03/05/2012 Newsnight

Tonight, the biggest test of public opinion since the general election.

The first chance to hear how voters across Britain are reacting to the

double-dip recession, the polls closed half an hour ago. In London,

Boris or Ken, the result could influence party politics for years.

If Boris remains mayor, it could give the Tories a boost on the

tough night. But the two-term mayor could come to test a Prime Minister

who hasn't yet won one majority. We will be reporting from elections

around the country, and assessing the impact on the three main

parties. Plus, how the operators of Heathrow

Airport undermined a minister on how long the queues had been at

immigration. If you are travelling this bank holiday, good luck, we

will hear from the Immigration Minister.

The last days of Osama Bin Laden, new documents showed how he planned

to relaunch Al-Qaeda, and murder President Obama.

And Putin's palace, as he prepares to take over the presidency again.

Newsnight investigates whether he plans to live like the new Tsar of

Russia? Good evening, one foreign reporter,

likened today's elections the length and breath of Britain, to

talent show with really boring contestants. That, however, is not

how the results will be seen in party headquarters, for the

governing parties, how will voters react to big national issues, the

continuing recession, the aftermath of the budget. For Labour, how

credible does Ed Miliband looks a leader, as a possible Prime

Minister. And for the smaller parties, will voter disaffection

mean they might pull off some big surprises. Our political editor is

here. What's at stake tonight? tomorrow night we will know whether

these mid-term blues that the Government has certainly been

suffering are actually long-term blues, but it is not just for the

Government, it is also that we will have a better sense whether the

leader of the opposition cuts it across the country, south as well

as north. With these in 2012, basically half way through a

parliamentary term, they are always going to be up for the opposition.

To a certain extent we are playing a game of numbers, this 350 versus

750 gain that is Labour must make. It is difficult to ascertain what

they will get. The numbers will help us evaluate the bad run the

Government has had since the budget, has it stuck and crystalised in

people's mind that these people are not particularly competent in

running the country. Also in the turns will with see the Liberal

Democrats really suffering still, and in the south, does the Labour

leader look like somebody people would endorse. In London there is a

big race for mayors going on. Around the country we have found

results about referendas for mayors, similar to what we have had in

London. If there is bad turn out on that, and people are not interested,

that is a bad audit on a key radical piece of this Government's

policy, that it will be difficult for them to style them he was

selves out of. In London we have a big race of personalities of two

people known by their first names. Good strategists think London's

voting preferences are like a doughnut, at least that was it last

election, will it work this time round. The school of political

bakery thinks this, London is a Labour city, if only those people

in its middle vote, so think Boris Johnson's strategists, but they

squinted and saw a doughy ring out in the suburbs where Conservatives

hid and lived. Last year they were lured out and voted Conservative,

four years on Ken Livingstone wants a piece of them. Today with the

polls shut, and nothing left to do but harry voters, Newsnight thought,

let them eat dough NUTs. It is in the outer metropolitan zone. I was

aware that Ken cared last time, was really aware, and I have seen what

has happened in London whilst Boris has been in power. You live in

central London, which means you are the space inside the doughnut.

About about do you live? Balham. How have you gone, is it the colour

of your jacket? No. It is the colour of his jumper. Boris?

come? I just like him, I think he's personable, I really don't like Ken.

Political bakery not the most sustaining of political strategies,

then, we headed into the suburbs, nonetheless, to find out how much

success Livingstone has been having. London Bridge, the site of the

great doughnut givaway, brings people in from places like Bexley,

Livingstone targeted these voters with an immediate popular pledge,

he would cut their train fares by as much as �1,000 over four years.

I think I'm going to go with Labour. Not because I believe Ken

Livingstone should come back in, but just because I believe Labour

will do well for us. It is all Conservative round here, mainly.

What makes you vote Labour? always have, and I like Livingstone,

I like what he started in the beginning, with the bus passes et

cetera. Did you vote Labour at the last election? Yes. Where are these

Tory voters round here, this is supposed to be heavy Tory area?

