17/12/2012 Newsnight

Distrust, dissent and disquiet in the Conservative Party, as its

leader pushes the boat out for gay marriage. This say increasingly

vocal numbers of members, is not the Tory Party we joined.

He may see it as a civil rights issue, by David Cameron never

promised this to the British people, and plenty of his party are fed up

with him for it. This is probably the most decisive issue I have seen,

even compared with Europe and the economy. Where does the heart of

modern Conservatism lie when it comes to issues like this?

We have to go back to the early days of the United States to grasp

the gun issue, but is a 200-year- old piece of legislation, any basis

for security in the 21st century. We ask the author. Lionel Schriver.

Loyalists protest on the streets of Northern Ireland about their flag.

The Republicans are playing this game, the game is a different type

of war, it is totally different. But it is a war. A war of removing

everything that we hold dear so they can gain plaudits in their

community for doing that. How on earth did the land of fine

tailoring of this, who is to blame for the must-have Christmas item,

the oneies. A growing split is growing in the coalition, not

between the Tories and the Liberal Democrats, a split within the

Conservative Party. An increasingly vocal section of the party is

beginning to make rude noises about David Cameron. The datest friction

is over the Prime Minister's enthusiasmism for gay marriage. Not

only is this a deeply un- Conservative thing to do, it is an

idea that people never had chance to vote on, on a practical level. A

more liberal constituency will come at the cost of alienating the key

supporters the party relies on to get elected, they claim. Party grey

beards can't understand why David Cameron has such a bee in his

bonnet about it. It was traditionally festive in

Downing Street this evening, with Santa's reindeer making an

appearance for a children's party. Hopefully nobody was put off by a

chef lurking in the background. Traditional marriage isn't on the

menu at Downing Street either. Many in David Cameron's party are

perplexed, with that so many issues facing the country, like the

economy, transport, Europe, immigration, he has chosen to lock

horns with his MPs on the issue of gay marriage.

I think it sits very awkwardly on the backbenches, people feel that

there are greater priorities. That they very strongly feel that we

should be focusing on jobs, the economy, growth and reform of

public services. For a measure that was not in the Queen's Speech, the

manifesto or the coalition agreement, where as for instance a

commitment to tax breaks for marriage was, people are rather

puzzled as to why this is a priority.

Mr Jackson is one of 58 parliamentarians to sign a letter,

complaining that the Government has skewed their consultation on the

issue, by considering comments from people overseas, but ignoring a

petition from half a million people Why is David Cameron pushing ahead

with his plans? Since civil partnerships gave gay people many

of the same legal rights as married couples, there are doesn't seem to

have been a big clamour for a change in the law.

Perhaps the idea is trianglelation, you lose a few votes on the right

of the party, but pick up a whole load more in the centre. If that is

the strategy, some pollsters believe it is flawed. The polls

suggest this is just as much of as a turn-off for Labour and Lib Dem

voters as it is for Conservative voters. In that more people who

currently vote Labour or Lib Dem say that they are less likely to

vote for the Conservative Party as a result. The conclusion is maybe

60% of the public think it is a PR trick by David Cameron to persuade

people that the Conservative Party has changed in some way.

Transport Secretary, is one of several members of the cabinet to

advocate gay marriage, but his constituency party is not happy.

In any political party you get issues which create concern, or

lead to resignations. This is probably the most devisive issue I

have seen. Even compared with issues like Europe or the economy.

It is having a dramatic, calamitous affect on activists, as I

understand it, there were hundreds of thousands of Conservative

activists saying they will not work for the party any longer, we don't

believe what it is doing on gay marriage and we are going on strike.

No Government, no party can put up with that sort of situation for

long, without it having a very, very significant electoral impact.

So where are these disaffected Conservative voters going? Well t

appears there is someone answer. is a lot of evidence that gay

marriage is directly related today the surge in UKIP support in the

last week or two. For Nigel Farage, he can turn round to the public and

say, well, unlike the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dem, I'm offering

you something different, and playing to those very disaffected

Conservative voters. Indeed UKIP have become above the Lib Dems in

five of the 12 by-elections in which they fielded candidates since

2010, they have come second in three of those by-elections.

think for an awful lot of Conservative supporters, frankly,

this is the final straw. I would remind people, that since Cameron

became leader, the number of paid- up Tory members has halved, and

most of those exist in the traditional, rural shires,

attitudes in gay marriage are different in the Metropilis to out

in the sticks. This will cost up about 25% of Tory Party membership.

