02/10/2012 Newsnight

One-nation under Ed, the leader of the Labour Party delivers a speech

unlike any we have ever heard from him. That spirit of one-nation,

one-nation, a country where everyone has a stake, one-nation, a

country where prosperity is fairly shared, one-nation, where we have a

shared destiny. What would Benjamin Disraeli, the Conservative who

invented the one-nation idea make of the Miliband version. More to

the point, what will the people of the 21st century make of it.

How much does an Afghan have to do for our Armed Forces before we let

him live here. This one was blown up, but still denied asylum. Even

after this, I have left my job, they will kill me for sure, they

won't let me. They need to take their revenge.

Over in the corner of the studio, the President of the Royal Society

of Chemistry tests a scientific phenomenon that defeated Aristotle,

why does hot water freeze faster than cold water.

He didn't say "prick me, do I not bleed", but Ed Miliband, generally

considered the low-calorie calibre of party leader, did pull over a

pretty good speech today. No script and some bad joke, they all seemed

pretty impressed in the hall where the Labour Party was having its

get-together. That is not a normal cross section of people. In the man

of the blind the one-eyed man is king, of course. Labour know if

they are to have a chance of winning the next election, Ed

Miliband has to make much more of an impression than he has managed

to do so far. Allegra Stratton there was. He seemed to have

impressed them. Can you speak 70 minutes without notes. Two minutes

is tricky enough. It was quite electric, I was standing near some

people who have been very critical of him before, it was amazing. My

theory is this, he's now up to his opt number -- optimum operating

capacity. This is Ed Miliband he knew he could be and his team, but

this is the Ed Miliband we haven't seen since he was Environment

Secretary, or running to be Labour leader. It was went back when it

was promised this guy could do something, he got the job and he

did wobble for a long time. He has only really righted himself today.

There have been some impressive substantial speeches recently, but

not in terms of performance. There were arguments in today's speech,

but I think he's been making them before, actual low, it is just that

he sort of opted for this one- nation thing, which is cheekiness.

What, for me, was the key thing, was the performance. The confidence

it will give him shouldn't be underestimated, when he now has the

quite formidable task of going out and turning that, the newspaper

reported them yesterday, the two out of ten who think he would be

the good Prime Minister, into a lot more. You look sceptical. Do you

think people will genuinely change their political allegiance that he

can deliver an apparently unscripted speech for over an hour?

Of course not. What speech like this do is give a movement and team

a sense of confidence, and a hall and party a sense of confidence.

There may be a few people out there who will start to notice. We are

two-and-a-half years away from an election, people aren't going to

form their judgments now. What, I think, we should bear in mind with

the polls, they are very damning for him, they have a lot of work on

that. The work they also had on speech-making, they now clearly

don't have to do. But in terms of those polls, the thing people say

is, of course people see David Cameron as Prime Minister, because

I is Prime Minister. It is difficult when you are the --

because he is Prime Minister. It is very difficult when you are the

leader of the opposition to do that, it is difficult to convey that. He

has a huge way to go, it is just one of the things he had to tick

off, he did tick off today. Week two, day two, 2.00pm, party

leader two of the invisible party conference season.

Another leader arriving for their speech, a speech destined to be

forgotten. The mid-term director- general. Move along, there is

nothing to see here. -- dirge. Move along, there is nothing to see here.

Us journalists like to say this is the speech of someone's life,

usually it isn't. This one is moderately to very important, he

has to prove at this prifvot point in parliament that he has the ideas.

The trouble for the speech writers is this is something

impersuceptible, people here and out there will feel it in their gut.

