04/12/2012 Newsnight

Lunchtime tomorrow is the time for bad news. In the annual assessment

of the state of the economy, we shall learn how badly mangled the

Government as policies have been, by their head-on collision with

reality. It doesn't look good. Losing Britain's triple-A rate

something politically almost suicide, having your banks go bust

is almost political suicide. Slashing the welfare budget by

taking out the pensions political suicide, everything is bad for the

Chancellor at this stage. Is it time the Chancellor of the

Exchequer stopped pretending he has any control over events?

How the imprisonment, torture and death of this man have spurred the

US Congress into a crackdown on Russia.

Hundreds of Russian officials are set to be banned from entering the

United States, and have any assets there frozen. A similar law may

soon be coming to Britain. As NATO decides to send anti-

missile defences to the Turkish- Syria border, is Damascus really

preparing to use chemical weapons. How sensible shoes took over

Jamacia. From the number one station, here comes UhUhUh, whether

you wrong or right, you gotta listen to Newsnight. Don't get the

blues, it is all about the shoes. The Government was busily getting

its reaction in first today, before George Osborne stands up in the

House of Commons tomorrow, and tells us all what a terrible state

the economy and the public finances are in. So, tomorrow morning's

papers will report �5 billion of our money being spent on schools,

transport, science and so on. But come lunchtime, Mr Osborne will

have to come clean. In his Autumn Statement, he will have to give us

the rest of the picture. Paul Mason is here with the full bucketload of

gloom. What are you expecting him to say?

Two years ago the Chancellor did put the lid on what could have been

quite a bad position for the UK, an insipient debt crisis in Europe and

everyone else getting dragged into it, by laying out two targets, the

debt and the deficit, one is the long-term loan and the other is the

debts. They said they would wipe out the deficit in five years and

get the debt rolling by the end of parliament. We will find out

tomorrow that he will miss both targets, it is highly unlikely he

will hit either of them. That is not the end of the world -- you

could, under normal circumstances say, and he has done it before, we

will do more austerity. This time last year they said more austerity,

and it will last longer. This �5 billion announcement today is a

straw in the wind that says they will not do that. They could have

send said departments find �5 billion to wipe out the debt and

deficit, instead they are using it to spend. If there was a letter

between A and B, we would be on plan, whatever that letter of. This

is not Plan A any more. What about plan K or L or M?,

can't go on doing austerity forever. That is what they are effectively

recognising. There comes a point when the markets say they don't

believe you? In the moment they are in disbelief mode, even the Germans

were rumoured to be seeing a downgrading of their credit status,

it didn't happen. All the European instruments reflecting the state of

the European economy are being downgraded. We have had triple-A

rating t says our debt is 100% solid. Even if you lost it, the

consensus is it wouldn't be the end of the world, because everyone else

is losing their's. The problem comes when people look at the ways

out, they say there is no growth, the austerity is at the end, you

can't politically do any more what do you do? Historically we know

what Governments do, they wipe out the debt by allowing inflation.

This is the concern of some of the investors I have been speaking. To

When you stand in the City of London and look around, you see

messages about greatness, stability, a global economy built on

reputation. In times of great stress, goes the message, we

produce great men, philanthropists, builders, leaders.

It is clearly taking longer to deal with Britain's debts. It is clearly

taking longer to recover from the financial crisis than anyone would

have hoped. But we have made real progress.

But how much longer? On the answer to that hangs the possibility of

huge budget cuts, lasting well into the next parliament.

The idea of Britain, as a triple-A nation, whose debt is always under

control, whose money is always good, is ingrained into the very fabric

of this country. But tomorrow we could find out we are just like

everywhere else, that our fiscal promises are equally capable of

being broken. It is all about growth, this is

what they thought receipt coverry would look like two years ago, and

this is the reality. Way lower. And the forecast made last March says

it will take three more years to get back on track. Tomorrow, there

is a new forecast. The experts say it will be lower still. That means

the Chancellor could miss his targets for getting the debt and

deficit down, putting Britain's triple-A rating at risk.

triple-A rating will matter a lot, both because it is part of

Britain's international repcation as major financial centre. It --

reputation as a major financial centre, but also George Osborne's

reputation, he said that is how we should measure his performance as a

Chancellor, the triple-A rating. If it goes that is a huge blow to him.

