say, and that they are

telling the truth. That is to say, you cannot belong to an NTT, as

Europe, without transfering powers, and we have been so far that either

there is the end of Europe, or we go further. This is the true choice

of today. This is an opportunity, then, isn't it? It is an

opportunity, if there is a desire to show some flexibility. I believe

that countries like Britain should not veto France and Germany, and

others, if they wish to go for greater integration, nor should

they be able to prevent countries like the UK, saying that membership

of the European Union doesn't require European formity. If there

is an inner core of -- Union formity. If there is an inner core

of countries, whichever way they will be drawn in the future, we

will find ourselves excluded from crucial decisions? We have taken a

conscious decision. We won't have much influence on eurozone issues,

we are not maybe of the eurozone. We have done that to preserve our

independence, to determine our own interest rates, to determine

whether we have quanative easing in the UK and control of our own

monetary policy. That is what independence is about. The sharing

of sovereignity is crucial to the European Union, but the degree of

sovereignity you are prepared to share should depend on your own

national circumstances. For Britain, for Sweden, for Denmark, for a

number of other countries, we have come to national conclusions that

consistent with our membership of the European Union, we are not

prepared to go for full integration, other countries wish to go further,

Europe will flourish if each country respects that a la carte

Europe, which is actually the only way Europe can survive in the long-

term. Thank you very much both of you.

King Abdullah of Jordan today said it was time for President Assad of

Syria to stand down. For a dictator who believes he stands for Arab

unity, he behaves in a strange way, his organisation has been suspended

from the Arab League. But Assad shows no sign of willingness to

quit the stage himself. There is increasing anxiety of what you

might decided to do to hang on to power, not just killing his own

citizens, but other citizens too. Syria's revolutionaries have had

little to celebrate since the start of their uprising. But today, as

more deaths were reported in fighting, they briefly cheered.

Thanking other Arab states for supporting them by suspending their

country from the Arab League. hope to, from this regime, to

recognise that the time is up now. And the time is to step down and

let the people decide. But the reaction from thousands of other

Syrians, millions according to the authorities, who have been on pro-

regime rallies, was one of fury. Some came of their own will, some

were encouraged to attend, by an outraged Government. TRANSLATION:

The Arab League decision is illegal, it has not been issued by a

unanimous vote. It doesn't rely on the legality of the charter of the

league. For a country that has always believed it was at the

forefront of the struggle for Arab unity, the league's decision is a

major humiliation. And today, in another affront, Syrian President

Bashar al-Assad faced the first public call for him to step down

from a fellow Arab leader. I would believe if I were in his shoes I

would step down. For a long time, Syria's Arab neighbours did their

best to turn a blind eye to what's been happening in the country.

Reluctant to take on a state which such strategic weight in the Middle

East. Now, they have taken the historic decision to come off the

fence. Governments like Saudi Arabia's, which have long disliked

President Assad, but which hate revolution, have now committed

themselves, at least morally, to supporting revolutionaries. But the

suspension of Syria from the Arab League, won't be enough in itself,

to force Mr Assad from office unless it is backed up by practical

action. His is a regime which still has powerful allies, both in the

region, and around the world. Within Syria, President Assad has

faced opposition in towns stretching in an arc around the

country. Abroad, his enemies now include most members of the 22-

strong Arab League. They also include Turkey, a one-time ally,

that now hosts Syrian opposition groups, the European Union, once

the main user of Syrian oil, which has now banned such imports, and

the United States, which has also imposed sanctions. But Mr Assad can

still count on the support of the two militant Islamist movements,

Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories, which

has long sponsored. Its closest all lie, Iran, whose revolutionary

guards are supposed to have advised Mr Assad on how to suppress

protests, its neighbouring trader, Iraq, which abstained on the Arab

League vote, and furd afield Russia and China, very -- further afield,

Russia and China, very wary of aproving any criticism of Damascus.