From the beginning he was going for the guts. This, is actually quite

rare. Only one problem, where is my speech. I want to do something

different today. I want to tell you my story. I want to tell you who I

am, what I believe, and why I have a deep conviction that together we

can change this country. My conviction is rooteded in my

family's story. A story that starts a thousand miles from here. Because

the Milibands haven't sat under the same oak tree for the last 500

years. No notes, no elect tern, no guide text for people like me, this

was 70 minutes of not particularly new personal anecdotes, but

defiantly new confidence, and a defiantly new argument. For many,

this was pre-leadership Miliband, back when he was promise, not

disappointment. My parents didn't tell me what career to go into. My

late father, some of you know, wouldn't agree with many of the

things I stand for. He would have loved the idea of Red Ed! But, he

would have been a little disappointed it wasn't true. My mum

probably doesn't agree with me either, but like most mums, is too

kind to say so! Look, when I was younger, I wasn't certain I wanted

to be a politician, but I do believe the best way for me to give

back to Britain, the best way to be true to my faith, is through

politics. Then, for the political cross

dressing, so beloved of our leaders. 140 years ago to the year, another

leader of the opposition gave a speech. It was in Free Trade Hall

that used to stand opposite this building, it's a rad son now, by

the way. His -- Radisson now, by the way. His name was Benjamin

Disraeli, he was a Tory, but don't let that put you off, for the

moment. Let's remember what Disraeli was celebrated for, it was

a vision of Britain, where passion, loyalty, dedications to the common

cause, courses through the veins of all, and nobody feels left out. It

was a vision of Britain coming to the to overcome the challenges we

face. Disraeli called it "One Nation". We heard the phrase again

as the country game together to defeat facisim, and we heard it

again as Clement Attlee's Labour Government rebuilt Britain after

the war. Friends, I didn't become leader of the Labour Party to

reinvent the world of Disraeli, or Attlee, but I do believe in that

spirit. The Tories would later attack Miliband, saying he cannot

be one-nation, when a day earlier he launched class warfare on the

Prime Minister. But their private worry is that Miliband has launched

class warfare on the very rich, aligning himself with everybody

else. Next April David Cameron will be writing a cheque for �40,000 to

each and every millionaire in Britain. The Prime Minister is not

actually doing that, but Miliband's game is clear. That is more than

the average person earns in a whole year. And he thrilled lots of bet-

makers with the "P" word. I say this, you can't be a one-nation

Prime Minister if you raise taxes on ordinary families and cut taxes

for millionaires. You can't be a one-nation Prime Minister if all

you do is seek to divide the country. Divide the country between

north and south, public and private, those who can work and those who

can't work. And you can't be a one- nation Prime Minister if your Chief

Whip insults the great police officers of our country by calling

them plebs! The rhythm was not the usual sterile patter of political

speeches, sometimes it showed, polish relinquished for a bit of

personality. Have you ever seen a more incompetent, hopeless, out-of-

touch, U-turning, pledge-breaking, make-it-up-as-you-go-along, back-

of-the envelope shower than this Prime Minister and his Government.

That is my faith. One o'Clock Gun nation, a country for all, -- one-

nation, a country for all, everyone playing their part, a Britain we

rebuild together. Thank you very much.

Wow, I was wrong, that was probably the best speech Ed Miliband has

given since becoming leader, even critics of his standing next to me

watching it, accepted it was a very powerful speech. I would say he

would now be pleased with both the voice he has shown to the public

and the argument he has made. It is now over to you whether you like

that voice and accept the argument. There were policies announced today,

there was an argument, there was even some political ancestor

stealing. Individually they are not the story. Today belongs to the

inperSeptemberabilities of parliament, Ed Miliband landed one

in the gut. The designated Ed Miliband

cheerleader for tonight is the Shadow Business Secretary, Chuka

Umunna. He's in Manchester. Can you tell us, Chuka Umunna. Hi Jeremy.

Hell lo. How is a one-nation Labour Party blifrpb different --

different from previous Labour parties? The message Ed got over

successfully today, is we have big problems as a country, we have the

short-term challenges around growth, we need growth back in the economy.

