30/04/2012 Newsnight

Tonight, is there a different way of tackling the economic crisis

across Europe, the man who looks set to be the next President of

France says he will end Germany's austerity plans for the continent.

But Berlin insisted again tonight that austerity is the only way to

save the euro. What would a stand- off between France and Germany mean

for Europe. And with it the incomes of jobs, millions of people, and

yes that probably includes all of Can we believe ministers when they

insist airport chaos is just the bad weather. Insiders say elsewhere.

We hear of Government plans to help parents, how do they promise to cut

red tape for employers. This Government thinks they are doing a

lot to get troubled families on to the straight and narrow. They admit

privately they are not doing quite as much to help those families

already on the straight and narrow stay there.

Cleared from the streets, but back as street theatre, how The Oxford

Murders movement is trying to spread its mess -- the Occupy

movement is trying to spread message through art. I'm producing

a functional piece of work that will be repasted on buildings and

held up by demonstrators. Across the wires, the electric message

came, the euro is no better. It is much the same. Tonight, the German

Finance Minister repeated his country's insistence that there is

no real alternative to austerity. But if we believe Francois Hollande,

the socialist candidate, plodding his way ever closer to the

presidency of France, there is. He claims to offer the whole of Europe,

an alternative to the harsh medicine prescribed by the Germans.

On the day when official figures show Spain back mired in recession,

it is a siren call, but already the men and women who make-or-break

currencies are troubled. Mark Urban reports.

European nationalism, alliances and stereotypes were largely defined in

the 19th century. Prussia triumphant, having beaten France in

1871, formed the core of mighty Germany.

Napoleon is depicted here, thrown completely in the shade by the

Kaiser. Today's contest for leadership is

more subtle, and thankfully less violent. In pledging to renegotiate

Europe's physical compact, the presidential hopeful, Francois

Hollande, is throwing down the gauntlet to today's Chancellor.

TRANSLATION: I know people look at me beyond our borders, my next

frontier will be to offer a reorientation of Europe towards

growth and employment. Thanks to you, this evening, the

change is now moving ahead, and I am saying nothing will stop it.

The Merkozy model of Franco German partnership played a key role in

stablising the euro last year. But today many French seem to count

that closeness to Chancellor Mercury and her austerity plans,

against Mr Sarkozy. Putting forward a new model of growth through

stimulus, more borrowing, the challenger sees a way to exert

French leadership once more. have had Merkozy, we are going to

have something else, in a sense that France and Germany must be

leading and they have to agree, if they don't agree there is no way

forward for Europe. This is the duo, that is the basis of Europe, and of

the eurozone. So they have to agree, and perhaps Angela Merkel will have

to listen to Francois Hollande. More than she has listened so far

to Nicolas Sarkozy. Back in the 19th century, alliances

shifted frequently, great powers swipt swept up lesser ones in their

trail. Germany seen here capturing the Spanish senorita, while France

looked on angrily. The man polls predict will become French

President on Sunday, sees the growth issue as a chance to use

France's Mediterranean influence, to lead a bloc, including Spain,

Italy and Greece, something Germany could take a dim view of.