They are hiding, they saw you coming and they hid. I think it

will stay Conservative. Will you help Boris Johnson keep it

Conservative? Probably, yes. Bexley Ken Livingstone seemed to

have made some inroads, what did the academics think? Last time

Boris Johnson did well, particularly in outer East London,

this time Ken Livingstone and Labour targeted that area. But, of

course, Boris is still pretty powerful out there, both candidates

were trying to target it this time. Now we will see tomorrow whether

this means that Ken has managed to redowse the Tory lead out there, or

whether it has allowed a bit more Boris voting in central and Inner

London. It was because of how well Boris Johnson did in outer London

last time, that Labour really hit it this time. If Ken wins, it is

because they put effort into places like this, Bexley Heath, but his

colleagues have a sober appraisal of the process, they think if Boris

wins is it is because Boris is Boris, but if Ken wins it is

because he has been buoyed along by Labour in the polls in recent

months. The candidate to be London mayor was the day before the

candidate to be Labour leader, that is not way to run a party.

On whether Ken Livingstone should have been Labour's man, there is a

weight of opinion. He may well have turned out to be the wrong

candidate. He brought with him an enormous amount of experience to

this election, but also an enormous amount of baggage, it is the

baggage maybe more than the experience that has been judged by

the voters. Birmingham could be one of the big stories of the night, it

is where Labour launched their campaign, there is also derby,

Newcastle, Plymouth, and Southampton. And can they hold on

to Glasgow? The Government has been beefing up the amount Labour can

expect to win. They said it should be over 700 seats, Labour say it is

more likely to be around 300. The trouble for Downing Street is

that while a little sugar in moderation is a good pick-me-up,

too much and there is a crushing low. Just as Boris Johnson will

reset the political narrative, it could be used against David Cameron

in months and years to come. Boris Johnson would have been elected as

a saloon-bar Conservative, a true- blue, low-tax, anti-Europe

politician. David Cameron's critics want him more like Boris Johnson,

not less. The London candidates are poor

indicators of their political party's actual standing with the

public. Ken Livingstone is now less popular than his party, Boris

Johnson is more. The national political scene, any way, has

already got significant dates in next week's diary, appearances at

Leveson by Cameron's former adviser, Andy Coulson. The Tory Party expect

a sugar high from any Johnson victory, but they see plenty of

lows too. Tessa Jowell ran Ken Livingstone's

campaign, Michael Fallon is Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party,

and Ed Davey is Energy Secretary and here for the Liberal Democrats

tonight. What is your sense about Ken Livingstone, has he lost?

wait until tomorrow. There is not a single ballot paper yet been

counted. I have been out, obviously today, and for the last weeks and

months. The film is absolutely right, that we have had a strategy

which has focused on two things, first of all outer London Boroughs,

but also mobilising the Labour vote in those areas that -- where the

turnout is traditionally very low. Was the film right that it was the

wrong candidate? You have a Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband, who said

this is a new generation of Labour, and you go to candidate which seems

to be a turn-off for many people who would otherwise vote Labour?

The Labour Party chose Ken Livingstone. But they are not I

infallible, they could have made a mistake? Any of us could be

mistakes for our party. But you go out, round London, with Ken

Livingstone, what were people talking about on the streets and

doorsteps, they were talking about his fares' pledge. What Ken

Livingstone did, with all his experience of being a big city

mayor, completely different from Boris Johnson, was to develop four

pledges to deal with the terrible pressure on the cost of living that

people are facing right across London.

If he polls way behind the party in London, then you have made a huge

mistake, haven't you, because London should be a target you could

pick? You should be able to win in London and be confident? There are

two elections in London, one is the mayoral, and Boris Johnson has, by

the latest poll, a small poll lead, how does he have that? Indeed.

Because he establishs himself as an independent, not a story. Ken

Livingstone is the Labour Party candidate, standing on Labour

platform. But a mayoral contest will always be different. For

instance, the Greater London Assembly also being elected today.

