09/05/2013 Newsnight

it the Holy Grail of British politics. What to do about

childcare? But it is in confusion tonight. As Nick Clegg appears to

veto coalition policy. Would it really lower childcare costs and

increase pay to child minders as the Government says, or would

increasing the number of children who can be supervised by child

minders make things worse for everyone, especially the children?

We will debate what works and whether the coalition itself needs

some adult supervision. Also tonight, 26 years after a private

detective called Daniel Morgan was murdered, five police

investigations and a collapsed trial later tomorrow the Home

Secretary will announce an inquiry, Daniel's brother wants justice.

made a promise to my brother, I said I'm not going to stop until I

see this exposed. The outspoken US writer and academic, Dr Cornel West

joins us, to discuss race in America, and why he's disappointed

with Barack Obama. And some thought in the best rock

drummer in the world, in one of the world's first super groups, Ginger.

I have never thrown a TV out of a hotel window in my life. I walked

through a hotel glass doors once, but not intentionally.

Good evening, one of the marks of civilisation, you might think, is

how parents, families and ultimately a nation,s after its

children. Childcare in this country is some of the most expensive in

Europe, a worry for millions of parents, it is also the most

tightly regulate. The Government plans to relax the rules by

allowing child minders to take extra children into their groups,

has been blown apart by this programme's revelation that the

Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, is opposing what is thought to be

settled policy. What better way to spend a Thursday afternoon than

gently painting a paving stone. The Busy Bees Nursery in Colchester in

Essex certainly feels busy, 86 little ones spend time here every

week. It is one of the biggest chains in the country, and at the

heart of a coalition spat. Last night on Newsnight we revealed that

Nick Clegg was uncomfortable with the idea of watering down the rules

on adult-to-children ratios in childcare. This morning a

Conservative minister was hauled before the Commons to explain what

on earth was going on. The real cost of childcare, which every

family in this country faces has risen by 77% in real terms since

2003. Childcare inflation is going up by 6% every year. If we don't do

something about this, if we don't reform the supply of childcare we

are going to find that it becomes prohibitive. The scale of public

opposition to her plans has been overwhelming. The Government's own

adviser on childcare Professor Katy Brown has said the ratio plans and

I quote, "make no sense at all". The minister was piling them so

high and wanting to teach them so cheap it was bound to come crashing

down at some point. Back at nursery in Colchester there was an extra

grown-up keeping an eye on the kids this afternoon. And keeping an eye

too on what Conservative ministers were saying. When we consulted on

this idea, the response from experts from nurseries and

crucially from parents was overwhelmingly negative, in other

words they raised a lot of serious concerns. That is why I want to

make sure that we have a careful look at these proposals, don't take

a leap in the dark, if you like, in a way that won't necessarily reduce

costs or raise the quality of childcare. Margaret Randall set up

this chain of nurseries 30 years ago, happily for Nick Clegg she

shares his view. This nursery here is an outstanding nursery. We

wouldn't change ratios just to save costs and I don't think our parents

would be happy if we did either. are going in for a bit of

multicoloured tower building here. You only have to spend half an hour

in a nursery like this to realise how hard it is to keep track of how

many children you have around you, there is four here building their

towers. For the coalition wrestling with the cost of living, being seen

to do something about it, is absolutely crucial. The cost of

living for many young families is ramped up by the cost of childcare.

But what about ratios of staff-to- children, can tinkering with them

make a difference in terms of the care the children are offered, and

can it make a difference in terms of the bills that parents receive

every month? Conservative ministers proudly trumpet how good the staff-

to-children ratios are in England, one adult to look after every four

kids. The proposed shake-up would change it to one to six, the same

as in the netherlands and Ireland. The ratio in France is 1-8.

International comparisons ram home how expensive childcare is. It is

costs on average 27% of family income in the UK. It is a similar

figure in Ireland, but it is just 10% in both the Netherlands and

France. Both sides of the coalition emphasise the idea to change the

staffing ratios is one they have been taking soundings on rather

than firm policy. Conservatives stress no nursery or childminder

would be forced to look after more children, staff would be better

trained. But would changing the rules save parents money? We did

some very quick calculation and we couldn't see where a saving was

going to come from. There would be nothing material to give back to

the parents. Coalition spats can seem arcane outside Westminster,

but not this one for Anita here to collect her son, Barnaby. It is

something we have concerns about, the ratios lower down definitely

should not be increased. I cannot imagine how you could look after

more than two or three two-year- olds, it would be really difficult.

I don't know, I don't work in childcare. But I cannot imagine how

they would cope. For nurseries, child minders and politicians too,

the Holy Grail is convincing parents like Anita that they can

provide top-notch affordable child cautious getting there is proving

rather tricky. We have been trying all day to find

people who work in childcare in this country in favour of the

changes of the ratios from children-to-child minders, while we

did identify one or two, none were able to talk to us tonight. We have

our guest from the early years foundation. Is there any hard

evidence that changing the ratios makes any difference at all?

evidence is that you have to have the right ratios, and you have to

have the right set of qualifications and you have to have

the right environment. It is the combination that actually is about

high quality. That's what's important. So when people say, yes,

but if you can just, ratios don't matter to quality, it is assuming

that ratios are part of a much more complex combination. That is very

dangerous. You accept affordability is a problem for a huge number of

people. Entirely.If you had the choice with not being able to

afford it at all, and therefore being excluded, or going to a

nursery where there is five when you would rather have four children

in a little group, you might settle for something that is not as great

as you think? I think we have to look at it in a much broader way.