I don't think it would be a viable strategy for Hollande to try to

form a southern European bloc against Germany. Germany and France

need to work together. If France were to align too much with the

eurozone periphery, markets may actually start to treat France as

part of the eurozone periphery, which is something which France

would not want. And which, if it were to happen, would probably

force France immediately to return to the core European line, which is,

we need some fiscal rigour, we can add growth to that, but without

some austerity, things can't be kept together. In more violent

times, one French cartoonist drew this charicature of the German

savings bank. It is, though, the industrial might of Germany that

even today causes uncomfortable feelings in France about its

neighbours' economic power. Even so, few French politicians are willing

to concede the point that they have fallen behind Germany more

generally. I would say that Germany has always

been in the driving seat in terms of economic and monetary issues,

always. France was in the driving seat for political and military

issues, it is still the fact, nothing new. There is no way out of

the crisis for Germany without France, and there is no way out of

a crisis for France without Germany. Would the election of Hollande

produce a car crash with Germany? Well, there is a well-oiled

diplomatic and EU policy machine that will do its very best to

prevent that happening, or appearing to happen. Lo and behold

Mrs Mercury in recent days has been saying she believes more spending

is needed to stimulate growth. Make no mistake, there are fundamental

differences of view between socialist President, and austere

Chancellor. The days of Merkozy would be over, relations would have

to be reset. As for those watching France from

this side of the channel, a Hollande victory could present good

opportunities for the City or British diplomacy. But those could

easily be outweighed by new dramas in the eurozone that could stall

recovery. From Paris we have the socialist

our guest, and in the studio our guests. The former editor of the

economist is one of our guests. Is Francois Hollande serious when

he says there could be a new direction, as an alternative to

austerity? I think this is exactly part of the mandate he's asking for

the French people. But there has to be no misunderstanding. He has

consistently been in favour of fiscal discipline. He also knows,

and this is what he tried to get a mandate for, that you cannot reach

consistent fiscal discipline, if you are not going at the same time

to stimulate growth. This means to create some room for manoeuvre,

some margin for manoeuvre, to make sure you can restore your capacity

for fiscal discipline. What is at stake here? What is at stake is

Germany's insistence on austerity for everyone else, and them being

un willing to pay for it. There is only one way to stimulate growth,

and that is to have those who are good credit risks with low

borrowing costs, that means Germany, the Netherlands and other northern

Europeans, borrowing and spending more. For France to say we want

more growth is all very well, that is great, but somebody else will

have to bring it. France is not going to be able to do it on its

own. What do you think is at -- What do you think is at stake here?

We have to go back to the core of the problem, why do we have no or

limited growth? According to Bill this is because Governments are not

spending enough, at least those Governments who could spend. In my

view that is not the issue. I think growth comes from many other

sources, many other opportunities, and we have very severe blocs in

Europe that are preventing growth from happening. When Francois

Hollande says he's going to offer Europe a new mouldle, an

alternative to -- model, an alternative to austerity, is he

whistling in the wind? I like his commitment to fiscal growth and

discipline, this leaves the opportunity for action on other

fields, which is very much needed. In my view, the key factor that is

blocking growth in Europe is all the problems in the banking sector.

The fact that when you have fiscal consolidation, can you have a very

relaxed monetary position and conditions for people to borrow.

This is not happening in Europe. The European Central Bank is

helping, it is flooding Europe with liquidity, this is not trickling

down to the firms and people who need it. What has gone wrong?

banking sector is in terrible shape, as everybody knows. Very little is

being done to solve that problem. If Hollande can make a contribution

on that front, that will be most welcome. It is interesting, isn't

it, it isn't just confined to the march of the socialist candidate in

the French presidential election, you can see the Government fall in

Holland, protests on the streets in Spain. It is a really interesting

phenomenon, isn't it, that seems to be spread right throughout the

eurozone? I think that Throughout the eurozone people feel there is a

loss of hope and some loss of sanity. I think that the austerity

has become a sort of mantra without a purpose. It has gone too far in

some countries, including the negligent of the banking system.

Where -- neglect of the banking system. I would gree that the banks

are part of the problem, banks holding this debt think it is not

worth anything and cutting lending, and it is causing the credit crunch.

What is the solution, recapitalisation of banks, partly

by Governments, I'm afraid. So, there is a feeling that we're

trapped, or Europe is trapped in a vicious circle, and the extremes

are benefiting because everyone says, my God, there is only one way

to go, but it seems to be down. Therefore, the extremes are

offering the only protest alternative. Like UKIP in the UK.

Do you think that France is, even whatever monsieur Hollande says

about offering an example and a new model for the rest of Europe,

France doesn't have the capacity to lead any kind of rebellion against

prevailing orthodoxy, does it? is not a question of rebellion, it

is a question of sustainability of the economic policy that has been

proposed. Obviously for some months and even some years, the outgoing

French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, didn't resist, or didn't propose

any challenge to alternative strategies to what Angela Merkel

was proposing. This was written down obviously in the do youville -

- Doville summit in 20067, where they settled a pact to gather

October 2010. Now you can see that each country that is in a difficult

position, doesn't dare to come out with an alternative, they are only

saying OK to what is the too late and too little solution proposed in

the end by Germany. One thing that is very important all through this

crisis, is that obviously the euro is an important asset for Germany,

this is why, in the end, they accept to act where they have to.

They do it too little and too late. So I think...Let Me just bring in

the studio here. What many people see happening here is a rebellion

of democrats against technocrats? No, I don't agree with that at all.