We have got long-term economic challenges, which require a

complete restructuring and building of a new economy. Viewers of this

programme are really facing the biggest squeeze on their living

standards in a generation. The question is, how do you tackle

that? Do you want to answer my question, how is the Labour Party a

one-nation Labour Party, different to other Labour parties? If you

look at our embrace of business, that, perhaps, is not something

that has been associated with say, old Labour, in the times past. The

point we have been making today is, for example, yes, we're looking to

the private sector to grow the economy in the future, and business

has a role in, that but we are looking for business to work in

partnership with our FE sector, to produce the training and skilling

up of our young people that are needed to power our economy. If you

say look at the message in and around banking, Jeremy, we are

saying, for example, in relation to banking, look, it is not a question

of banker-bashing, we actually want to see the banking sector reformed,

restored to its former greatness, but to serve the real economy, to

serve our small and medium-sized business. So on the line, if you

have a line from the Labour Party, Michael Foot on one end, Tony Blair

on the other, where abouts is Miliband's Labour Party? I wouldn't,

I'm not necessarily in favour of defining by personalities. I think

the point is we are Social Democrats. It is by policy, is what

I'm looking for? We are democratic socialists, or whatever you want to

call it. We believe we are mutually independent, we want to give

individuals and the families the platform to go on to achieve their

dreams and aspiration, we believe that is only in the context of a

strong society. That involves much of our approach to how we think we

should resolve the issues facing the economy. That is why we argue

for an active industrial strategy, where you have Government acting

collaberatively with business to produce solutions. That is

different from the story extrapolate of things, their

assessment is the best thing Government can do, is stand aside,

deregulate everything and leave it to the market. If we learned

nothing from the 2009/09 crash, that is a broken and failed

approach. Ed Miliband said everyone has to contribute to the success.

This one-nation slogan is absurd, when less than 19%, or fewer than

19% of the electorate bothered to vote for you? Well, it is not

absurd at all, it is about one- nation Britain, it is about

everybody. To my mind, what it takes to transform the economy, to

transform all of our lives, it is a difficult situation. That is

requiring everyone to play their part, that is a slightly different

issue as to whether they vote. I tell you what is relevant. This was

a personal speech, Ed was explaining why he believes in what

he believes in, why does he have faith in all of us as one British

people, to sort out the problems that we have got. So you have got

quite a lot of detail about his back story and his family. I'm glad

you have brought up this voting issue, Jeremy, actually, one of the

biggest problems facing us as politicians, people thinking we are

all the same. Incredibly people, a lot of people are angry with what

the Government has done, in my constituency I have 15 people

chasing every Jobcentre Plus vacancy at the moment, a lot of

them are very angry. A lot of people are disillusioned with

politics. Ed was seeking to say today, this is what I believe and

why I believe what I believe, I'm not just any old politician, I'm

serious about delivering the change for you and your familiar loose.

When he talks about -- Families. When he talks about David Cameron

writing a cheque for �40,000 for every millionaire in the country.

What he's really telling us is that's what he sees is the

management of the economy, that is not what David Cameron is doing,

and you know it's not what he's doing, what he's proposing to do is

not take away from them �40,000. In that sort of language, Ed Miliband

is making it quite clear what he sees as the role of the state and

taxation, isn't he? I just simply don't agree with your analysis. The

simple fact is, one of the reasons that the cut in the top rate of tax.

That is air money, that is the analysis? Why it was so toxic. I

will tell you the real analysis behind it, that was so toxic for

the Government. It was toxic for the Government because they were

doing it at the same time they were, for example, imposing a granny tax

and various other things. Do you really think he's writing �40,000

cheques for every mill tkwron air in the country, you don't believe

that, you are a highly intelligent man? The effect of reducing the top

rate of income tax from 50p to 40p, is to give them a tax break in the

region of �40,000. This isn't a Labour or Conservative issue.

is not writing them a cheque? not a left or right issue, Jeremy

that is a right or a wrong issue. The eyes of most of your viewers,

to go and dish out a tax break, in that order, to the richest people

in this country, at the same time as I have just explained to you,

for example in my constituency I have 15 people chasing every

Jobcentre Plus vacancy at the moment. That is just wrong. That is

wrong to most people watching this programme. This point he made today

about not being willing to see a growth in the gap between rich and

poor, why does he believe that now, and didn't believe it when you were

in Government? I think he's always believed that. I have always

believed that. Why did the gap get bigger then? Because, obviously, we

should have done more to close the relevant gap -- relative gap.