With fighting intensifing in recent days, what some opposition

activists now hope for is an internationally imposed no-fly zone

over Syria. That was ruled out at the weekend by Qatar, which

currently chairs the Arab League. More economic sanctions are likely,

they may not have much immediate effect. Syria is not surrounded, on

one side it has Iraq, almost a continuation of the Syrian economy

in a sense. On the other said, Iran, friendly to it, and on the other

side, Lebanon. This time, for the first time in four years, Syria has

had a wonderful bumper crop, after four years of drought and poor

crops. Can a diplomatically cornered regime use its

relationship with Iran and clients Hezbollah to cause trouble in the

region, provoking conflict with Israel to deflect from the uprising

at home. In the case of Hezbollah, the difficulty at Hezbollah, their

main allegiance is with Iran. Hezbollah could be used by Iran,

were Iran to be taked militarily, or even if Syria was to be taked

militarily. If we are in just talking about economic pressure,

Hezbollah will be feared and held back, that any action could unleash

Israeli action against Hezbollah or Syria itself. Inside Syria the

bloodshed continues. Today opposition footage appears to show

troops again attacking the rebellious city of Homs. Many think

civil war is approaching. It is for fear of spreading conflict that

Arab and other powers have been so cautious towards Syria for so long.

But the stakes in this powder-keg of a region, are slowly rising.

With us now is the Syrian writer and journalist Rana Kabbani, we are

joined from cashing done by the former assistant secretary at the

US State Department, now at the council on foreign relations. Rana

Kabbani, do you think Assad is on the brink now? I absolutely do. I

think what has happened this week is the forming of a consensus,

among the Arab states, among the immediate neighbours of Syria,

including, very importantly, Turkey, and Europe and the United States.

Before we kept hearing about giving him time, that he was a reformist,

that there was still hope that this regime could be saved. But I'm

believing very firmly that is now passed. Do you think he's on the

edge too? I wish he were, and I wish that Rana Kabbani was right,

and is right. But I'm not convinced. It is true, the regime is becoming

internationally isolated, and isolated in his own back yard. But

he still has many tools at his disposal, within his own country.

He has the army, he still controls the major cities. The business

elite is behind him. The sanctions imposed on Syria are hurting the

country, but are they hurting the people in control? I'm not sure

exactly yet how this international isolation translates into his

departure. Are you worried about what he might do if he's cornered?

I'm very worried about what he does. First of all, this is a man who has

proven that he is prone to miscalculation, and to recklessness.

He's done it in Lebanon, recall earlier this year, twice he has

sent Palestinian refugees to the border with Israel, to meet their

own death. He is someone who is not the calculator his father was. So

the foings for him to miscalculate -- potential for him to

miscalculate and be reckless is quite high. You mean the

possibility of his encouraging Hezbollah to attack Israel, or

something? That is one possibility. I don't think Hezbollah necessary

takes its orders from him. But he has many tools at his disposal. As

we have seen, he has killed over 3500 people of his own country. He

doesn't show any sign of leaving. And indeed, the Arab League

proposal really doesn't leave him much room. If he were to abide by

the Arab League proposals, he would be signing his own political death

warrant. I think he will fight it out. I listened to the Foreign

Minister Muslim Brotherhood Muslim's speech this morning, from

I listened to the Foreign Minister's speech, it was so

delusional, it reminded me of the last few weeks of Saddam Hussein

and Colonel Gaddafi's regime. It was the same kind of living in

never-never land, and not acknowledging the depths of the

crisis the isolation of the country, the unbelievable crimes that have

been committed, that have been called by Human Rights Watch,

crimes against humanity. And the fact that the whole Syrian

population, including the Christians and business community,

is now against him. No-one denies the depth of the opposition, no-one

denies the distastefulness of the regime, the question is, how

dangerous he is? I think he's a busted flush, quite frankly's

dangerous, and has always been, as has been his father, to the Syrian

people. What about the subsidiary point then, supposing that he does

indeed go, supposing you're right, he really is on the brink of giving

up, is there a danger then of a sectarian conflict in Syria?