What you are seeing in Europe today, for example, in Holland, as Bill

mentioned, is that people disagree about how to get to the objective,

but nobody questions that we have got to get our public finances in

order. There is a huge consensus on this. Everybody wants to get there,

but the public aren't prepared to put up with the cost that is being

imposed upon them in austerity? These are democracies, therefore

there is a lot of fighting on how to get there. But the general

movement is very clear. Take the case of Italy, for example, where

you have a called technocratic Government, it is a Government that

has more popular support than any previous one. That is a very good

example that even in the extraordinary case of Greece, the

Prime Minister, papedpapedpaped, always makes the point that two-

thirds of the people support the IMF programme, even though you see

protests on the streets every day. What do you make of the point that

these technocrat Governments have more popular support than elected

Governments? There is a disenchantment with politicians

everywhere, if somebody comes in, who steams clean, intelligent and

well meaning, you will back him for a while. But I don't think it is

sustainable for a very long time. I think it is possible Mario Monti in

Italy could continue as Prime Minister for another few years,

actually, even after an election, this isn't the way that politics

can work permanently. I think a lot of the trouble is countries who

have small debts, like the Netherlands, are being made to cut.

Cutting has become an ideology, like most idea olgs, it can go

beyond good reason. With all this questioning of what

the eurocrisis is, what is it doing to the euro itself? As a currency

the euro is strong, stable, it commends a lot of confidence, it is

amazing, isn't it. Well, I think it is a mistake to look at the

exchange rate to see how the health of the euro. The basic health of

the euro is European Governments still want it. In that sense he's

right. These Governments are not going to give up the euro,

including Francois Hollande. But, the euro has got serious problems,

which namely, like a body, it has some gang rouse limbs, one of them

-- gangrene limbs, like Greece, it will cut that off. The will to

survive the euro is incredibly strong. British euro-sceptics often

underestimate the determination to keep the euro.

Now, what is everyone moaning about, they only had to wait for up to an

hour-and-a-half, that was the burden of the Immigration

Minister's excuse for the lengthy queues which have greeted visitors

to Britain in the last few days. It was mainly the fault of the weather,

he said. Not an excuse that cut much ice with opponents, who

pointed out it wasn't a great advertisment for the country,

particularly on the eve of the Olympics.

Welcome to Britain. London may be the world's most

popular destination for foreign visitors, but the dissent from blue

skies to Heathrow mayhem can be -- descent from blue skies to Heathrow

mayhem can be hard. Last week some passengers rebelled. A lot of Brits

in the queue like queuing, we put up with it, we see we're inching

slowly towards the right part of the building, but it was very

frustrating, phone calls being made, cars being told to go away. The

people at the desk were clearly stretched, some were summoned from

another part of the airport to help out. It was a problem of volume,

too many people, not enough people to deal with them.

To the fury of the UK Border Agency, the airports authority put out a

leaflet telling passengers to complain to the Government. Today

in a statement the authority The political pressure to deliver

both is mounting. The scenes at Heathrow are deeply

embarrassing. Damaging to the reputation of the country. Damaging

to the standing of London as a world class city. This is supposed

to be a hub for international travel, people are supposed to be

able to arrive pre-Olympics, at Heathrow Airport, have their

passports checked in a reasonable time, and then go about their daily

business. The risk is, with disgraceful scenes of this kind,

that people just won't bother to come to London. Insiders at the

Border Agency say it has been hit by three separate problems. One

financial, one technical, and one political. The first is an

increasing shortage of staff. The Home Office is thought to be

planning to cut the number of Border Force officers by more than

1500, from 8,874 in March 2010, to 7,322 in March 2015.

Though it wouldn't confirm that tonight. Newsnight understands

about 100 have lost their jobs at Heathrow in the past 18 months. Out

of about 400 jobs nationally others have gone from sickness and

retirement. After 10.00pm, I understand, there are often only

five or six immigration officers on the border at some Heathrow

terminals, a year ago there would have been twice as many. The

Government hoped that fewer staff would be needed, as it proceeded

with its e-borders programme, to log all the arrivals and departures

electronically. That is where the technical problems kicked in. The

contract to deliver the programme was terminated almost two years ago,

amid a dispute with the company involved. In the meantime, existing

scanning equipment has become increasingly outdated and

unreliable. The third political problem arose

out of a row between the Home Secretary, Theresa May, and the

former head of the borders force, Brodie Clarke, he was piloting a

new system, where checks would be more targeted, concentrating on

passengers considered to be a higher security risk. But he

resigned amid accusations he denied that he had relaxed some checks

without ministerial consent. Risk- based controls were suspended.