Are you fairly confident that Boris Johnson will win? I think it is a

very close election and it was very close last time. It is a very

important test. If Labour hadn't won this tomorrow night, then I

think it will be because they didn't have candidate they could be

proud of, as we are proud of, having Boris as our candidate. It

will be because, like in Bradford, they still haven't present add

credible alternative to an economic policy -- a credible altern --

presented a credible alternative to an economic policy and credible

response to the worst financial situation of any European country.

Boris Johnson is a if he Numan, Stephen Dorrell saying in your own

party that you are run by two posh boys that don't know the price of

milk. Boris Johnson fits the posh boy picture, yet he seems to

connect with people better than David Cameron? He's an attractive

personality, and he's an attractive personality, he's coming across as

the more attractive one. What does that do to attract working-class

voters? There is a difference between this election and the way

the Government stands at the moment. This is Boris's general election,

he is campaigning on his record of four years of getting crime down

and improving the transport system, for the Government as a whole, of

course, it is a mid-term position. We have only been in two years, we

are still taking some very tough decisions. He is campaigning on a

good four-year record. He would make a good Prime Minister and

leader of your party? He's mayor at the moment. I hope he will be re-

elected mayor tomorrow for the next four years. And be able to preside

over the Olympics and showcase our city in this very important year.

One step at a time. A leader in waiting? It is far too early to

start speculate beg who the next leader of the Tory Party --

speculating about who the next leader of the Tory Party will be.

Let's get him re-elected on the basis of his record. I don't know

what to say about the Liberal Democrats in this election, there

are those that think this is the future of your party, that Brian

Paddick is absolutely nowhere? Brian has been a fantastic

candidate. He's the only candidate that has a really positive platform.

He has shown he's fighting crime in London for over 30 years, and

that's why he wanted today put himself at the head of the London

police force in terms of the met commissioner. So he's dragged back

by the party, by the fact it is so terribly unpopular? Let's be clear,

fight last time has been replicated a bit this time. You have two very

big characters, Liberal Democrats wouldn't deny. That Ken and Boris,

known by their first names, as was said earlier, it was always

difficult, as was last time, for Brian to come through. It is a

widely held view by independent commentators, that in the mayoral

debates, Brian won those debates. He has enthused those people.

will be lucky to come third? think he will do well. I'm not

suggesting he will win. But he has fought a very positive campaign.

What is interesting, if you look at the campaigns of Ken and Boris,

they have been very negative, they have been attacking each other,

really quite unsavoury campaigns. One of them will win? One of them

may well, I won't be excited about it. When people look at what Brian

Paddick is saying, they say at least someone is addressing the

problems of Londoners. London may be one of the most obvious prizes

of the night, but across the country there is the possibility of

a series of political shifts, and in ten cities there have been

referendums about whether or not to have a mayor.

We will our guests in a moment. First to Birmingham. How are things

looking in the West Midlands? looks like a long night of it here.

A third of the 120 seats on the council here have been contested.

But Labour are pretty confident that it is not going to take them

that long to collect the extra four seats they need for an overall

majority for the first time in eight years. When I tell you that a

swing from the Conservatives to Labour of.5% or less would be

sufficient in the -- 2.5% or less would be sufficient in the marginal

Tory wards, you can see why Labour is so confident. This city has been

run for the last eight years by a Conservative- Liberal Democrat

coalition, Ed Miliband would love the message from Birmingham tonight

to be that the political tide is turning against Tory-Lib Dem

coalitions everywhere. There is a great deal to play for here, Ed

Miliband launched his campaign here a few days ago, I wouldn't bet on

the possibility of him being back soon.

Now over to Wales. There is one clear question here in

Wales tonight, that is this, just how well are Labour going to do?

They think the answer is a very clear, very well indeed. They have

asked the electorate in Wales to send the vicious UK coalition, as

they put it, a message. That is precisely what they think voters in

Wales have done today. A very different story from four years ago.

They had a devastating night in 2008, the electorate as it was put

back then, had given Labour a "belting", all other parties gained

ground. But tonight then, on a decent night, Labour will get most

of that ground back. On a good they will get it all back, then they

will keep pushing. They want to take Wrexham from the Liberal

Democrats. They want to take Swansea from the Liberal Democrats.