David Cameron has promised his party a free vote on the issue,

even so, some of his MPs think the policy could profoundly destablise

the Conservatives, and with it, the Prime Minister's leadership.

It is a pretty difficult position to be in for any Prime Minister,

Conservative Prime Minister, to force through a policy, not in the

manifesto, or a coalition agreement, with the help of Labour votes, in

the House of Commons. That is a pretty parlour state for any leader

to be in, I would urge David Cameron to think carefully if he

wants to be in that position by late spring, as we come up to

County Council elections. It will undermine his position as leader,

it will weaken the Conservative Party both in parliament and in the

country. Mercifully tonight, Santa left Downing Street with all his

reindeer intact. It is clear though, that on the issue of same-sex

marriage, David Cameron isn't taking all of his party with him.

Let's discuss now with my guests. We have the President of Michael

Gove's local Conservative Party in Surrey heath. With the editor of

the Conservative Home website, and the signatory to the letter in the

Telegraph today, opposing proposals for gay marriage.

What is it like in your constituency, what are the

feelings? People are saddened on this. For some reason David Cameron

has decided to try to rush this legislation through parliament. I

don't think the thing has been thought through to any great degree.

Progressively the older the local Conservative members are, the more

uncomfortable they feel about this. Because they have been brought up

that marriage has been between a man and a woman, and that they feel

we should, and to bring up children as well. To be presented with what

appears to be a fait accompli. they faiing to you that is it, we

are not going to -- saying that is it, we are not campaigning for you?

It is too early to say. We had a local by-election recently, it was

pretty hard to get people to go out and put round the leaflets and

everything else. Why on earth is he doing it, then? Actually, a year

after he became Conservative leader, he made it very clear that he saw

marriage as being something, not just between a man and a woman, but

potentially two men, two women. This is something David Cameron has

believed in for a long time. There is, as Jeffrey said, a lot of

unhappiness in Tory ranks, not just on this issue, but on a number of

issues, this almost seems to be a last straw that has broke the

camel's back for many people. But there is a history of lots of

issues like civil partnerships, and Section 28, causing a lot of fuss

at the time, and then as soon as the legislation is passed, it

subsides. I think that's what will happen with this reform. Let's find

out, you are one of the signatories to the letter, saying you are very

unhappy about it, are you going to roll over in the end? No, I think

the worst thing about this ill- thought-out proposal is it demeans

marriage, which is sacrosanct and has a special meaning in the Church

of England, especially, but also it is the law of unintended

consequences. If we rush through this law, and down the line there

will have to be definitions created, there will have to be, I don't want

to go on to clause 28, marriage will have to be taught in churches,

and in schools to schoolchildren. No longer will we be able to say

that marriage between a man and a woman is something special. Now, I

think we're in a very good place with civil partnerships, to that

extent I think there has been sea change, but they are still

relatively new. What worries me about this proposal is we didn't

campaign on it, I didn't have the chance to say, in my extended

election campaign in 2010, that this was either part of my

manifesto, or when the coalition agreement was being written as I

was still campaigning, I wasn't able to say I disagreed with it.

There is a great strength of feeling, perhaps it is a

Metropolitan, rural issue, perhaps it is a younger person versus an

older person issue, it is very devisive, let's come back to it in

three years time. You said he made it clear very early in his

leadership he believed in it, why not put it in the manifesto or the

coalition agreement? That is a good point, for most people, there is a

Mori poll last week, 75% of the British people have no problem with

this reform. That is not the point? As long as religious liberty is

protected. They would be in favour of free chocolate, that isn't in

the manifesto, that is a meaningless manifesto? How many

people read the leader's man -- the manifesto rather than the leader's

speech. We fight elections on manifestos, it is the legislative

programme. For most people watching this debate, they can't understand

why a lot of Conservatives are unhappy about it, as long as

religious liberty is protected. are a Conservative, presumably you

understand it. Which aspect. understand why people like

Jeffrey's friends in Surrey Heath are so exorcited about it?

understand people are worried about a reform being imposed upon them.