What are the chances of it going? They are pretty high.

David Cameron ordered Whitehall to make 1% extra cuts to fund a new �5

billion investment fund in schools and infrastructure. We are very

excited and surprised to be able to ask the leader of our country some

questions. The questions beyond this London school room are obvious,

is it realistic to go on pruning away at small, departmental

budgets? It is very realistic, because Government departments

aren't actually spending up to their budgets. So I think we can

say to them, you have to cut back some spending, including some

unnecessary spending, let's put that money into things that will

make a difference in our country and our economy.

But, when it comes to the tens of billions they will need to balance

the book, there is a bigger choice that could affect all of us. Slash

spending on welfare, or cut the budgets of the very departments

protected today. The right thing to do is to take off the ring-fence of

health and education. If you were to cut health and education

spending by the average 17.5% spending reduction that is were

imposed on other departments, that would get you about �25 billion.

would be politically suicidal? Absolutely there aren't any

politically happy ways forward here. Losing Britain's triple-A rating is

political sued side, slashing the welfare budget by taking out the

pensions is political suicide, everything is bad for the

Chancellor at this stage. Government looks set to spend �680

billion this year. If you are going to cut hard there are only a few

big budgets you can cut from. Welfare is the biggest, health and

social care just behind, then education, the rest is small

compared to that. But for savers, and that includes

everybody with a company pension, or saving for a house, tomorrow's

figures raise a different kind of worry. That, if it can't cut, or

grow its way out of the debt, the Government might be tempted to

sneakly inflate its way out. If investors think the Government is

prepared to let inflation eat away at the value of the debt, there is

an obvious danger. What do investors worry about this when

they see this level of debt? readers worried about financial

repression, that is when you keep interest rates lower than the rate

of inflation. That destroys the value of savings and investments,

it is the most politically expedient way to escape from huge

debts. If investors think the Government's prepared to let

inflation eat away at the value of the debt, there is an obvious

danger. The big danger for Britain is that people realise that is the

only way out, and we get either a gilt market strike, or a currency

collapse as a result. Two years ago, the City applauded

as cuts and tax rises, and said the worries of the markets over the

debt. And now, the Chancellor is out on a limb.

Autumn Statements used to be about a few hundred million here or there.

Tomorrow will be about how big a hit the economy has taken, and, how

big a hit there has been to the Chancellor's reputation too.