But the Government insisted today the resulting staffing problems can

be overcome. We're establishing a new central control room for Border

Force at Heathrow. We are putting in place mobile teams that can be

deployed rapidly across the airport to deal with pressures. Within

weeks we will implement new rostering and shift patterns. This

will provided a decisional flexible capacity, to meet unexpected surges

in passenger flows. Not all around the house were convinced?

Green's idea of a flying squad needs to be examined. I'm not sure

this will be more than a plaster over a very big wound that has

opened up in our reputation as a world class city, and Heathrow as a

world class airport. Think we will need to look at the practicalities

of how they operate. The issue is, immigration officers have most of

this information before the passenger even lands. I'm not sure

whether moving people between terminals will be the answer. When

the information is with them, they should be able to isolate the

aircraft, and isolate individual people.

The Government says the vast majority of passengers are

processed within target times. 25 minutes for European Union arrivals,

45 for non-ones. Airports will cope, it says, with the Olympic rush. If

that prediction is wrong, there will be yet another in a long

series of scandals over border controls.

Those whom the gods wish to preserve, they first make the

subject of a summons from the speaker of the Commons. The Prime

Minister was dragged to parliament today to answer an emergency

question from the leader of the opposition, about what the Culture

Secretary had been up to, when he had to decide whether Rupert

Murdoch's News Corporation could take over BSkyB. The Prime Minister

hugged him close, Hunt, that is, we didn't learn anything new. We did

see a pretty cross David Cameron. David Grossman was within shouting

distance. What have we learned today? Nothing new at all. No new

questions were raised in the mind of the Government about what went

on. What we did learn was David Cameron got very, very angry today

about being dragged back to parliament. He wanted to be in

Milton Keynes today campaigning for the local election, instead he

found himself facing these questions from the leader of the

opposition. That anger found itself directed towards the leader of the

opposition, and any Labour MP who stood up and had a go. It was a lot

of displaysment anger, largely, at the Speaker, nobody blames the

leader of the opposition for having a go, trying to get David Cameron

or the Prime Minister of the day dragged back to the Commons to

answer a question, it is very rare for this to happen, it is very rare

for a Speaker to grant such a request. The last time was

something like ten years ago. We got a lot of folders being slammed

down on the despatch box and fingers jabd at Labour MPs. The

Prime Minister is defending the indefensible and he knows it.

Protecting the Culture Secretary's job, while up and down the

countries hundreds and thousands are losing their's, and we all know

why, the special adviser had to go to protect the Culture Secretary,

the Culture Secretary has to stay to protect the Prime Minister. The

Prime Minister has shown today he is incapable of doing his duty, too

close to a powerful few, out-of- touch with everyone else. Weak and

wrong, that's what we heard. First of all, 15 years of secret meetings,

pyjama parties, Christenings and all the rest of it, not one word of

apology. While we are on the subject of ministers taking

responsibility for their special advisers, can anyone remember a

minister taking responsibility for Charley Whelan, anyone remember

that? Can you remember anyone taking responsibility for Damian

McBride, remember that? What a lot of self-serving, double-standards

we had from the party opposite. was cross, wasn't he, the other

funny thing about that, there wasn't a single Lib Dem in this

coalition Government to be seen there? It wasn't particularly

evidence today, there was a behind the speaker's chair, they didn't

want to be in the firing line for it. It is a few days before the

local elections and they are trying to do their best to preserve poll

ratings in all of this. Where they did stand up they weren't helpful.

Simon Hughes saying this should go before Allan, the independent

adviser on the Ministerial Code. He was politely rebuffed, David

Cameron treating the Liberal Democrats with more curtesy then.

The select committee reporting on hacking tomorrow? This is the one

where Rupert Murdoch got the pie in the face. This is the parliamentary

media and sport select committee. Expect it to be very critical

tomorrow of News International, News of the World executives, for

engaging in what some would regard as a cover-up. Crucially for the

Government, this isn't their fault, nobody can blame them, it doesn't

deal with Jeremy Hunt or BSkyB, it is all about what happened at News

of the World and under the previous Government. There is not a working

mother in the country unaware of the difficulty of some how

balancing the need of children with the needs of work. Newsnight has

learned that ministers are considering ways of trying to make

the balancing act easier. If they achieve anything, it could also

have political dividends, of course. The initiatives being considered

apply also to the other half of the parental couple. Are they practical.