The Government is clear unless religious liberty is protected.

legally can't protect religious liberties, the latest announcement

last week, trying to exclude the Church of England has made matters

worse, it shows how ill-thought-out this proposal is. In the end, what

is your majority, thousands? They weigh the Conservative vote?

There is no such thing a as a safe seat. I totally disagree with you.

This is highly controversial, this is overturning 5,000 years worth of

accepted wisdom that marriage is between a man and a woman, people,

to overturn that, in a whim and the fashion, at such short notice,

surely a wise man would give much more consideration and debate of

this. Do you think it may be a matter of personal conviction for

him. It might be something he believes in very strongly? I'm sure

he may well be. We are not a dictatorship, we are in a democracy,

an issue like this should be debated fully, and both sides of

the argument should be fully debated at considerable length. We

shouldn't rush something like this. One of the most alarming things for

people, and I have had a lot of letters from people who will say,

whether they will remember about it, if it is passed through very

quickly, but they say they won't vote for us again or work for us

again. What about the people who responded to the consultation, and

what about the 500,000-plus people who have declared that they

vehemently opposed to this particular proposal. You may have

some people who won't vote for you, presumably there will be lots of

happily married gay people who will vote for you? I personally want to

celebrate marriage, and celebrate civil partnership, I don't think we

should merge the two, drg -- I think the two are totally different.

Isn't that t you appeal to a different constituency? For me,

marriage is an incredibly important institution, it doesn't just join

two people together, it joins the couple's loved ones, friends and

family together as well, I think it is right that such an important

institution, an incredibly conservative institution, doesn't

exclude anyone in society. And actually, by introducing equal

marriage, we broaden and popularise an institution, and make it more

central to society, not less central to society. Men and women

are different. At as a one-time divorce lawyer, I know part of the

reason that marriage has succeeded in the way it has is for the

protection of women and children. If you change the ground rules,

there are going to be some very confused people out there, in the

church, in schools, in society at large, and I just think we have set

a very. What will they be confused about? About what the implications

are. It is lifetime commitment of two people? We have it in civil

partnerships, what is the need to change at this pace. Lots of things

have changed in marriage over decent decades, the church opposed

the remarriage, Jesus spoke about remarriage being wrong, in gay he

never spoke about gay partnerships being wrong. I don't think the Old

Testament is a place you want to go for the purpose of this argument.

think it is the New Testament actually? The Old Testament is more

rigorous about these issues. that in your pipe and smoke it?

I do! Supposing, that there is no resigning from this issue,

supposing that David Cameron says I'm sorry, I really, profoundly

believe in this, I'm the leader of this party, I will go ahead with it,

what will happen in an area like your's? I think regretfully we will

lose a certain number of members, probably to UKIP, that is where

they will go. Their manifesto on this specific issue is very clear.

I think it is a policy which we as Conservatives would like, we are

totally in favour of civil partnership, but we do feel that

going to marriage, so quickly is too quickly. We will lose

supporters, and we will regretfully find it more difficult to get

people to go out. If this goes through, I think we will have two-

and-a-half years and I would like to think that David Cameron will

get a second term. If there is a mass exodus, from marginal seats,

which will determine the next Government, then was it really

worth it, to introduce it with such haste, rather than put it into the

next manifesto and have a country debate with it. Some risk for you

to take the party? Lot of people think David Cameron is a PR guy,

here is someone who was completely contrary to some opinion polls,

standing out and saying this is where I stand. I think a lot of

people, like with Margaret Thatcher in the past, they may not agree

with him on this issue, but I think they will respect him for more it.

The next election will not be about gay marriage t will be about the

National Health Service, the economy and jobs. Just as civil

partnerships were accepted, just as the controversy of Section 28 went

away, this will go away, I do not believe this will be a big issue at

the next election. We will see. Thank you very much.

They buried the first two of the victims of the massacre at Sandy

Hook Elementary School, boys of six years old. The country is still in

shock, and political reaction is not much further than President

Obama's question of visiting violence on America's children is

the price of freedom. What to do about the semi-sacred state us of

guns in parts of the US is the big question. One American lepblgs lace

lator has delivered himself of the wisdom that he thinks that the

reason for the tragedy at the school was because the principal

The Second Amendment's association with freedom and rights is what

lies at the heart of the debate on guns in the US. Forget the word

"militia" for many this is the guarantee against tyranny.