It was, afterall, the Conservative manifesto, in 2010, which promised

we will safeguard Britain's credit rating with a credible plan to

eliminate the bulk of the structural deficit over a

parliament. Well, the credit rating is far from

safeguarded, the promise of eliminating the deficit by 2015,

has evaporated. We will find out the hard facts about debt and

deficit tomorrow. With us now are Elissa Bayer, the

senior -- a senior invest director, and Clare McNeil from the Institute

for Public Policy Research, and Gillian Tett, azestant editor of

the Financial Times. How -- Assistant editor of the Financial

Times. How big a deal is this tomorrow? It is a huge deal. It has

only got worse with macro-economic situations, the Chancellor faces

two nasty Balancing acts. He has to some how persuade the market that

he's not increasing austerity, and but also not going overboard. He

has to walk a tight rope. At the same time he has to persuade the

population what he's doing is fair, and get people to buy into it. That

is like parent with two custard creams trying to divide it between

three kids, whatever happens everyone will complain. Or everyone

gets a few crumbs, perhaps? Exactly. Supposing that we were to lose our

triple-A rating, as was alluded to there a couple of times. How big a

deal would that be? I think for the last year or so we have lived with

smoke and mirrors, do we really have a triple-A meeting, even worse

than that of the United States, who won't talk about the subject. That

is a certain. But, Gillian and I were looking, I look after private

investors, can we touch Government stocks at the moment, the prices

are inflated beyond belief, if you hold them all you will do is lose

money. The markets are saying there is a query on the status, even

though it hasn't been altered. Would it matter if we lost the

triple-A status? It matters for our borrowing, yes it doeser ma. It is

all about status, they don't want to lose it. But if you look at the

countries downgraded, we're not too far off, in some respects. We are

in the same boat, most of us? the boat isn't happy. To be cynical,

if there was every a good moment to lose your credit rating, it is now.

A lot of Europe is in deep problems. The US is engulfed in this huge

great debate about whether it can get some budget deal before going

over the fiscal cliff and has a crisis in two weeks time. Investors

aren't necessarily going to be able to rush out and find another safe

haven if they lose faith in the UK. It will be painful, but it is as

good a time as possible to have the problem. This pledge that George

Osborne made, we are all in this together, it doesn't look like that

any longer? It doesn't, we know at the moment that the burden that's

being placed on low-to-middle- income families is very high. Most

of the cuts are from public services, welfare cuts, rather than

from tax rises. We know that those on the lowest incomes use public

services more, and they tend to rely on welfare more. So at the

moment it seems the poorest, in some ways, are shouldering the

majority of the burden here. rather agree? I completely agree, I

know a lot about a community up in Liverpool, who are seeing some

potentially horrible cuts down the road. There is already high levels

of unemployment, people really rely on public services there. To take a

small example, these days the Government is putting more and more

of the services on-line t assumes everyone has internet, up there, in

this part of Liverpool, they don't. The library has just been shut,

which provided the Internet access. That is the on the ground detail,

where people are really suffering, and where tomorrow's budget will

just add to the squeeze, as Claire says. You say carry on letting the

debt mount? You need to take a sensible approach to deficit

reduction, we think when the economy is weak as it is at the

moment, slow down the pace, and speed up once the economy is

stronger. You can think about how you can introduce policies that

will boost the economy, at the same time as supporting families. So

childcare, for example, you know, raising the female employment rate

would obviously positive in improving our tax base, we need to

think more about those kinds of policies. If the Chancellor were to

listen to that sort of counsel, to pay heed to the social damage that

sounds as if it is being done by cuts that have already been made,

and will be made. What would be the consequence, as far as somebody

like you, looking at the economy, is concerned? I think the other

thing, the more you do this, the worse it is getting. We are not

very far down the line. That is the other problem, it will get worse.

That is another thing that makes it more and more unattractive. But I

suppose, our side, we look after people who, I think, have saved,

who have made effort, who have been prudent. He's looking at that all

the time. He's trying to reduce what they have got. I'm seeing more

and more clients give more money to their children, and the children

are in their 50s. It is just a spiral at the moment. I can't see

inheritance tax to be much of a problem, they won't have it to pay.

It is hitting the middle all time. You are not serving the lower,

because they haven't got it t and you are attacking the middle.

Presumably these people who have savings are damaged once inflation

gets going, that is another suggestion, you kind of relax

inflation targets, and the debt starts to go away, gradually?

and deposit rates will not go up any time, are they? What is

desperately needed is somebody who can actually rally the country

round some common vision, and almost invoke that Churchillian,

blitz spirit that we are all in it together? That is what they claim

to be doing? They claim, but it is three years. You can pull that

rallying cry once or twice, when you have a clear-cut enemy, right

now people are worried about how long it will last and who is

responsible for this, and is the pain being shared out fairly, and

do people still have enough incentive to buy into the kind of

vision the Chancellor will try to present tomorrow. You have

different ideas of who is being unfairly penalised, does any of you

feel that there is any fairness in this strategy. Do you Gillian?

are certainly trying to find that. It was very telling that they have

now taken to pointing the finger at foreign corporation, that is a very

convenient way to say we will get more tax on them, whether it is

Starbucks with or Google, or somebody else like that. We will

see more and more of that going forward. The Chancellor is clearly

trying to position this budget that it is fair. There are measures that

will try to hit those at the top, restricting pension tax relief for

high earners, corporate tax, as Gillian says. And also measures to

support people on middle income, freezing fuel duty, for example.