On a great night for Labour in Wales, they will ge get what they

really, really want, -- get what they really, really want, that is

to control Cardiff council, and again take that from the Liberal

Democrats. If that happens, then Wales will deliver Ed Miliband and

Labour a genuinely good-news story. They will deliver the Liberal

Democrats a genuine headache. Off to Liverpool now to hear the

latest. Yes, here the ballot boxes are being counted. When Liverpool

decides who its first directly elected mayor will be, that will

become the first such post in the North West of England. No directly

elected mayors yet, but there will be two, because Salford is counting

as well. I should tell you that speculation is the Labour council

leader is going to be swapping his plaque on his door tomorrow,

because he's the front runner to become the city mayor. I have been

speaking to one Labour senior source this evening, who said it is

going very well for them. They think Joe Anderson might win on the

first ballot. There is 12 candidates standing, but it may not

go to a second ballot. Elsewhere in the region, the question is how

badly will the coalition parties do. They certainly didn't do too badly

last year. What about the Liberal Democrats, they suffered a meltdown

last year, this time is there a recovery, or are they in something

of a political death spiral. Thank you very much. More now from

the political panel, Michael Fallon, Ed Davey and Tessa Jowell. I was

thinking listening to that, where in the great history of Lib Dem

mid-term triumphs are we going to see tonight? We have been waiting

for a mid-term blues for 90 years. It is 90 years since we have been

able to say, I do actually think on the doorsteps, when we have been

out there, things are a lot better than last year. I think they will

be even better next year. I think people are beginning to listen to

us, as Nick Clegg said a few days ago, in a way that they weren't

listening last year, that is clear. What has happened between last year

and this year, people have been seeing on the television the real

problems in economies across Europe, in Greece, in Spain, in Portugal,

in Ireland, where there have been massive expenditure cuts. Public

service workers have taken 6% cuts in Ireland. There rb riots on the

streets. I think people, therefore, are beginning to understand we had

to take tough decisions and clear up the mess we interited, they have

-- inher rites, and they have begun to listen to that message. People

are saying you are the ones with the burning exits, you can't stay

in the coalition because you will be more unpopular and you can't go

out any of the windows? I'm hearing people say that Liberal Democrats

areic maing a big difference. They are beginning to hear that we have

made sure that people on lower pay and middle incomes are getting tax

cuts. They know that wouldn't happen if Liberal Democrats weren't

in the coalition. Are you looking to 700 seat to pick

up? It is far too early to predict in that way. We obviously hope to

make progress. We had a very bad election defeat two years ago.

There are obvious parts of the country like at the south of

England where we hope to make progress from our position. In 20

10 both. So communities are represented by Labour councils, as

an antedote to this Government that has all the prong priorities, but

also building towards the next general election. If you are going

to be cautious and modest about what Labour might do, I wonder if

Michael Fallon is tempted. A good result for them would be 800 seats?

That is not our estimate, the London School of Economics, Tony

Travis, he says Labour ought to be getting about 800 seats and 40% of

the votes, he said a good result for Labour would be 900 seats. The

good comparison is four years ago. These were seats we won when Gordon

Brown was at the height of his unpopularity. We're defending a

very high base. So if they can't get 900 seats, then really they are

not there. I Can I say, there is a game going

on here, which the Conservatives have been doing all day, which is

ramping up the number of seats. are not ramping down? You wouldn't

do that? We are absolutely not. We are giving a commentry on our

experience of work in particular areas of the country. Glasgow,

London, and the Brad for West -- Bradford West election, if you

can't start winning these things, Ed Miliband will not be Prime

Minister. We have a mayoral contest in London, a contest between two

big personalities, Boris Johnson, who makes Londoners laugh, and Ken

Livingstone, who will cut their fares and introduce an EMA, it is a

big choice. But there is also the Greater London Authority. That is

the other big contest in London. That is the Labour-Tory fight.

as we discussed earlier, they may do better there, Labour, than in

the mayoral elections? It is a reasonable test, Bradford, London?