Yet, the soul-searching after the Newtown massacre, has inevitably

led to questions about the state of gun control in America. These

tragedies must end. To end them we must change. We will be told that

the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No

single law, no set of laws, can eliminate evil from the world or

prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that

can't be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this?

It has been tried before, after the assassinations of President Kennedy,

Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy, the 1968 Begun Control Act,

crew the right to own a gun from certain catagories of criminals,

including drug addictss and those with severe mental disorders. Then

there was the Brady Act, named after the former assistant to

Ronald Regan, shot in an assassination ateplt tempt. It

requires background checks -- attempt. It requires background

checks, flagging up those with a criminal record or history of

mental health problems. President Clinton also pushed a ban on

assault weapons through Congress in 194. But that law was allowed to

lapse a decade later. There are now calls to reinTate it T It is time

to pass an enforcable and effective assault weapons ban, one that isn't

riddled with loopholes and easy evasion. A previous ban expired in

2004, and even though President Bush supported reinstating it,

Congress never acted, that must change. Congress should also ban

the high-capacity magazines that have been used again and again in

these mass shootings. A senator has now promised to

introduce the necessary legislation next year. But in Newtown, it is

too late. We have the author of More Guns

Less Crime, and believes areas that have experienced increased gun

ownership have seen a drop in crime. He joins us from fill Delphiia.

Do you think guns are good for America? I think guns make it

easier for bad things to happen, but they also make it easier for

people to defend themselves, and prevent bad things from happening.

On that, more lives are saved as a result of people owning guns. You

see this around the world. Every place around the world that we have

crime data before and after a ban, shows that when you have a ban,

murder rates go up by at least a little bit, and they often go up by

dramatic amounts. There is a simple reason for that. That is, when you

ban guns, it is the law-abiding, good citizens, who turn in their

guns, not the criminals. We disarm law-abiding citizens with regard to

criminals, you don't make it safer, you make it easier for criminals to

commit their crimes. You do accept if you were designing a modern

constitution for a modern country, you would not put in the right to

bear arms? I don't see. That police are extremely important in

protecting people. They are the single most important factor, but

at the same time, the police can't be there all the time. They

virtually always arrive on the crime scene after the crime has

been committed. The question is, what do you advise someone who is

being raped, or robbed or murdered to do when they are having to

confront a criminal by themselves. Simply telling them to behave

passively is not very good advice. It is actually much more likely to

get you killed, or harmed, than having a gun for protection. Plus

the fact that you have a gun can deter criminals. Take Britain and

the United States, one interesting contrast is residential robbers,

the rate at which burglars break into homes where the residents are

home. Britain as twice the rate than the US. What is more telling,

only 13% of the time when burglars occur in the United States are

Americans in their homes. In Britain when it occurs, 59% of the

time, when a burglar comes it is when people are in the home.

American burglars spend a longer time casing the homes before they

break in. The number one reason they gave, they spend twice as long

casing homes than the British counterpart. We are going to trade

statistic cystics, can you remind us precisely how many gun murders

there were in the United States last year? There is more than in

Britain. You have about 8,500. There were 550 murders all up in

Britain last year? The murder rate for Britain compared to the United

States was lower before you had gun control laws. That is true in other

countries. When you have gun control, murder rates go up. There

are lots of reasons why murder rates vary across countries.

this argument it would have been a good thing had the headteacher and

the teachers at that school, where this awful tragedy happened last

Friday, had they been armed, it would have been better, would it?

think so. Look, there is one phenomenon we see here, all the

multiple victim public shootings in the United States, since at least

1950, with one exception, and all the multiple victim public

shootings in Europe, even in Switzerland, have all he occurred

where guns are banned. In Switzerland it is very easy to get,

carry a concealed handgun, half the time you don't need a permit, the

other half it is easy to get a permit. There is a couple of big

multiple shooting victims in Switzerland. Each has occurred,

where tiny areas where guns aren't aed load. One example from the

United States. This is just like all the others, in, we had the

Aurora movie theatre shooting in July. There were seven movie

theatres within a 20-minute drive of the killer's apartment, only one

banned guns. The killer didn't go to the movie theatre that was

closest to his home, he didn't go to the largest one, there was one

movie theatre that brags about having the largest auditoriums in

the state. Instead he went to the single movie theatre that banned

concealed handguns, and prevented people from defending themselves.