don't think so. Simply because the Syrians have watched the example of

Iraq very carefully, and have always said they accept this

totalitarian regime, because we don't want to end up in a state of

occupation or civil war. They are very conscious of the fact that it

is a country of many minorities, of many races, of many languages, and

the future needs to be a democratic and pluralistic one. That is what

we have waited for. Do you fear a sectarian conflict in Syria? Very

much so. I think one of the driving forces here behind the Arab

League's move to action, is their fear of sectarian conflict. I think

they worry that Syria is on the brink. The Syrian opposition,

however valiant and Northern Ireland its cause, still has not

convinced -- nobble its cause, still has not convinced the

officials in Syria they would be better after Assad lives. It is not

the politicians and Christians like Assad they are worried about the

incumbent after. It is the revolution's job to convince them

there will be a better day after Assad. There is that sectarian rift

that no-one wants but is emerging that is driving the Arab League to

ratchet it up lest it implode. disagree with that, if Syria has

been sectarian, it is the result of the Assad family's regin. They have

made everything so that members of their own community have had the

army in their grasp, and the business community. And that is why

we have seen sectarian hatred rising, but once they go, I think

that will abate. Thank you very much.

Once upon time they talked to my next guest as a future President of

the United States. Eliot Spitzer made his name as the so-called

Sheriff of Wall Street, an Attorney-General who went after

corrupt businessmen, and be they never so powerful. Tomorrow night a

90-minute documentary in the Storyville slot on BBC Four tells

his story, and how his crusade made him powerful enemies, so that when

he fell, he fell like Lucifer. Caught using prostitutes.

He was known as the Sheriff of Wall Street, Mr Right. But then it all

went wrong. He knew that his entire political career was on the line,

and ultimately vice took over virtue, he couldn't control himself.

I remember one time he was trying to book an appointment. I just

remember thinking to myself, I was like this man is so paranoid,'s

just going to attract a situation. You know, because he was just

asking for it. By the time he became governor of New York, Eliot

Spitzer had a reputation. His eight years as New York attorney yen, had

seen him sue coal fire plants for pollution, and he uncovered fraud

in the pharmaceutical industry. And then he took on Wall Street.

job had been a second teir position, focused on regulating crooked car

dealers, Eliot Spitzer focused on Wall Street, the biggest guys

around. Spitzer's premise, which was right, was that Wall Street

can't be left to regulate itself, or terrible things will happen.

went after market analysts who were tipping stocks in which privately

they had no faith. Merrill Lynch became his target. My office has

reached an agreement that will ensure the integrity of advice on

which investors depend. He broke the mould and went on fast and hard,

he got things done in weeks and months that took federal regulators

years. He would get business on side to force the industry to

change the way it did business, a lot of people thought that was

outrageous. He also took on CIO's outlandish bay rates. The head of

the New York Stock Exchange had an annual salary of dollar million --

millions and millions of dollars. He sued them. I have been rich and

poor, rich is better. Jew can't pay the head of a not-for-profit that

much money, close to $00 million, it is simply too much, it is not --

$200 million, it is simply too much, it is not right, it is against the

law. This is going after elephants. In the end the elephants kept the

cash. Spitzer had other targets, there was the head of the AIG

insurance company, worth $157 billion, with 92 employees. Spitzer

alleged the -- 92,000 employees. Spitzer alleged the books were

being cooked. He said, I will destroy you. Those are strong words.

I had never heard those words like that before. I couldn't quite

believe it. But Eliot Spitzer was about to fall because of his

personal dealings in an industry which was also booming. The FBI was

investigating a prostitution ring, Spitzer was client nine. His escort,

trading his Kirsten, was one Ashley Alexandra Dupre. Some breaking news

this afternoon, the New York Times is reporting that governor Eliot

Spitzer of New York has informed some of his senior administration

officials that he had been involved in a prostitution ring. You say the

work, but you haven't said the words. The work? Prostitution?