It is a terrible month for the Conservative Party, what kind of

relaunch will you have to have? have to look at the results and

learn from the results. Obviously the last month has not been good.

We have been taking some very tough decisions, but Ed Davey he referred

to them. You have also been accused of shambles and incompetence, and

the posh boys thing, you will have to be more competent? We wholly

accept, that we can always improve the way we communicate our message

and focus people on the really big achievements of this Government.

Parliament has just ended. We have put the first-ever cap on welfare

spending, we have put the first ever controls on immigration. We

have reformed education and taken people out of tax. These are the

real things. What about the people in the party that you talk to, what

do they want you to do differently? They want us to explain our

achievements, they want us to explain how we are actually

tackling the appalling deficit we hin inherited. How we are re--

inherited, how we are reforming the economy and other important issues.

We will have more on this, Question -- Vote 2012 starts tonight on BBC

One. Now, if you are flying through

Heathrow Airport this bank holiday weekend, or any British airport any

time soon, you will be aware of the row about queues at Heathrow. Today

the airport operator, BAA, produced figures that appeared to undermine

the Immigration Minister's queues, saying they were 90 minutes.

Officials are expected to go on strike next week in a dispute over

pensions. We will hear from a minister in a minute. First we have

some of the details. What are these targets that the passengers

arriving in Britain are supposed to expect? It is pretty low tech stuff,

the person that joins the back of the queue is different a card, and

they clock how long it takes for them to get to the top of the queue

and get processed. The targets, there is no sanctions for this, if

they miss the targets it is a rap on the knuckles. The Government

hopes it achieve that those arriving from the EEA, the European

Union and other rich countries, they will be processed within 25

minutes, those from the non-EEA, the rest of the world, European

Economic Area, 45 minutes. The Immigration Minister Damian Green

was called to the House of Commons, because there was a shrew of

protests about the length of queues at Heathrow Airport. He said that

the target for EEA was indeed being metaphor about 24 minutes, but that

he did it, he conceded that it was about 90 minutes for non-EEA people.

The BAA were conducting their own survey, this is the airport

managers, on the very day the minister was speaking. They said

the fact it is up to an hour-and-a- half, for some people arriving into

Terminal 5. 21 out of 23 days were missed targets. 23 days for April

missing targets. BAA saying that is a conservative estimate. They said

the queues were so long during some of the terminals, that the EEA

people and the non-EEA people were amongling together and they

couldn't standby the statistics. They say they will throw people at

the problem, there will be people from the back office and they will

be flying columns going from terminal to terminal dealing with

the problems. There is 480 staff extra for the Olympic. There is an

IF crash today, so no processing visa, and a strike by border staff

next Thursday in the long-running dispute over pensions Earlier I

spoke to the Immigration Minister, Damian Green.

This is pretty embarrassing, while you were telling parliament and the

people of this country that the longest queue was 90 minutes, the

BAA figures suggest it was three hours? Border Force figures

measured it at 90 minutes, BAA do their measurements at different

times. They make it three hours. Either way it is too long. I am

clear. You accept the figures. They measure more frequently than the

Border Force? I don't dispute the figures, but on BAA or Border Force,

the figure is too long. That is why we have taken decisive action this

week to stop this kind of thing. April was a bad month at Heathrow,

nobody would deny that, I certainly wouldn't. What we have done from

the beginning of May is a series of measures, we have introduced 80

People's Palace available at peak times. We have a central control

room so we can know immediately which terminal may be building up

problems. We have mobile teams of people who can be deployed to

different terminals as problems emerge. From the beginning of next

month we have a completely new rostering system that will allow us

to be more flexible. It is aimed at getting the right number of people

in the right terminal at the right time. On Monday you said some

people were exaggerating all of this, they weren't exaggerating

this, it is absolutely terrible, as would you accept. There is a degree

of complacency about this? I said on Monday it wasn't acceptable. I

said the queues were too long. There have been some stories proved

to be not true, but at no stage would anyone deny that queues,

whether an hour-and-a-half or three hours are too long. We don't want

that happening at Heathrow. other figure BAA came up with, at

Terminal 5 they missed their target for non-EU nationals by 23 out of

30 days in April, that is particularly embarrassing, coming

up to the Olympics, isn't it? as I say, was bad at Heathrow. That

is why we have gripped it and taken decisive action. Now a few days

into May we have a few people available, more controls and so on.