incompetence is it? Of course not. You believe something that you

couldn't make happen? Let me answer the question. The fact is s we lost

in 2010 for a reason -- -- is we lost in 2010 for a reason, we

didn't get everything right. It is a source of regret that the

relative gap grew in our time of Government, despite the fact we

drew many people out of poverty. What the people want to win back

their support, they want us to demonstrate humility, and not that

we carry on as if we are entitled to their support, we are not, we

have to win it back by showing good policies that make a difference to

them. For example, the focus today on the forgotten 50% of people who

don't go on to university, but who need those highly-skilled

Vocational Qualifications in engineering, for example, we are

saying we need more focus on that. We need to change the situation

where, for example, only a third of large firms are providing

apprenticeship, so we have more apprenticeships for people going

not going to university. These make a practical difference to people's

lives, that is how you demonstrate that you are serious about

affecting change. We have reconvened the Newsnight political

panel, who have been watching speeches since Disraeli gave his

speeches. Danny Finkelstein, who used to be speechwriter for Robert

Peel, and writer on the times, and we have an adviser to Gordon Brown,

and Miranda Green who used to be an adviser to Paddy Ashdown, previous

leader of the Liberal Democrats. What did you think? Fluent,

effective, it will have achieved with the audience, very important,

in Westminster and in the party, greater kfdeoints in Ed Miliband's

leadership. -- confidence in Ed Miliband's leadership. Personally I

think he's too far to the left. He doesn't agree with the analysis and

doesn't accept the moderniser PlayBook. I don't agree, he has

made it clear and the party conference made it clear that is

where they are going to stand. did you think? It was a fantastic

performance, he looked as if he was enjoying himself. We haven't seen

Ed looking like he was enjoying being Labour leader for quite a

while. It will mean Labour voters will have a spring in their step.

That is important. One of the things we have seen is Ed has

underperformed with Labour voters, by contrast, with how Cameron has

with Conservative voters. If he achieves that, that will be a big

achievement. How did you enjoy it? I enjoyed it very much. There were

some quite good jokes in it? There were, it was a good performance, I

hold my hands up and say I misunderestimated this man. I do

think it will change the perception. I do think one of his advantages is

that he's not as bad as people think he is. I don't mean that as a

cheap comment. There is a gulf between his ability, and where

people think he is. He has quite a big problem in filling that. Don't

let's forget that people don't watch the speeches. This will only

have a small role in moving public opinion. But he's got that as an

advantage. Personally, I think he should have used it for a more

courageous speech. That whole approach would have worked, if he's

going, for example, to attack vested interests, he just mentions

the banks and Miguel-Anxo Murado, he has vested -- Rupert Murdoch, he

has vested interests in his own party. He fought for the leadership

because David Miliband believed in doing that, because he doesn't. I

agree with David Miliband, he is being true to himself with the

speech he delivered. I think the one-nation thing was powerful, at a

time when people feel hopeless, it is a hopeful message. Tony Blair

talkeded about it, everyone's talking about it. William Hague's

spring conference speech of 1999, one-nation. Absurd though that is.

Danny is right on the substance of where he has positioned himself in

terms of individual messages and policies, what I thought was

interesting today is that when you watch the arc of the speech, you

didn't come away with that. It was much more of a Tony Blair moment of

speaking to the whole nation. In that sense I actually thought the

one-nation unifying message was very clever. Is it a problem?