Escort. Escort. What's the difference? Escort. In recent

months, while Eliot Spitzer's reemerged to comment on the

financial crisis, Ashley Dupre has been back in the limelight, to his

supporters he may have been guilty of had you bris, they say he was

also a prophet, facing down the financial villains who put the

world in peril. You can see the Storyville documentary about Eliot

Spitzer, Client 9: The Call Girl And The Governor, on BBC Four at

10.00pm. Let's talk to Eliot Spitzer from New York. There is a

profound change in the way capitalism works in the world, what

do you think it is? There is anger and frustration over the fact that

the 1% at the very top of society are doing extraordinarily well. I'm

a capitalist, I believe people should do well and work hard to do

well, but the system has to be fair. It can't be rigged. People came to

realise there was so much self- dealing on Wall Street, people were

paying themselves huge bonuses on salaries by picking the pockets of

the middle-class and rigging the system. I believe in a fair market

system that generates wealth, not an opportunity for the wealthiest

to pick the pockets of the middle- class, and occupy Wall Street, to a

certain extent, the Tea Party as well, the analog of occupy wall

treat on the far right, are there because of the frustration of the

middle-class, that some how those at the top are begin iting unfairly.

Nobody worries they are benefiting, but when it is unfair. Is this a

failure of regulation, or some how a more profound moral change that

people just think differently about their relationship with society?

in so many issues, in questions of that nature, the answer is both. I

don't say both to in any way hesitate to make a choice, I think

those who watched the introduction to this interview, and it was

painful for me to listen to for obvious reasons, will understand I

will go right at the problems I believe are there. Yes it was

failure of regulation. I said over and over when I was tone general of

the state of New York, I would not -- Attorney-General of the state of

New York, I would trust the NCC to do house cleaning for me, they were

weak in many levels. It was a moral failure on those who are running

major companies, who viewed it as their own obligation to make as

much money as they could. They too often overlooked their fundamental

obligation to honesty and integrity in the market place. We are now at

a moment when we have to rebuild the very premise on which we

operate our financial services sector, in order to rebuild the

jobs in the middle-class that are we heart of our domestic economy in

the United States, likewise in England and the rest of Europe.

anything changed as a consequence of the crash? I think there has

been a serious questioning of much of what led up to it, I'm not sure

we have yet learned the right lessons. I don't mean to be

partisan, I would hope the history here would lead to a non-partisan

resolution, but if you listen to the Republican party, once again,

speaking as though the market unfeterd by any regulation will get

us to the appropriate place -- unfettered by any regulation will

get us to the appropriate place is not looking at history. I'm fan of

the market, they require rules as a soccer and football game, wow the

rules and enforcement of the rules -- without the rules and

enforcement of the rules you have mayhem. Have you been disappointed

by how President Obama has gone about his task? Well, look, I have

been in an executive position and know how difficult it is to effect

change. Having said that, I have been disappointed in what Timothy

Geithner has done, in particular, he was in charge of the New York

Fed, the entity that oversaw the markets, he created the structure

that collapsed, he has not been a voice to reform, anywhere close to

adequate to the task, in my opinion. I think there are other voices. I

think that you can look to the Bank of England, Mervyn King and others

in Europe, who have been much more articulate and forceful in

pinpointing and highlighting the changes we need, the separation of

commercial and investment banking, eliminating proprietyry trading.

you regret because of what happened, you can't be part of this process?

Of course. First of all, just so it is clear i regret what I did, I

have said that over and over. I will say it again. Yes I regret, I

apologise, at a different level, I miss being a part of the dialogue

that is on going that is much necessary and needed the effort to

change the structures that dominate financial services right now.