You mentioned the Olympics, on top of what we have done now, for the

Olympics we do have many hundreds of volunteers who we have trained

up, who will be able to work at the border, because we are aware that

Olympic period, the eyes of the world will be on Britain, and we

want to give people as good a welcome as possible. We are already,

for instance, taking the finger prints, the biometrics of thousands

of the actual competitors and officials who will be coming here.

They can have their path smoothed through the border. We are working

very hard to make sure that the Olympics isn't in any way

overshadowed by this. Would you accept this is not an unskilled job,

we demand, as a nation, we demand proper border security, we demand

skilled people, and training up volunteers may help speed the

queues, but will it continue to make us as safe as people think we

should be? Yes, that is why we have been doing it for months. For

months we have had plan to train people up, so they can, they have

the appropriate level of training for the jobs we will be asking them

to do at the border. As you say, and one of the things that

occasionally gets forgotten in this debate, the first priority has to

be border security, we have to make sure everyone coming through our

border has a legitimate right to be here and isn't seeking to cause us

harm. That is the first priority. Along with that we need to meet our

service standards, and make people's experience of the airport

as smooth as possible. Given how bad it was in April, which you have

now conceded, couldn't it be even worse if we are faced with a strike,

do you think the figures for May will be as terrible as for April?

Would profoundly hope not. In the first few days it isn't, precisely

because of the measuress we have taken from the start of May. It is

not a question of now conceding April is bad, I knew April is bad,

we have seen the figures. You can't guarantee it will be any better in

May? We have contingency plans ready for the strike, if it happens,

if a lot of people do go out on strike, I hope they don't. It is an

unnecessary strike, they shouldn't go on strike, they should keep

talking. A lot of unions have reached an agreement on pensions,

its a completely unnecessary strike, if it does happen to any large

degree we have people trained up to make sure that the borders work

effectively. Do we deduce from everything you have said, that was

an apology for the chaos in April? Of course I regret people have to

wait too long. All sensible people would, what people are saying what

have you done about it, what we have done is put more people in at

peak times, peak times, a new central control room and rosering

system. We have taken -- rostering system, whenever taken swift and

immediate action. In the days before his death a year

ago, Osama Bin Laden was obsessing over how to rebrand and relaunch

Al-Qaeda. That and his hopes of killing President Obama were among

the revelations of some of the documents found at Osama Bin

Laden's heightout in Pakistan, during the raid which killed him.

It was released today by the American authorities.

Our diplomatic editor has been taking a look. Early in 2010, Bin

Laden was facing up to crisis in his global strategy. The ailation

of most of the nation from the mujahadin...In His own words, too

many fighters waging holy war in their own way, killing too many

civilians. Bomb attacks near mosques in Afghanistan and Pakistan

had? "extreme negative impact on the partisans of the Jihad".

aim of his struggle? "direct attrition against the American

enemy, until it is broken and too weak to interfere in the matters of

the Islamic world". He urged the killing of General Petraeus. "the

man of the hour. Or President Obama? Ggs the head of the

infidelity". The killing of President Obama would put Joe Biden

in charge, and man that Bin Laden said was totally unprepared for the

post, leading the US into a crisis. The Arab Spring revived the Al-

Qaeda chief who wrote shortly before his death. "these events are

the most important for centuries. The The more moderate

interpretation of Islam he believed was.

Younger more radical voices would do this, stirred up with cadres

from Al-Qaeda returning to their home countries.