The simple way to think about this, God forbid, some violent criminal

was threatening you and your family, would you feel safer putting a sign

in your front yard saying this home is a gun-free zone. Would that stop

the criminal attacking you there. Nobody would do that. Would you put

a sign like that in front of your home. Thank you.

Now Lionel Schriver wrote the novel We Need To Talk About Kevin, about

massacre in a school. Can we talk about this. You were born in the

states, you are about to take British citizenship? Definitely.

you continue your self-improvement. With more stories like this,

definitely. Do you understand why the gun has got this special place

in American culture? It runs very deep in the history. I had to

memorise part of the declaration of independence in junior high school,

most importantly that bit about how the state governs at the consent of

the governed, and it is up to the governed, to consent or withdraw it.

And abolish the Government and start another one. The first time

we did that, we did that violently. Schoolchildren learn this, that if

you don't like your Government, you essentially have the right, the

moral right to overthrow it. I don't think it is an exaggeration

to say there is an element of the the gun right's lobby that really

has to do with, in the back of their minds, if push comes to shove,

we should be able to overthrow the Government by force. But this is a

mature, stable democracy, there is no chance of the state being

overthrown? Of course not, it is a fantasy. That is one of the things

that is a little odd about it. I mean, there have been occasions

where citizens tried to withdraw their consent, and it didn't work

out very well. Look at Wacko, Timothy McVai, killed by lethal in-

- McVeigh, killed by lethal injection, it is an absurdty. There

is an element in the United States that is very uncomfortable with the

states, suspicious, and even hostile. And feels that rather than

the state needing to have that classic monopoly on violence, that

that the citizen needs to be armed to counter balance the power of the

state. When you hear an argument like the one we have just heard

there, put pretty cogently by that fella in Philadelphia, about people

protecting themselves, do you understand that? Yes, I do. I

understand the primitive need to defend yourself, especially in the

country where lots of other people have guns. It does compound itself.

If many other people in your surround are armed, then you feel

like a fool not to be. Is there something uniquely man nef lent

about Americans? -- Uniquely menacing as an environment? No, I

don't think so. What's behind it? think the gun has become an emblem

of that unfettered, individual liberty, that Americans are told

over and over again, that they enjoy. But they don't really have.

That makes the gun even more important. The truth is Americans

are as overtaxed and overregulated and controlled with this, that and

the other thing, as any other country. They are told all the time

they are free. They don't feel free, I think the gun has a way of giving

you that sensation of real liberty. Guns convey power. They convey so

much power, when you think about it, all you can get people to do, if

you have one, take off their clothes, let you into their house,

give you all their money. It's amazing that every American doesn't

have a gun. Just 0 to talk briefly about this awful -- just to talk

briefly about this awful killing. Given the subject matter of your

own novel, We Need To Talk About Kevin what did you conclude when

you saw what happened? Mmm. Nothing. That's what's so difficult

about these things, is they believe you stymied. There is nothing to

conclude, you know, there has been, one of the reasons we are talking

about gun control, is that it's one of the only things to, one of the

only lessons to draw, because otherwise you just are left with

the capacity of human beings, especially unbalanced ones, in this

case, for man nef lens, and there is nothing to say. I was approached

by countless newspapers over the weekend to write for them. I had to

turn them down, partly out of a sense of humility. Incapacity.

felt you could say nothing? I could say nothing.

The detail about this killing that most upset me, was the fact that

these little children were shot multiple times, and with accuracy,

to absolutely make sure they were dead. My imagining of most people

who fantasise about this kind of an incident, ahead of time, once they

get there, I don't think it usually feels the way they think it is

going to. That gives them some kind of pause. But this guy, there was

no pause, and once he was actually putting a gun into a six-year-old's

face, he didn't hesitate. That just floors me.