have a lot of work to do? I think it is a mistake for parties to make

policy too far ahead in opposition, even close to the election. They

get strung up on policies that don't work. People don't follow

them, they don't understand what the parties are saying. I think

that was the right decision. Where I question the strategy is that

he's a few points ahead in the polls, maybe even ten points, he

could use the political capital he has built up to take risks with the

party, and move the perception, so swing voters believe they are safe

to vote Labour again. People aren't listening at the moment. In a sense

I think this is about shoring up. Why are they not listening? Because

they don't listen to Labour Party leaders' speeches at conferences,

they don't watch conferences, they simply don't. It was brave of him

to say today, that he was there to prove to you that not all

politicians are the same. Good luck at the moment with that. What we

learned from the speech is he's not going to do that, he's never going

to do it. He didn't just not do it because it wasn't the moment. He

has made a decision, he thinks the electorate has moved towards the

left because of the financial cry he is, that he can pitch himself to

the left of where Tony Blair of. He said that explicitly, with quite an

acidic passage on new Labour, I thought. I don't agree with him

politically, you wouldn't expect me to do so. I think he will have

trouble making that work, but, at least that is what he thinks. If he

was, if his attempt was to show he was authentic, I think that he had

to say what he thought. He was true to himself. He came over as the

nice man he is. I think that came through very clearly. Danny talked

about spending political capital, to be tough on your own people.

That's incredibly important, particularly if you are going to

sell yourself in the next two-and- a-half years as a Government in

waiting. I think today he was earning thatAl, that you can now

askp -- earning that capital, that you can now ask him to spend. I

don't think he could have made that speech before now. I'm desperate to

know, why given he can make a speech like that, that his reading

from a script is quite abysmal. Why did they let him do that. He has

fuelly done this at conference before very -- he has actually done

that, at conference before he has done that before, everyone has

thought where is Ed. He has made those bits of speeches before and

strung them together. Usually when somebody repeats, when somebody has

an apparently huge feat of memory, Elizabeth Dole did this at a

Republican convention, it was because she made that speech over

and over again. I think what's impressive about it is to do it on

such a huge occasion and show no everybodys. What voters would

complain about him -- Nerves. voters will complain is he has no

charisma, were there swing voters watching they would have been

surprised. Voters don't like reading because they think someone

has else has written it. It was a good performance from that point of

view, it will have a limited swing because of people watching it.

is like an echo chamber? People in that echo chamber will hear him out

and he will have a following. just not overestimate it, really,

one of the things that happens constantly in politics, I always

used to remember this with William Hague, you would wake up the next

morning after thinking you had done brilliantly, destroy Tony Blair in

the House of Commons, nothing moved. No-one noticed. So he has to do

this again and again. S this is the beginning, the have noticed.

problem is the one-nation concept was quite thin. The interview with

Mr Umunna indicated there wasn't very much to it. It seemed to go on

and on. The answer without any content. Maybe I'm being unfair. I

couldn't detect what it was. I just thought I left wondering what it

really of. The reason is, doesn't really want to steal the

Conservatives clothes and be a Conservative, that is not what he

is. That's not what he wants to do. He hardly, the elephant in the room

of the deficit, the fact we are bust. That hardly got a look in

anywhere? That is the thing, the question of whether people will,

once again, be willing to trust the Labour Party with the nation's

finances is the only thing that matters, really. But I do think it

is an important day. The only one of the difficult issues that Labour

has to Faye, he faced into it well, was immigration, his language was

interesting. He definitely realised he has to do something on that. He

talked about welfare effectively, I thought. Moderately. I thought it

was a bit thin. You must have been chuffed he wasn't attacking the

Liberal Democrats? There was one mention, and one boo from the hall,

but, yeah, the Lib Dems got off lightly. I think if he has listened

to the message that the real enemy is the Tory Party, that is a

positive thing as well. He has a party base, he might have a problem

forming a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, he might wish to

do that. I did a fringe meeting at a Labour Party Conference, the

anger from the conference floor about the Liberal Democrats, Ed

Balls calling them Tories. He doesn't want to stoke them out.