But the reality is there is some very difficult choices to be made.

It is positive that there money going into infrastructure, but

squeezing frontline services isn't sustainable. This question about

choices, it is an illusion, isn't it, there is room for manoeuvre?

There is a question about a balancing act, they are walking

down a high wire right now. Very subtle presentation issues, and

subtle swings to the right or left will have a big impact now. Do you

think there is choice? No, I think politics are she short-term, they

are look to go 2015, and they have said not much will happen while

there is a coalition, you actually need to do things, and you will

upset more people. Maybe you can start moving this economy. That is

what is important. If the predicament is so great, and the

area for manoeuvre is so, very, very narrow, it doesn't rather make

you think what 2015 will be about. Whether anyone can offer anything

terribly different? No, and I think there is an international

disillusionment with politics, which is correct. What can they do?

But I think the talking about it, people are fed up with that,

actually you do need to do something. I have just come from a

charity dinner, more and more is being put on the charities. Where

do he they think the money is coming from?

The a chief economist from the BIF, gave a devastating speech and

pointed out that economic cycles happen in multidecade periods, and

Governments only last for a few years. You have the fundamental

clash right now, you need Governments to be able to take a

five-year or ten-year view, yet unfortunately they are looking at

one or two years at most. That is a real problem. There is no way

around that? Not at the moment, no. Not unless you believe in

democracy? Or you look like technocratic solutions like Monti

in Italy. Maybe the next decade will be about people questioning

the balance of how democracy works and looking at more technocratic

solutions. The economic choices confronting the west right now are

so painful, that the pressure won't evaporate quickly. There are

clearly tough choices, we shouldn't be too, throw up our hands too much,

there are decisions thatkg made now, investing more in skills and

apprenticeships, which will improve levels of production in our economy,

move us towards a more innovative economy. Policies like childcare,

for example, which can produce more bang for their buck. We must also

think about what can be done in the here and now, as well as

considering the difficult situation we find ourselves now. You take

something like the Standard, when they have a campaign to get people

out there to help, people to go into schools, people to help with

reading, people come forward. It is motivating people in the right way.

I was talking to my clients over the Olympic, the Olympics did a

great thing. I have just been away, and people said fantastic what we

did. If you built on something like that, that is progress, getting

people all facing the same way and seeing a benefit.

The American Congress looks to be on the verge of passing a law

guaranteed to irritate Russia. Moscow is warning of what it calls

"harsh counter action" in retaliation for legislation to be

debated in Congress tomorrow. Which will bring in all sorts of

restrictions on people said to have been involved in human rights

abuses. The trigger is the death of a lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky. But the

case has potential implications, right across relations between

Russia and the west. In a moment we will talk to the man taking the

bill through the US Senate. First Mark Urban reports.

It has emerged that it demonstrates it was definitely Magnitsky to

blame. A convicted thief, a has given us his testimony confirming

the link between Mr Magnitsky. He was told in no uncertain terms that

the mastermind of the whole affair was Sergei Magnitsky. The play, One

Hour 18 Minute, was performed in London last week. It is about the

last moments of Sergei Magnitsky. He died in a Russian prison three

years ago, while working for a businessman, who is determined to

hold those responsible to account. Whenever we had big worries or big

problems, or big situations, he would be just as much of a

counsellor to us as a legal specialist. He was just a decent

really good-hearted guy. Sergei did not want to compromise his

integrity by doing what would have made his life much easier, they

would have stopped torturing them if he had perjuryed himself, he

refused to do -- perjured himself. Knowing he died doing that,

protecting me from what they were torturing himself into doing, is

the most unpleasant, painful thought that anyone could ever have.