Thank you. There were protests again tonight

in Northern Ireland, where loyalists dream of red, white and

blue Christmas. One police officer was injured. They are still

agrieved, the loyalists, at the decision by Belfast City Council

that the Union Flag is only to be flown on designated days rather

than year-round. There has been violence associated with some of

these protests, but the majority are passing off peacefully. In the

context of the province's history, that in itself, may be significant.

We report from there. They streamed into the city senter

from their housing estates. A community bereft. The flagpole

above Belfast City Hall, striped of the Union Flag. Only to return on

select days, like the Queen's birthday. Attention, attention,

please move now, failure to move, may make you liable to arrest.

Christmas shoppers looked on, then carried on. But Northern Ireland's

working-class Protestants are used to not fitting in. While Belfast

bustles with progress and promise, they feel left behind, a sense of

abandonment, that has made the flag dispute so potent. Our British

identity is being eroded and undermined at every turn. It is

very frustrating for young people to see all aspects of the culture.

Our very identity as British citizens is under attack.

anguish over this issue shows it is about far more than what is or

isn't flying over City Hall here. For loyalists, the Union Flag is a

symbol of what binds them to the rest of us in the United Kingdom

its remove, they say, is prove that all of that is --. Its removal,

they say, is proof that all of that is at risk. The City Hall, once a

symbol of power, voted to take down the flag. Catholic councillors

might have seen it gone for good, but accepted a compromise to fly it

on selected days. A community worker is trying to help fellow

loyalists deal with their loss. A former paramilitary, he believes

his old Republican enemies have gone too far. We were promised a

dividend from the peace, and the only dividend we have got from the

peace is a continual erosion of our Britishness. The Republicans are

playing this game, and the game is to a different type of war, a

totally different type of war, it is war. It is a war of removing

everything we hold dear, so they can gain plaudits in their

community for doing that. Since the vote was taken, loyalist

anger has been expressed in time- honoured ways. Members of the

Alliance Party, that brokered the flag compromise have been

threatened. Their offices and homes attacked. A petrol bomb was thrown

into a police woman's car, she was lucky to get out. Tonight, another

police officer was injured in Belfast, as hundreds of

demonstrators blocked roads. But, over the last week, most of the

protests have been peaceful. The word "enclave" might have been

invented for this place. Themed in by giant peace walls, the

inhabitants describe themselves as prisoners. I will take you to my

house, show you a good example of where we have been attacked. Emma

shows me the broken glass and China that she says is regularly hurled

in from the surrounding nationalist estates. In interface areas it is

two-way traffic. But like many residents here, Emma has had enough.

My house of petroled bombed on the 1st July last year. There was kids

stuff along here. We had a trampoline there, there was over

�250 worth of damage. Was anyone in the garden? I was in the kitchen.

The petrol bombing of her garden while her two children were at home,

has driven her to leave. Danny is also look to go move.

Believing her two daughters, playing here with their cousin,

aren't safe. The flag issue has seen her join the protests for the

first time ever. She's not interested in politics, but she

says it is time for people like her to speak out. I'm not going to

stand and argue with somebody over a flag, or over a religion, you

know, I don't believe in that. I sit in the house just with the kids

and that's it. What's made you go out and take part in protests on

this issue? The actual just pure anger over what is being said. We

are being put down, told you aren't British, you aren't this, you can't

have your flag. What we are putting up with in the area. I mean not

being able to let your kids out and play. That is a constant thing.

That has been getting worse. This time of year we shouldn't have to

worry about it. # God save our glorious Queen

# God save our Queen The street demonstrations are

giving such people a voice. They are largely organised on social

media. Crowds gather quickly, roads are closed, and they move on. One

of those taking part is Jamie. He's unusual, a young loyalist, willing

to be interviewed, without covering his face. He wants to go into

politics. The mainstream unionist political parties have to reconnect

with the British community, especially the young people. They

have to give them some sort of avenue to express these concerns

and grievances. We are not getting that at the moment. We don't feel,

especially young people, there is strong representations from the

main unionist parties at Stormont, we feel Stormont is failing us.

Through the protests, people like myself are trying to encourage all

young people to get involved politically.