could find a lot of hatred for the Lib Dems at Conservative

conferences too, couldn't you? not refraining from that myselfment

I'm saying he has to be careful not to stoke it up. If he stoke it is

up he could find when the moment comes, the party base won't let him

do what he needs to do. Not a bad few days, if these things matter at

all, any longer for the Labour Party, was it? I think, as I say,

the Labour Party and Labour voters will have a spring in their step

now. That's quite an achievement. They haven't had had. They have

been thinking why did we vote for this guy. I don't think they are

thinking that tonight. The UK Border Agency has done it again, it

is in asylum of an Afghan man wounded in the war. There are

plenty of people wounded in war, when Johnny Tocco was injured he

was working for -- Emily Atak, was injured he was working for the

Interpretors are the filter through which -- interpreters are the

filter through which NATO absorbs in Afghanistan. Their mission is

dangerous, dozens have been killed, and millions have been wounded,

among them, Mohammad Rafi Hottak, who soon learned that this job

could have terrible reprecussions. We are already on the blacklist of

the Taliban. If they catch us, even after I have left my job, they will

kill me. They need to take their revenge, the best person they can

get hold of is interm pret ters, they have proven -- interm pret

ters, they have proven -- interm preters, they have proven that. If

you quit your job it doesn't make sense, you are making yourself

vulnerable, they can watch you anywhere. This week he has been in

the media spotlight, following the Home Office rejection of his

application to stay in the country. I was horrified that the Home

Office has not bothered to check the facts, there are witnesses, and

evidence in the support units, there are witnesses, myself and

others who would verify the fact that he had worked for us for a

very long time. Back in 2007, the Afghan interpreter was patrolling

on the streets of Sangin, one of the most dangerous places in his

country. The troops he was with came under attack. Even then I had

to do translation there. The Afghan forces were firing, the British

were saying ceasefire, stop firing, they wouldn't stop firing. Even

though I didn't have the strength to even say a word, because I was

internally bleeding and externally, it was a lot of pressure on my

chest. God knows how did I survive. Even at that time I stood up again

and I said stop firing, stop firing. And I don't know did I fall or they

laid me down again. Any way, they stopped firing.

The British officer he was with had been killed by an IED, or impro-

advised bomb, and he was badly wounded. However, after being

treated for those injuries, schrapnal wounds that still heavily

scar his body, he returned to his duties. It was when he finally

decided to quit the army and come to Britain, that his problems

started in ernest. Lacking the proper papers, Rafi paid people

smugglers to bring him into this country, hidden in the back of a

lory. Sbs he got here he went -- lorry. As soon as he got here, he

went to the authorities to try to legalise his position. It was at

that point a situation that can only be described as Kafka-esque,

began to unfold. This week, after 15 months awaiting a decision, the

UK Border Agency wrote to Rafi telling him he could not stay in

this country. Their letter pointed to discrepancies in ID cards he

submitted, saying none of these record his name as Mohammad Rafi

Hottak, it added, despite a number of inquiries -- enquiryies from the

MoD, his employment was not verified, and bizarrely, throughout

his interaction with the UK Border Agency, he had spoken English.

say, I can't prove in my claim who I am. The reason I came to the UK

is because I have served this country, this Government, in

Afghanistan, and I have considered them as my own family. I speak

English, and I, if not fully, but partially I understand the culture

and the way that things work here. I understand why you are all angry,

I'm very sorry. The interpreters have no guaranteed asylum in

Britain. If they apply today they have to join everyone else who is

applying for either refugee status or humanitarian protection. And,

there is no recognition of the enormous danger that people who

have been interpreting for the British or Americans are facing.

They are very much special cases. Tonight, the Border Agency has said

it is reviewing Rafi's asylum application, because the increased

level of publicity around his case has led to new and significant

information coming to light. However, the questions of why it

has taken 15 months for them to realise their mistake, and what

happens to others in similar situations remain.

Rory Stewart is a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee,

he was in Iraq where his interpreter was killed in 2005.