That is what drives me, every day, to make sure that for him, trying

to protect me, that he died, I have to protect him pros tu mostly and

make sure they -, -- posthumously, and make sure they don't get away

with it. This could bring Russia into fresh controversy, as a new

law in the United States targets hundreds of Russians officials.

Hopefully a year from now we will be sitting in a seat where we can

say that Sergei Magnitsky's death changed the way in which human

rights abuses are being dealt w and the way they are being dealt with

going forward, not just his case, but other cases, is take away their

visas and take away their assets. Russia can keep this Magnitsky law

as normal, it is not normal from our point of view. It is

discrimination of Russians. We don't want to a low anybody to

believe that somebody can discriminate against Russians and

to have no responsibility. Bill Browder's company bought a

Russian business, and soon discovered it to be involved in a

huge tax fraud. Sergei Magnitsky was digging into that, when he was

arrested and thrown into Moscow's notorious Boutirka prison. The list

of those abusing and killing him amounted to 60 people. Some from

the prison were fired, and others cleared by Russian investigations.

Let me just share with my colleagues, just a little bit about

the life and death of Sergei Magnitsky. But such is the evidence

now accumulating against those on the list, that the House of

Representatives last month passed the Magnitsky Act, banning those

held responsible from entering the US, owning property there, and

freezing any assets. Campaigners are now seeking similar legislation

in the UK, with support even from a former ambassador to Moscow.

would very much like to see the UK and the EU, western European

countries, pass the same law. Not because I'm anti-law, but Russia is

suffering from a cancer of corruption, and a cancer of out of

control security and authorities, this sort of action by western

countries will help them to get this sort of thing under control.

Tony Brenton had a number of stand- offs with Russian officialdom while

there. Britain also pointed the finger at Russian state security

for attempting to assassinate exiled tycoon, Berseovsky in the UK.

The unexplained death of another Russian, Mr Alexander Perepilichny,

threatens further stress in the relationship. Mr Perepilichny died

while out jogging in Surrey. He had been giving evidence to those

investigating Sergei Magnitsky's death, and the tax fraud he was

probing. In the summer of 2010 we received

an e-mail from an unknown man named Alexander Perepilichny. Who said

that he had some information on some of the tax officials, the

people who did the illegal tax refund, about how they got rich,

and how their money went to Switzerland. We thought that was a

very interesting suggestion. And so we met with him, he showed up with

what I would describe as a treasure trove of documents. Russia's

Foreign Ministry has reacted to the passage of the UK Magnitsky Act, by

accusing the Americans of double standards, and threatening a harsh

response. There has been speculation about reciprocol bans,

and harsh trade agreements, and even disruption to key agreement on

the UN Security Council. Sergei Magnitsky was 37 years old, he left

behind a wife and two children. the Magnitsky Act goes through

Congress, many names are being added to it, some seeking also to

extend it to Russian officials accused of other crimes. It is

becoming a template for action, against a broad swathe of

officialdom. In London, and other European capitals, Russian

diplomats anticipate similar battles, as new Magnitsky Acts are

put forward in these different countries. Already human rights

campaigners have expanded the original list to hundreds of

Russian official, they believe that carrying Onyango this path is

essential to Chancellor -- on in this path is essential to

challenging the corruption and illegality in Putin's Russia.

have to understand who the Russians are, they are extremely aggressive

group of people, who have all sorts of criminal interests. To some how

try to appease them, over the hopes that they might be nice to you, it

is like a battered wife hoping that the husband will not beat them the

next time. We have leavenage here. People don't seem to understand --

leverage here, people don't seem to understand, that targeted sanctions

against corrupt officials, in countries like the UK and the US,

and France, is about the biggest leverage you could ever have.