Hopefully we will get where we need to get. Do you entertain any hopes

of possibly coming back into public life? There are many different ways

to par piss Tate in public life. I A -- par -- Participate in public

life. I have a part in a CNN show to write. I'm deeply involved in

the family business and I teach. Being involved in elective office

is not the only one. I will pursue different opportunities in due

course. The inquiry to try to find out what the tabloid newspapers

have been up to got under way today, at the Royal Courts of Justice, it

hopes to report within the year, with some recommendations, on as

the chairman put it, who guards the guardians. On the opening day there

were some disclosures at the now closed News of the World, was a lot

more widespread than previously known. Richard Watson is here, he

has cover the story from day one. What have we learned today? A lot,

they designed it so they would receive significant information on

day one. We heard from Robert Jay QC who said police information

indicated phone hacking had been going on from 2002-200. The old

story was one rogue reporter, Clive Goodman, and Glenn Mulcaire, the

reporter and the private detective. In Glenn Mulcaire's notebooks there

were references to no fewer than 27 other jouermists or employees of

News International, casting the net very much more widely one of these

journalists had apparently made 1, 453 requests for information to

Glenn Mulcaire. Other newspapers were drawn in too? Interestingly

the notebooks are proving a fertile sorgs of information for the

inquiry and police. There -- source of information for the inquiry and

the police. There are references to the Sun and Mirror on some of the

notes, indicating the net will go wider than this. On Newsnight rewe

veeld back in the summer that David Mills had claimed that an unnamed

Mirror journalist had phoned her up quoting a voice message she had

made to Paul McCartney, verbatim. Trinity Mirror denied it at the

time, and said journalists operated within the law. New developments in

the border story, May maes embarrassment. Brodie Clarkson, the

man who resigned after -- Brodie Clarke, the man who resigned after

the fiasco. He's due to give evidence tomorrow. The Labour Party

have indicated they have e-mails from UK Border Agency staff which

they say show there was widespread concern about this relaxation. They

refer to one in particular, one from Durham Airport, apparently,

where some individual was saying that passports weren't being

checked, watch lists weren't being checked from private planes. That

is other airports as well, so they say. Thank you, that's it for now.

The great constitutionalist, Walter Bag it said the cure for admiring

the House of Lords is to go and look at it. He never saw this. It

happened the other day, as the former Defence Secretary, Lord King

was talking about Poppy Day, and the fact that fewer and fewer

living people remember the war. The figure sitting next to him is

Baroness Trumping ton who worked in novel intelligence during the war.

She's 8 and still knows her semiphore. There is a few survivors

still there. I remember meeting Sir Harry Patch the last survivor of

the lot. Gradually they faded away. Then the survivors of World War II

started to look pretty old too, as my noble friend Baroness reminded

me claiming to be one of the only survivor in this House of those who

gave great service to their nation Pretty grey first thing on Tuesday

morning. Another drab start to proceedings, but unlike Monday,

hopefully it will get brighter during the day, across parts of the

south and parts of Wales. On Monday North West England and Scotland

should be favoured for a little bit of sunshine. To the east of the

Pennines it will stay mostly overcast. A lot of cloud through

the Midland, brightening up a touch through East Anglia and the

southern counties of England wrecks should get a little bit of sunshine

-- we should get a little bit of sunshine like Monday, west Wales

will see sunshine. Elsewhere cloud year, but brighter than Monday. A

lot of cloud covering Northern Ireland as well. But again, along

the north coast it may well cheer up, temperatures could respond up

to maybe 12 degrees. North West Scotland will be favoured for

sunshine. Not so much fog around here, as there was during Monday.

The eastern side of Scotland does stay rather grey. Wednesday, it

should be brighter, again so a better chance of seeing sunshine.

We could just see thickening cloud bringing rain into Northern Ireland

later on Wednesday, that cloud could bring rain into parts of

South Wales and maybe the far South-West of England. We will see

the cloud increasing, across Devon and Cornwall, rain arriving here