In a city where some communities remain in tribes, Reverend Chris

Hudson gets about. The peace we have here in Northern Ireland is

not the property of politicians, nor the property of paramilitaries,

it is the property of all of us. From a republican family in Dublin,

he's a trusted go-between for British loyalism. His Unitarian

church, of course, supports gay marriage, so he's not one to give

up on a cause. And sees signs of change. What we do need to do is

engage with those who are feeling hurt and an grow. We can't just,

you know, disassociate ourselves from them, and say they are the

rabble, they are the thugs. We have got to engage with them. The people

I speak to, within loyalism, people that are seeing and regarded as

significant in their communities, I find that they are willing to

engage on a lot of different levels. On the level of inclusiveness,

reconciliation, they are willing to look and talk to the other

community, and see how they can find common ground.

If loyalists have felt cornered, the recent census should have given

pause. The Catholic population might be rising at a faster rate,

but, middle-class Catholics, in particular, are prospering, they

are doing it as citizens of the UK, not Ireland. Jim Wilson wants young

loyalists to start catching up. The first step is to get more of them

to vote. Our community has got so desperate in the sense that nothing

has been happening for them, nothing is being done for them.

They have lost faith in their politicians and the willing to out

and vote, and some young lads have lost the will to register to vote.

The difficulty in the City Hall is that is the only way we will get it

back is getting kids to register to vote and come out and vote. They

need good leadership. Normally when you hear from loyalism, it is

always bad news, rage and rioting. As a community, it remains insecure

and angry. But with these flag protests, I think you are starting

to see some of that being expressed differently. Traditions pass

through the generations here. So do grievances. And if loyalists can

choose political engagment over despair, and respond constructively

to fresh calls to end the protests, they might have a chance to be

heard. Our latest audience research shows

that for the very first time, a nice carddy and a pair of slippers

have been eclipsed as Newsnight's viewers' most requested Christmas

present. As supermarkets and retail outlets reveal that the onsie are

the most popular item. Where this lack of taste came from is a

mystery, not to Mr Smith. At this special time of year,

what's better than bundling up warm and cosy with that certain someone,

as part of a poor Newsnight reconstruction.

And what has Santa brought this lucky pair? Onesies.

That's right, kids, forget the tangerine and hoola hoop, the thing

the stars are finding under the tree, is a one-piece garment in

luxurious man made fibres. Lounging

# Lounging # Mellow out and lounging

I know what you are thinking, is this new fangled loungewear really

so different from the grim old long john, and the surgical stocking.

many people have told me they will never wear it. And I Geoff them one,

and they get one, and -- I give them one, and they get one, and

they come back and say they are very, very sorry, it is the most

comfortable piece of clothing they have ever tried on.

Do you like facts about retail? Well, one high street chain told us

their sales of onesies was up almost 600% compared to last year.

Another said they have sold a onesie a minute, since they were

launched two months ago. Maybe in the current economic environment

people love the idea of wearing a onesie, because it is sort of, yes,

very child-like, almost babyish, you put it on, it is nice and cosy,

there is nothing to worry about, maybe it is like a security blanke.

I think some of our readers probably love a onesie. They are

very warm, comfortable and if you are trying to save on the heating

bills. They don't look great. you think my hip looks odd, look at

the rest of me! Let us now praise famous men, in tights. Role models

like TV's John Noakes have shown us the all-in-one can be as elegant as

practical. Winston Churchill himself banished the mystery of

messy shirt tails, with his customised siren suit. We are not

here to give political advice, if we were, we might be saying to

these fellas, chill out and snuggle down. They are so phenomenally

popular, everybody can wear one, everybody looks equally rubbish in

them, you don't worry what you look like. They are incredibly

comfortable. You could go back ten years ago and people would say they

never would wear tracksuit bottoms, once you do, they are too

comfortable not to wear them. So, enjoy. It is something that people

want, but it takes them a bit of time to get used to it. I guess the

woman from Cosmo hasn't tried one on yet. When you first try them on

it is difficult to take off. The One Nation, on Newsnight? You

are laughing now, I mean that metaphorically, but at least you

are forewarned for when you unwrap one next week! Right, tomorrow

morning's front pages now. The That's it for tonight. $500 million

of space exploration ended in a double crash on the moon about 45

minutes ago. NASA organised for two spacecraft, each about the size of