We remember him every minute of every day. Sergei Magnitsky met a

lonely and lingering death, in a Moscow jail cell. Remembered

initially by those who loved him, or who he worked with, his name is

set to appear on the US statute book, a rallying point for those

who wish to change Russia. Senator Ben Cardin is on Capitol

Hill. Do you know how many people will be subject to this law if it

is enacted? The number of people that will be subjected are those

that were involved, those that we have clear evidence that were

involved. We're not going to release the numbers, but at this

point it is those who attempt to come to our country, are not going

to be able to. Those who want to use our banking system, won't be

able to do it. We don't want their illegal gains to be hidden in

America, or for them to be able to visit their wealth here in America.

It is the right standard. We call it the Magnitsky Standard, we want

it to be used internationally we think that those who are violators

of gross international human rights standards, shouldn't benefit from

being able to visit, or hide their money in another country. But to be

clear about this, will they know that they are on the list, and how

will they be able to get off the list? They will be known when the

list is released, there will be a list. Quite frankly, they will know

if they can come to America or not. They try it apply for visas,

frankly, they know. The people involved here, this is not a hidden

secret, we know the individuals, we have identified the individuals,

they know who is involved here. The tragedy is the Russian federation

hasn't taken action against them N some cases they have been promote.

We are attempting to say, look, you have a responsibility as a country,

to the rule of law and to hold accountable those who have violated

basic human rights. This bill is really aimed at the Russians. The

Russians deserve a better Government. Quite frankly, there

have been many Russian business loaders, as well as citizen, who

have urge -- leaders, as well as citizens, who have urged us, not

just America, but other countries, to take action to help their

country do what is right. There may be very senior figures in the

Russian Government who could be on this list and prevented from coming

to the United States, couldn't there, presumably? This bill is not

aimed at political leaders, but those who are involved in

corruption and the death of individuals who have tried to be

responsible and bring this attention to their Government. It

is gross violations of human rights that have cost people their lives

and fortune. It is a well-focused, and not aimed at political leader.

Vladimir Putin, though, sits at the top of that system? Mr Putin, we

have concerns about him, it is not aimed at a political leader, as I

said before, there would be no danger whatsoever, if if Mr Putin

wants to visit the United States, he will be clearly welcomed in the

United States, this bill is not aimed at the head of the Russian

federation. It is aimed at those who were involved in the cover-up,

those who were involved in the penetration of the crimes against

Sergei Magnitsky. Why stop at Russia, though, why not apply this

rule to China, to Saudi Arabia, to various other states in the gulf?

We agree, it should be universal and global. We think it is the

standard now, once Congress has enacted this, in regards to Russia,

that this will become the international standard. I have

talked to many of the co-sponsors of this lepblgs lakes, both in the

House and the Senate, we intend for it to be applied to other countries.

There will be those that says, what right does a country what ships

people around the world, holds them in secret prisons and has trials

throughout the world, what right do they have to lecture on human

rights? We don't lecture, we believe in international standards,

I believe we should be transparent in the way we deal with unlawful

combatants, that is a more recent problems within the international

community, there hud be international standards for dealing

with unlawful combatant -- should be international standards for

dealing with unlawful combatants. They pose a risk to all our

countries, we need the information we need to keep our country safe,

it has to be done in an appropriate way. Do you measure or take into

account at all, the need to secure the co-operation of countries like

Russia, which have pretty discreditable human rights records

in many case, but they need to be on board to get some sort of peace,

for example, in Siria. Don't they? It is interesting, I chair the

United States Helsinki Commission, our participating arm in the

Organisation for Security and Co- operation in Europe, I'm the Senate

chair. Our responsibility as a member-state, Russia's

responsibility as a member-state, is we have a responsibility to

raise these issues. We think that good relations require us to be

honest with our partners and say, look, we need help with regards to

trade ordealing with Iran, ordealing with other issues, but it

doesn't hold us back from our responsibility, to raise other

issues concerning human rights. That is what a mature relationship

involves, it is complicated and it is not one issue. Certainly it is

our responsibility to raise the issues as we see fit.