Heather Barr, a former UN official who works for Human Rights Watch

joins us also. How vulnerable are people who have done jobs like

acting as an interpret er? They are extremely vulnerable, the Taliban

has talked about how they will target Afghans who work with

foreigners, they have said after the foreigners who leave those who

are collaborators have been punished for their treason. The

threats are real. Even people while the troops have been here receive

threat, letters, phone calls. It is very strange that think that

somebody would have to prove individually they are facing a

threat, rather than there being recognition that everybody in this

category is facing a threat. Given your own experience in Iraq what do

you make of this case? I find it very Shaughnessying. I think one of

the big -- very shocking. I think one of the bigger questions about

the system is it is a legalistic approach. People are not good

enough to take on a special obligation for those who have

worked for us. Your own experience, where your own translator was

murdered, after you had left, I believe, there is no doubt that was

as a consequence of the work he had been doing? It is difficult to

prove, but he was receiving death threats connected to the fact that

he had had worked with me. And there were two other women that I

worked with who were also killed. It was the time just after we had

departed from Alimara, where the militia were going around rounding

up people who were working with us. My friend was 25 years old, he

spoke very good English, he worked as a translator for me not because

he was being paid, but because he believed in Britain, and he was

killed. There are thousands acting as interpreters and helping western

forces in one way or another there. Presumably there has to be some

mechanism, can they all be admitted to Britain, the United Nations, or

Canada or wherever? It is definitely true that there are many

thousands of Afghans, maybe tens of thousands of Afghans who are at

risk, because they have worked for international organisations. But,

interpreters who have worked with the military are really a special

case. They are really unique in the fact that they have been seen

constantly on patrol, with members of the international military, I

don't think the Taliban sees any difference between them and Afghan

security forces, or international military. So, I think, if you are

going to draw a lion, certainly they should be on the side of the

line where -- a line, certainly they should be on the side of the

line that should seech special obligations. I don't agree, we

don't have an obligation to everyone who has worked as a

translator, but we have an obligation to be diligent to look

at everyone who has worked as translator N this case they weren't

diligent enough. It points to a bigger problem, which is the whole

asylum system seems to be often a lottery, and run in a very strange

fashion. Do you have a suggested way of dealing with that? I think

the first thing is to recognise we have a huge problem, which is that

it is very difficult for someone in Britain to try to guess whether a

story is real or not. This has come out of people desperately trying to

second guess what is happening in a village in Afghanistan. I have had

friends from Afghanistan, who have successfully come into the country,

with much less than that. And others who have been turned down.

The second thing is, he has come in through human smuggling, we have

created a system that incentivises people to work with criminal gangs

and smuggle themselves into the country rather than a proper system.

The Border Agency said it couldn't prove he was working with the

British military, it took us 20 minutes to get someone to verify

that he did? Indeed, that is why everyone needs to be checked more

carefully. The broader problem is I turn up and say I have come from a

village in central Afghanistan and feel under threat, it is very

difficult for the Border Agency to check that is true, in this case

they got it wrong. Presumably there are all sorts of things that you

might have done to assist the international forces in Afghanistan,

which you might feel, give you a legitimate fear of being at risk in

Afghanistan from the Taliban and others. All sorts of people, it

might be just a farmer who tells them that there are some IEDs on a

road somewhere? Yes but a farmer who tells a soldier that there are

IEDs on the road, he can whisper into his ear, it is a one-time

event, he can melt back on to the farmland and no-one will know he

shared that manufacturing. An interpreter has no way of being

invisible, and showing their support for, not just the

international community, but the mission. It is worth rembering that

Britain's military effort in Afghanistan is impossible without

these interpreters, you can't look for IEDs, you can't partner with a

team from the Afghan national army, you can't reach out and try to

befriend the population and engage them, without the assistance of

interpreters. These interpreters are there in the line of fire,

along with the soldiers every day. They are also facing additional

dangers when they go home at night. I also think we should understand

we are operating in a culture where Afghans feel these kinds of

obligations very strongly it is a culture in which that kind of

relationship, of having worked with someone or partnering someone would

make what we are doing here shocking. Because our whole

presence in Iraq is based on some idea of moral legitimacy, we have

to be particularly careful in how we behave. Not just ethically, but

simply in terms of our whole reputation, not to be seen to be

letting people down. Back to the experiment you saw at the start of

the programme. Why does boiling water, apparently, freeze quicker

than cold water. In June this year, the Royal Society of Chamsry

launched a competition to find the most plausible -- Royal Society of

Chemistry launched a competition to find the most plausible answer.