From a Government which promised to cut red tape in business.

Our political editor reports from Glasgow.

A special of baby yoga in Glasgow, a class set up by a mum struggling

to figure out how to make money, while bringing up baby.

Contorting a career to fit around the demands of childcare has been

something successive Governments have pledged to help parents with,

even insiders think they have only really been limbering up. This

Government thinks they are doing a lot to get troubled families on to

the straight and narrow. They admit privately they are not doing quite

as much to help those families already on the straight and narrow

stay there. In a leaked memo that came out last year, it exposed

their fears inside Government, that they pledged to be the most family

-friendly Government ever, is a long way off. In the next few

months expect policies to address this.

In among a number of ideas to be considered for the next session, in

the Queen's Speech, are some suggestions from MP Elizabeth Truss.

She thinks the Government has poured money into childcare

vouchers increases the need but doesn't help meet the need, instead

the Government needs to increase supply, free up those who want to

be able to look after children. In 1996 there are 100,000

registered child minders operating in the UK. A regime including 69

regulations saw that number fall off. By 2010 there are only 55,000

child minders. In Germany those looking after fewer than three kids

are not ring lated at all. Dee was something we met through a friend

and had experience looking after children. We were really interested

in exploring the options of her looking after our child, we looked

at getting her registered as a childminder. When she looked into

that, the hoops she was going to have to jump through were totally

prohibitive. One was them about her garden, she lived in a flat, that

had a shared garden, so it was a no-no, she would have had to speak

to factors and other factors of the other flats around the courtyard to

get the entrances secured. It was just, I mean, it is unrealistic.

Would she have been a cheaper option? She would have been more

flexible and she would have been cheaper and I think the quality of

care that I would have had for my child would have been better.

So, there is a plan to cut back regulation, maybe, but elsewhere in

the system, there is another regulation about to be born. Some

businesses are loathe to implement a coalition pledge that would share

parental leave. The father would be able to take five-and-a-half months

of what was the mum's year, to help in the rearing of their child. For

some this is sadly unaffordable. I couldn't. There is absolutely no

way I could. I could take a month off and maybe try to get flexible

time to reduce the hours or take a week off. Three weeks a month, but

a blanket six months is just too much. What about friends who aren't

self-employed, is it attractive for them? I would like to see the

uptake, it would be low, to be honest. To get around a possible

burden of business, the Department of Work and Pensions is examining

another of the prolific Elizabeth Truss's ideas, the Government, not

employers, should give parents a lump sum on the birth of their

child, paid direct to the parent like child benefit, this could make

things easier not harder on businesses. There is a long way to

go. The parental lead is a good start, flexible working is a good

start. In general we have to move the topic of women away from a sort

of CSR equality and diversity conversation, and more into a very

hard-hitting, economic argument, as to why it is so important. So I

think we need to move on from parental leave, we need to look at

childcare, we need to look at all of the other things that prevent

women from being as productive as they can.

That this Government has a problem with women is probably overdone,

women don't vote as a block, but this Government does have a problem

with being seen to cater just one group, the very rich. Action to

make families' lives easier would help knock that idea down. We are

three years away from the next election, the Conservatives are

playing a long game. They know a single policy announcement and

campaign will have little impact on its own. They have to keep it up,

week after week, month after month, year after year, and gradually

change attitudes. To persuade people who think the Tories are

full of toffs who don't understand ordinary life, it is a big job.

They have to do it with policies, language, time after time, and then

perhaps people will get the message. Recently the Resolution Foundation

published analysis showing that over the last 40 years the rise in

living standards was in no small part down to women entering the

work force. If women feel they can't continue in work and start to

loaf, that will have consequences, not just for their self-esteem, but

family finances, living standards, and probably UK Plc. Next week in

the Queen's Speech, this Government is planning an entire bill devoted

to children. Getting family policy right is more than just child's

play. Here to discuss the rights and

wrong of reform are the business woman Lara Morgan and the

Conservative MP, the prolific Elizabeth Truss, a campaigner for

reform. What do you think of this idea of there being greater

entitlements for parents? I think a general change will have to be made,

as we want to have a more equal society, if you like. I think that

is a given. But I think there is a massive disconnect in the

difference between dictating a standard to all kinds of businesses,

versus being cleverer around having a system that works for small

business and a system that works for bigger business. That is the

significant drag, that is the real issue that the small business I

speak for and the growth business companies, who are completely

decimated by regulations like this, time and time again, that is the

issue they have. I thought you were a Government committed to cutting

red tape? Well, it all depends how this policy is implemented. What I

want to see is the Government pay the money direct to the parents,

not via the employers. That would cut small businesses out of

administering red tape. What happens at the moment is Government

actually pays employers and then employers pay employees, that is

creating unnecessary bureaucracy, I want that taken out of the system.