Thank you. Ever since Elvis Presley pulled on

a pair of blue suede shoe, there has been a vital and much

overlooked connection between footwear and music. Think Nancy

Sinatra, Paul Simon, punks in Dr Martens, or rappers in deluxe

trainers. There has surely never been a more likely pairing than the

sensible, back-to-school shoes made by Clarke's of the West Country,

and thumping baselines of Jamaican Reggie. Yet star perform mers there

have gone to the top of the charts, by extolling the virtues of the

brand which thousands of British children have only better at the

behest of their man. A much-needed coffee table book has been written

on the subject now. Steve Smith reports.

So many feet, so many shoes. Can you tell just from this, that these

are dancing feet! Some of us love a shoe shop, of

course, for others it can be a bit of a drag. A reminder of buying a

new pair for school. If only there was a bit more colour, and pizas,

to the whole shoe experience. # Teach your children

# How to spell Stone me, it is only reggae great,

Dennis Alcapone. Dennis, fancy seeing you here?

Dennis has long been a natty dresser, as evidenced by this

picture for his LP Beguns Don't Argue. That goes for his footwear

too. Not bragging and boasting, but Jamaicans are trend setters. We are

fashion-conscious. From, I was a little boy growing up, it was

always Clarke's. If you're not wearing the Clarke's, then you are

not saying nothing. They seem to fit perfectly. She looks like a

proper little Princess. Hang on a minute, are we talking

about the same Clarke's. The perfectly good, but how to say it,

intensely practical things that our mum's pushed us into.

# Clarks me prefer Dear long suffering viewer, we are.

Here is Jamaican dancehall thing, Vibes Cartel and things,

celebrating his accesssory. Good to see an advertisment for good shoe

maintenance. # Let me get my Clarks

# I'll show you Clarks. In the Caribbean, it turns out the

unassuming lace-up and the ankle boot are the footwear of choice,

beloved of the biggest names on the reggae scene. I have a full closet

of Clarks, more than any other Live and direct, straight!

Of course, other brands of shoe, and I can't stress this too

strongly, are also available. But why are Clarks so on-trend in

Jamaica. A London-based DJ has gone in search of answers.

Clarks are from England, and Jamaican people, generally,

especially in the past, I would say, loved things that came from England,

or way were made in England. They were made to a certain quality. If

a Jamaican was coming to England, the number one thing that they

would be asked to bring back would be Clarks. And then string vests!

As a second thing. There is your follow-up book, right there! Yeah.

Strip this story back to its roots, and you are left with utter

cobblers, sigh rus and Sirus and James Clark who founded the

business in the 18th sent treatment What on earth do you think they

would make of these reggae guys loafing about in their shoes in the

Caribbean? I think they would not really be surprised. I think Nathan

Clark, who invented the desert boot, thought they were popular because

they were naturally good-looking in a rugged way. I don't think they

would be surprised that those sort of things that are valued in

Jamaica, have made them a really popular style out there.

While Popcaan relaxes on the set of his latest video in Jamaica, it is

important to point out that this story isn't entirely sunny.

One of his former collaborators is facing a murder charge. But, then,

even the highly reputable Clarks, has found itself linked to a

slightly dubious history. In Jamaican dancehalls, police once

picked on young men wearing the shoes. They asked all people with

Clarks boots to go one side, and people with other shoes to step to

the other side. Why was that? rude boys wear Clarks. The rude

boys? That is how they have it. Rude boys is mainly a street boy.

Rude boys are people who love to dress good. By any means necessary.

They might be a little bit, some of them might be in trouble with the

law, shall we say? There is different dimensions. What they

started doing, they started meeting the boys with the Clarks, because

they said they are boys. No such trouble for Dennis Alcapone

at the dancehall these days. Where he is swaging the greatness of mens

wear. If you want to see this item again it is available on the

iPlayer. When I'm going out to the dance, I have to be stepping in my

Clarks boot. We're going to have another look at

tomorrow morning's front pages now. The first look, the Duchess of

Cambridge is all over most of the tabloids, but some of the other

papers have tomorrow's Autumn Statement, though.