They didn't expect a great entry but thousands of entries came from

around the world. They broadened the competition by opening it up to

the public. Earlier the professor put the

# Ice ice baby So what you were seeing there was

some boiling water and some water at room temperature, each being

placeded in a freezer, which will now be brought from the freezer by

our producer, Hannah, who will bring it across to the studio, we

will see whether the frozen water or the boiling water has, in fact,

frozen and the room temperature water hasn't frozen. It's taking an

awfully long time to get it out of there. Well done! We have a big

problem with the experiment, neither has frozen. Did you plug in

that freezer? I blame the friezer! This is rubbish -- Freezer. This is

rubbish, they are both liquid. sure the red one is colder. Stick

your finger in, they are both the same. This is a completely rubbish

experiment. But I think that is an experiment, that is live television,

it is a real experiment. Indeed it is. Had it been rehearsed perhaps

we could have got it right? could have faked it, but we didn't.

If this were going properly if someone had had plugged the fridge

in, the red one, I think, is the hot one, the boiling one, would

have frozen by now? It would have. The one at room temperatures

wouldn't have? People can do it at home, to see if what we are saying

is true or not. What are you looking for? We are looking to find

why this happens. We don't know. you don't know, how can you judge

when someone has given you the right answer? If they give us a

good explanation of the answer, we can decide whether it is plausible

or not. We can do more experiments to see if it is right or not.

you going to do those experiments? I would like to do those

experiments. If someone writes in and says, I think the reason, I

should add we added dye to these, maybe it is the food colouring.

Even the tray isn't cold. This is a complete shambles. I'm very sorry

about that. But your experiment, your desire for knowledge at the

Royal Society of Chemistry, is impressive. You are looking for

people to give you an explanation for the fact that this phenomenon

occurs in a well-regulated experiment. That's right. But you

have no way, have you, of judging which is the riech explanation?

Well, I think we can -- Right explanation? I think we can look at

the explanations that people give us and see is it based on fact, it

might give other people ideas to do more experiments. If someone writes

in, how many have you had? Nearly 22,000 explanations.

explanations, have you read them all? -- 22,000 explanations, have

you read them all? Several of them, not them all. You find one that

seems plausible, do you give it the money, how much is it, �1,000?

is, we are asking the public to look at some of the answers and see

which answers they like, we are also putting a panel of experts

together, other scientists, to consider the responses, and put

their vote in, we will see what happens. Is there any practical

application at all? The main reason for it was to get people interested

in scientific experiments, and to do the experiments and think up

answers for themselves. But, bottom line, if you want a gin and tonic

with some ice in it, put hot water in the freezer. That is a great

practical application. Tomorrow That's all from nice night tonight,

until tomorrow, good night -- Newsnight tonight, until tomorrow,

Hello again, a lot of showers to come through the night. As we head

into tomorrow there should be more sunshine, and the showers should be

fewer. A scattering of showers and sunny spells, the winds not as

strong and blustery, the winds feeding in frequent showers to the

North West of England. Again, Cumbria could be the wettest place

in the country. Fewer showers east of the Pennine, for most of the day

it will be dryer. Sunshine coming out across the south-east of

England, a scattering of showers, colder than today. A much better

day for the south west of England. Fewer showers, more sunshine,

particularly in the afternoon. There will be some sunshine in

Wales as well. In the afternoon it is the north of the country that

will have most of the showers, those showers pulling away from

most of Northern Ireland, so more in the way of sunshine again in the

afternoon. A mixture really in Scotland, there will be some

showers developing a little more widely, most will be light with the

best of the sunshine for the eastern side of the country. It may

well stay dry for the most part in Edinburgh and Inverness, not just

into Wednesday but Thursday too. Further south we will have sunny

spells, a scattering of showers, the odd heavy one can't be ruled

out. Thursday looks that bit dryer even further. Arguably Thursday is