That would benefit small employers. One detail, in Allegra Stratton's

report there, she referred to one of your prolific ideas, the idea of

a lump sum possibly being paid on birth of a child, is that right?

There wouldn't be a lump sum on the birth of a child. What it would be

is all families, at the moment we have a �2 billion maternity budget,

what it would mean is that is �5,000 for every family who has a

child. Every working family. It would mean over a period of six

months that family would receive �5,000. It would then be up to them

to negotiate with their employer how they took the time off. Whether

it was part-time, at the moment it is incredibly inflexible. On the

question of money, there are about 700,000 babies born in a year in

Britain, that is �4 billion, you are proposing to give away in the

lump sum grants? At the moment we spend �2 billion. That would

double? No it wouldn't. �5,000? This is for working families who

current low claim maternity benefit, who are eligible. There are quite a

few people not eligible at the moment. It would work out at

roughly �5,000. It would be exactly the same amount of money spent by

the Government, but it would be much simple letter, it would be

paid direct from the Government to the employee. It is not about the

simplicity of how money changes hands. Let's say I have a small

business, six people in it, three men and three women, let's say a

friend of mine, last year this happened, who of the ladies fall

pregnant and so does she. That business was absolutely decimated,

she has to open the jobs open for the women. Say one of those men,

his wife was pregnant, and he wanted to apply for his paternity

leave, that business would not survive that law. At the moment in

places like America, there is a cut off where you have 50 and below and

50 and above businesses, the 50 and above businesses are still more

likely, still not easy and still impacting the teams, must hack off

people who don't want children that we treat it as a priority, bottom

line it is a bit more bearable. The idea that we are introducing, we

want to introduce this at a time when the small businesses have to

deal with the age change, it is madness. Essentially I want to take

regulation from those small businesses. I agree with you, I

think the very smallest should be exempted from some of those

provisions. At what level of employees? At the moment we have a

system, where if you have a female employee, you have a huge amount of

cost, and you don't have that for a male employee. It causes massive

discrimination, in my view, against female employees, and we have a

very old fashioned system, if you compare us to Germany, France, the

US, Canada, all of those countries have parental leave. Rather than

just having maternity leave. All I'm saying is let as use the money

we use at the moment, let as use the lever we use at the moment to

enable parents to share it. Repeat your point about it, the man whose

wife gives birth? He's entitled after a 20-week period to take six

months leave from his own business. It is still the same amount of

leave? It may be a different employer? It is a mother rather

than a father. It is a different employer? It is a different

employer, that's right. So, go on? We are spreading the

issue in terms of the impact. you are not making the issue worse.

Is it easier to replace a member of staff for jobs you have to keep

open for nine or 12 months, where we have to keep a job open with an

unknown precedent of will she or won't she return, we will decimate

the two companies, will she or won't he return, because she might

have a life-changing experience at home with the child. It is

difficult to find a temporary role in six months, in a skilled, small

company, where most people are juggling three roles, they are

highly motivated to struggle and survive in the market. That is

nearly impossible. That is a different point to the overall

point about reform. You are trying to encourage enterprise in Britain,

I support export businesses, they lose a person in the export market

and skills, puts that position and company on hold when that person

goes away, they can't be replaced. That is the issue of women in the

work place, even those of childbearing age face every day. At

the moment we have an unbalanced system in Britain compared to other

countries. It is simply unaffordable under current

circumstances? In America you get 12 weeks unpaid leave when you are

pregnant, we get 12 months. That is shared between the mother and

father. In Germany it is shared between the mother and father.