Osborne hitting banks again in the Times, Paul, what is all that

about? The i and i thinking there will be an extra tax on the banks.

Another one? The article doesn't have any detail about that. We

await the detail. But it is a clear thing, he has to come for all

sections of British society, and the banks are people who clearly

can have money to pay. I think the FT is more promising, in terms of

concreteness. Osborne to extend austerity to 2018. Remember,

famously, a year ago, on this programme, Danny Alexander, came on

and said we are extending the austerity into the next parliament,

2018. 2018 is quite a way into the next parliament. We are getting

close to the parliament after it. But, again, in there, sources close

to the Chancellor says he favour not doing that. He will try to

stick to the original debt target. The FT does reckon we will see a

very pessimistic, downgrade of growth forecast, which is the

premise of the discussion we have had tonight. If we don't grow, we

can't grow our way out of the deficit, we are in trouble.

don't think he will say that? think he will say it, but the

sources close to the Chancellor say he won't. So, I mean, look we just

have to wait. It is only 12 hours, it is like Christmas, if you wait

long enough we will find out what the presents are, and the Office

for Budget Responsibility will be delivering them to us geeks of the

statistical world. Enjoy. The Guardian with growth and NHS

figures jolting Osborne? I mean look, the parties are very much on

a sort of agenda of �1 billion here or there. Labour has hit back on

the Conservatives' �5 billion spending move, saying that proves

you shouldn't have cut it in the first place. There is a row going

on about whether they have cut or not the NHS, with the official

statisticians piling in on Labour's side tonight. These newspaper on

the eve of one of the biggest turning points for the Government.

Very interesting in that they indicate almost an eye of the storm

inability to judge what the coalition is going to do. Some of

us still think he might come up with something quite big tomorrow.

Clearly none of the papers have got it. He hasn't made his speech yet,

of course they don't know? If they were to say, look, we are going for

growth, and, or, we are goingor austerity, 2018 we will hit the

targets, welfare getting a massive cut. It won a massive headline

tomorrow. But the inability of the most politically connected papers

to judge where the Government are coming from, tells you a bigger

story about the narrative. I see the Telegraph going with the news

that we are spending �2 billion on wind turbines in the third world.

That is a different announcement? The day you get a wind turbine

announcement for the third world, on the eve of an economic

announcement, the day you know nobody really knows anything.

Couple of other papers, saying Kate could be on the drip for weeks.

That is the change in law of male inheritance. And the Independent is

much more concerned about sperm. That's it, it's turned out that the

news of the Duchess of Cambridgeshire's pregnancy hasn't

just benefited the royal wind bag industry. Nick Nack makers are

thrilled, and in Naples, the craftmen running up Nativity scenes,

are slaving around the clock night and day to bring the tableau up to

the minute. Joseph has a new look foo.

foo. -- too.

Hello, an icey and potentially snowy start for some of news the

morning. A band of sleet and wet snow across many areas. A covering

in place, be aware of that in the morning. Once it clears, lots of

sunshine. Crisp but cold into the afternoon, there will be wintry

showers towards eastern and coastal counties, rain, sleet and hail

along the coast. Inland they will fall in snow, giving a light

covering where they fall too. Further west we have one or two

showers pushing the far west of England. Away from these good sunny

spells. Any sunshine does nothing for the pefrp tour, it will be aled

cold day. For Northern Ireland the odd shower towards the north and

north-east. The best of the sunshine will be further west.

Across Scotland a fine day for many. We will start off with snow showers

in the far north, a fresh covering here. They will fade away, it will

be a cold day, many of us staying in frost. From Wednesday's sunshine

to Thursday's wet and windy weather. The weather system moves in from

the Atlantic, towards northern England and Scotland, snow over the

hills, it will take a while for that rain to reach southern areas,