If galvanised by big ideas, Bin Laden was also preoccupied with

tactics, media activity is said to be a main piece of the war. He

argued that they must mobilise all the resource that is have

expressive abilities in speech, poetry, visual or audio. On

security precautions he said cowerers should always meet under

cover, where satellites or drones couldn't see them. And that the

American technology and its modern systems can't arrest a man if he

does not commit skaur error. Osama Bin Laden insisted that suicide

bombers should not be sent alone because of the psychological

factors affecting a person in such cases, necessitate the presence of

a companion to support and bolster him.

Fascinating stuff, I thought reading through the documents as

you formed any opinion as to how isolated he was in this compound,

and how hands on, in charge as a leader of this organisation?

paradox is both of those things are true. Very hands on, taking a

detailed interest in the minute usingia of communiques, the

language used for people giving instructions to people in Yemen and

Somalia, about tactics, not targeting civilians, the procedures

for electing leaders. We used to be told by counter terrorism people

that it was not a sort of organisation with a membership list.

There was one seesed from 2002. So quite a formal organisation where

he tried to insist on standards, but because of what the west might

all operation security, his desire to preserve himself, he couldn't

communicate in a timely, regular and detailed fashion, that caused a

breach, if you like, of many of the more wayward individuals and what

he wanted them to do. We haven't time to go through the strange

stuff, pick out something that particularly caught your eye?

is a tale in here that really indicates what a remarkable and

strange historical phenomenon Al- Qaeda was. And the organisation and

running it was. How difficult it was. There is a man mentioned in

there, Abu Talhar, Bin Laden heard he was going to do a martyr dom

event, and Bin Laden said if he hasn't done it already, can he do a

manual about some things because he's good at that. What an

extraordinary thing. I have traced this person, he was a Moroccan-born

terrorist, and he did die in an attack on Bagram Air Base around

the time Bin Laden wrote that, he never got the message to write the

manual. It is dae sign foult for a structure for the future? That is -

- it is a design foult for a structure for the future.

Vladimir Putin's grip on power reminds some of the authoritarian

Tsars, there is there is comment that he has built a Tsar-like

palace. A mysterious complex has risen up on the black sea. A former

member of Vladimir Putin's inner circle these he can prove it was

built with public money for the private use of the leader.

A palace, fit for a Tsar. Lavishly constructed by Italian

architects, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Its gates crowned by an imperial eagle.

This newly built mansion on Russia's Black Sea Riviera, has all

the facilities the country's ruler might require, including a landing

pad with space for three helicopters. But officially, it

belongs to an obscure private company. But who is it for? Efforts

by campaigners to breakthrough security and penetrate the palace

ground have only deepened the mystery that has been tantalising

Russians. Was it built as a personal retreat for their modern-

day Tsar, Vladimir Putin, about to start a third term as President. Is

it yet another example of the corruption many believe is now

engulfing the country. This is a man who should know. The

first insider from Putin's own business circle to blow the whistle

on how he says the Russian leader has benefited personally from his

position. The Kremlin's denied his allegations. But for several years,

the man, who now works in the Estonian capital, Tallin, was one

of those responsible for building palace, until he pulled out in

disgust, he says, and fled abroad for his own safety. TRANSLATION:

hadn't worked 15-hours a day for ten years to build a par lays. That

didn't interest me -- palace, that didn't interest me, I tried to do

something good for Russia. These are the records of payments,

overseen by Kolesnikov to an overseas company belonging to

friends of Putin, that financed the palace. He alleges much of the

money was diverted from charitable donations. The story begins, he

says, with Roman Abramovich, now owner of Chelsea Football Club, he

was one of several tycoons who gave millions of dollars to upgrade

Russian hospitals. Kolesnikov imported the equipment, also

involved were two personal friends of Vladimir Putin's, Nikolai

Shamalov and Dmitri Gorelov. He says they got the equipment at a

discount, and unknown to the donors, transferred some of the savings

into offshore companies. At the suggestion of Vladimir Putin

himself. Much of it was invested on Putin's

instructions in needy Russian industries. But not all. The

Kremlin had a pet project of its own.