Don't you understand, how many businesses have you run. A business

can survive. I have run plenty of businesses, actually. In corporate

business, you haven't won a small business, historically, you run in

corporate worlds, I'm speaking on behalf of small and medium growth

enterprise, it does infuriate me, if you haven't got the message.

is May Day, traditionally the occasion when socialists paradises

celebrate the march of human progress against towards the end of

capitalism. There is hope to stage a series of

demonstrations against the mighty remnants of capitalism tomorrow,

Occupy is a demonstration in itself. It is spawning some new forms of

artistic expression. Unlike the art that flourished in the days of

corporate glut knee. This has a directly political purpose.

New York, the centre of the global art world. Since last November it

has been the centre of something else, the Occupy movement.

Whether the protests leave a lasting impact on America's

politics, what is for certain is they are already impacting on its

art and culture. So the Bat Symbol is really simple, 99% black in a

white circle. It is big and reads as a Bat Symbol, culturally

ledgable. The Bat Symbol is a call to arms and a call for aid. It is

both of these things. Instead of a superhero millionaire, psychopath,

Bruce Wayne, it is ourselves, it is the 99% coming to save ourselves.

It is up to us, we are our own superhero, that is the part that is

really rich. Meet the Illuminators. Mission, to

project slogans on to buildings from a van. With these tools, in a

matter of months, they have created a brand more successful than many

actual brands. But is it performance art or

activism, for the generation of artists around Occupy, that is a

stupid question. It is interesting, a lot of the work that is coming

out of this movement is not concerned with how it will be

perceived by a buying public. not really designed to be bought?

No, it is designed to be shared. It is designed to be made available as

widely as possible. It is super copy left. Can I show you a poster.

People are putting out their work. In the Occupy movement, the poster

is where the wild walled gallery meets the black block, where fine

art meets street art. I started out just doing graphics, I drew this

picture of an octopus with a vampire quid squid on its belly. I

put it on-line, people used it as protest signs. Molly Crabapple is

part of a generation of young artists, who has started producing

art work with and for the Occupy movement? It took us outside the

gallery system and outside this ar self-refer relation world and made

us engage in the world. I'm not producing a decorative thing, I'm

producing a functional persuasive piece of work that will be repasted

on buildings and held up by demonstrators. The paintings

depicting the evils of capital will sell for serious dollars, she has

raised the money to paint them through crowdsourcing donations on

the Internet. For $500 you might get a sketch. I thought creating

work that could only be bought by really rich people was silly. And

not in line with what I wanted to do. I started thinking of how I

could take something like this, and break up the components of it, so

people who maybe weren't that wealthy could participate in it.

# Realising that it is our weakness For an older generation of more

established artists, Occupy has been an excuse to get out of

galleries and back to the streets. Don't shoot you will have the whole

lot of them down on top us. These might look like an amateur dramatic

run through of Brecht's play about the Paris commune, it is part of a

bigger installation. At first they drew documentary drawings, and I

would observe, I began to think about the time when drawing was

socially relevant, when people really did documentary drawing. I

was thinking about these ideas about a utopian society abstractly,

and then all of a sudden I'm like it is happening a few blocks from

my house, I better get down there. Zoe Beloff's been xibgting at the

experimental end of the art world - - exhibit -- exhibiting at the

experimental end of art world for years, but now she's looking on the

pavements of the Occupy movement for what many hope will be a

rehearsal of what will happen next. Some of the same people are on the

streets of New York for real. park is closed, please turn around

and exit the park. Since they were expelled from the original camp,

the occupiers have been playing cat and mouse with the NYPD nightly,

there is always an element of "performance" in the protest.

Who do you protect and who do you refer? 1%. As the real police move

in, so do actors, playing a spoof police force. Have you any money to

pay us? And so, night after night, they turn New York into a venue for

the culture war. Any time you find a mass audience,

you will see the called world of art of critics and so on, pay

attention. That's a sense in which it shifts the art world and culture,

just through the fact that it is part of a mass movement. There

really is a global uprising for democracy. These artists, we are

working to try to champion that movement, really.

Of course, today's artistic rebel is tomorrow's guy in the academy,

but at least with this lot you can't call them rebels without a

cause. Tomorrow morning's front pages now,

the Times has news that the cost of borrowing is going up. The Guardian

has news that James Murdoch will be criticised in the select committee

report we were hearing about That's all from Newsnight tonight.

If you are watching in Manchester you may have had other things on

your mind, City played United in a match that finished 1-0 to City.

There was some extremely expensive flesh careering around, quite

another world from the Manchester Gate money for the first year of

the club's existence in 1884 was �1.10, today the manager receives