TRANSLATION: At the beginning of 2005, they said there was a nice

piece of land on the Black Sea, where a small house to be built for

relaxation. But the original scheme, and this is clear in our contract

with the Department of Presidential affairs, was for just $14 million,

a small house with a swimming pool, nothing more. But today that little

retreat, that his company helped finance, covers a whole

mountainside. An environmental activist, seen here, wanted to

discover who destroyed protected forest to build huge a huge complex.

Originally it was thought to be owned by a company owned by Putin's

friends. The activists, assumed to be workmen, got right up to the

palace, before being spotted by private security. Then they were

approached by other guards, with badges more usually seen around the

Kremlin. TRANSLATION: There were employees of the federal guard

service, whose job it is to protect the high state official, they were

even in uniform. They showed us their official IDs, there was no

sign it was a private house. whose palace is it really?

Newsnight set off to investigate. Through a snowy landscape, that

became steadily more impassable. Unlike Putin, we didn't have the

advantage of a helicopter. The palace, we think, is a further

30kms down this road, but the snow is getting too deep for us to

continue. We thought we would be stopped by the secret police, but

in the end, we have simply been stopped by the Russian winter. This

man saw the palace many times as it was being built. He says it was his

job to discuss with Kremlin officials how best to implement

Putin's wishes. But he and his partner, Putin's friend, Shamalov,

were beginning to fall out. TRANSLATION: At the end of 200 came

the financial crisis. Many of our investment projects needed extra

money. When I asked Putin he promised to provide it. But he

didn't. Then Shamalov told me the decision was to stop our other

projects and put all the money into the palace.

By the end of 2009, Kolesnikov had left Russia.

He sent ant open letter to the President, accusing Putin, then

Prime Minister, of corruption. The Kremlin said it had nothing to do

with the palace. But a journalist on one of Russia's few opposition

paper, obtained documents to back up Kolesnikov's story. The

agreement to build the palace on state-owned land. It was very

important for us to find the documents to prove the land was

sold to the company, which belonged to Putin's friends. The department

for presidential affairs, the man there denied about knowing about

the store, and that he never signed any documents. And here is the

document with his signature. This showed us that he lied.

That still doesn't prove the palace was meant for Putin himself. But

there is circumstantial evidence. TRANSLATION: It's also the building

of a road direct to the palace, a gas supply, the Government spend

tens of million of dollars on these. If this was just for Putin's friend

Shamalov, why would the federal guard service commission and

monitor the building of the palace. Where would Shamalov need three

helipads, a private person doesn't need these, but for a President,

they are essential. The implication is clear, an elaborate scheme,

planned over many years to give Putin a private palace on public

money. Without his name appearing on a single document.

Kolesnikov's claims can't all be proved. There is no clear evidence

that charity funds were diverted, as for his former partners, Putin's

friends, Shamalov and Gorelov, their companies say they are not

available for comment. Meanwhile, the environmental

campaigners tried, without success, to stroll along the palace beach

last summer, by then the owners were another private company, less

closely connected with Putin. But was that just a smoke screen.

TRANSLATION: I think it is so that this property can't later be

returned to the Government. Because clearly the man that this place

really belongs to, feels he may lose power. And then by law this

residence will go to the next President, if it still belongs to

the Kremlin. If it is private it can't be touched. Outside the

activists' house, we saw secret police lurking, they know his

campaign to protect the environment is becoming increasingly political.

We have been watching him since he protested against the alleged

corruption of both local and national leaders, at the holiday

home of the regional governor on the Black Sea coast. The governor

is believed by some to have helped Putin choose the site for his

palace. When Newsnight met him, he denied the Kremlin chief had any

private rest home at all. Thars I know the President and Prime

Minister have official residences in Sochi, they were built in

Stalin's time, they received guests there and spent their summer

holidays, even then they were working. They are Government

residences, and they have nothing else, as far as I know.

Vladimir Putin will soon return to his special office in the Kremlin,

he's being re-elected with an overwhelming majority. He will be

governing what the campaigning group, Transparency International,

says is by far one of the world's most corrupt leading states.

Levelled with nigh yearia, 38 places below India. -- Nigeria, and

38 places below India. Now a look at the front papers.

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 78 seconds