First of all Mr Clegg has been brave enough to stand up and listen

to the sector, nobody else has been listening to it. They are

completely coherent on it, there is no real agreement that changing

ratios is a good idea. He has a huge policy driver for social

mobility and the two-year-olds in to nurseries from the 40% poorest

parts of this country is one of the big moves to er they call early

intervention. You capture the very young children very early and help

them to ensure that they succeed in school. Isn't there common ground

on that? Well, because two-year- olds have the biggest variation in

child development. To narrow the gap in two-year-olds you have to

have really good language acquisition. A child from a poorer

family will hear 600 words an hour, a child from a professional family

will hear 2,100. By the time they are three the difference is 30

million words they have heard. If you reduce the ratios you limited

the interaction, you limited chances for one-to-one and strong

empathetic connections. Children under three are developing their

synatic connections at a rate per second. Wouldn't it allow those who

can't afford to go to a group to go to a group? We can. This thing with

France, I paid for myself to go to France and have a good look, France

contributes very significantly to its service. The Government is

trying to do something on the cheap. It is not paying the fair rate. If

you talk about early years as part of education, nobody says how much

an hour in a school costs, there is no issue about it. It is the same

in childcare. If you know what the hourly rate is for childcare, then

pay it. Of course the Government don't, they want to get it in cheap.

That's why parents have to pick up the bigger gap. Do you have a clue

where this policy is tonight? Not at all. But I was very

interested you observed that you couldn't get anyone to speak out

against it. The thing is that really depresses the sector is

there are some very interesting things to. Do the ratio thing has

hijacked a much bigger agenda, the big huge agenda is the social

mobility agenda that would make a significance to -- significant

difference to a huge number of little two-year-olds. Where is the

policy tonight? My sense is that ratios die, it is not official yet.

Because both Liberal Democrats and Conservativess I have spoken to

have said the strength of Nick Clegg's feel something so strong.

thought it was all agreed? They did think that. There has been a lot of

heated exchanges across Westminster and the lobby today about whether

it was in the nature, I do think it is a bit weird that you have a

consultation and you have agreed it before your consultation, none the

less that is Government policy and has been forever, that you agree

your policy and then you consult. That is what they did. Earlier

today my colleague got hold of the letters between Elizabeth Truss and

Nick Clegg, where she says to Nick Clegg and other cabinet ministers,

I need you to sign this off, speak now or forever hold your peace. The

highest profile bit of her reforms are the ratios, this will be the

biggest thing about it and they sign it off. This is last December.

Added to which, before Elizabeth Truss entered politics this is what

she wrote and talked about. When she was promoted to the cabinet

almost a year ago this was clearly what she was going to do. I think

Conservatives feel that this was a long time coming. I think right at

the top of the Government the Prime Minister is very irritated about

this. Irritated, where does that leave the coalition? I think as I

said last night this is setting a precedent. Last night was supposed

to be this good moment for the coalition where you had them

showing, look, we maybe two years away from a general election but we

can still agree enough policy to have a Queen's Speech. We slightly

ruined the show. Because we showed that actually even on things that

are supposedly done and dusted they can be unpicked. That precedent is

what worries Conservatives, Lib Dems are clearly worried enough

about that to be going around and saying hold on a second it wasn't a

done deal, really quibbling on that issue. It has then led on to, I

don't think it is causal, but I do think at moss officerically there

is some thinking, the -- atmosphereically there is some

thinking. I think there will be talks about this not mentioned in

the Queen's Speech, and the Prime Minister has said go for it. He

never says that. There is a new spirit, political journalism we are

always breathless about these things, a new era in the coalition.

But a lot of people feel two years out from the general election that

there is a feeling things won't be so easy to get deals on. What is

Government policy tonight, where does all this leave the coalition,

and does Labour actually have an alternative? Sharon Hodgson speaks

for Labour on children's issues, Clare Perry is an adviser to David

Cameron, and the Lib Dem, Duncan Hames is the parliamentary private

secretary to Nick Clegg. When did Nick Clegg change his mind on it?

He has been in discussions with Government ministers for weeks.

Obviously the Government has been consulting. It is very important

for something as important as who looks after families and children

and how that the Government listens to what carers and families,

parents have to say about this. When did he change his mind on it?

He has been talking to Government ministers for weeks about this

issue. As far as he's concerned this matter hasn't been closed. It

is important that we should listen to what people say. Was his mind

made up in December, he hadn't made up his mind, he had an open mind

and now he has? He thought it was right there was a public

consultation. It is important we do everything we can as a Government

to get it right, and that involves listening to people. Was it a

coincidence he made up his mind on day he was visiting a nursery?

think you will find that I saw him on Tuesday, when he met with

Elizabeth Truss, he obviously had an important meeting with her about

the subject then. So he changed his mind then, I'm trying to find out

when he changed his mind and whether today was a stunt. Was it a

stunt to go to a child's nursery, have that planned and go ahead and

make this splash? This policy matter, this measure has been up

for debate within the Government for weeks. The Government has been

listening to what the public, parents, carers and what the

experts have been saying about it and trying to resolve what is the

best way phwoar. It is one of a whole range -- forward. This is one

of a whole range of measure that is the Government is trying to make

childcare more affordable. This does blow a hole in one of the

biggest ones that Elizabeth Truss cares about? This is a slightly

depression of politicianing studying their navals. The reality

is millions of womens can't go back to work and they want to because it

is difficult to find quality childcare. When we talk about the

ratios, a tiny part of the proposals. I was involved for a

noft for profit nursery on the board for five years, they were

stymied by the racial yo. The problem with the ratios is they are

so prescriptive, there is no way to say you have highly qualified staff

perhaps we could relax the ratios and reinvest in staff. One the

things that didn't come across is these changes are entirely

voluntary, they are up to nurseries and parents to decide. You will

change the ratios? I think changing the ratios is part of a whole range

of measures that gives us better- quality and more affordable

childcare. I would be disappoint if we dropped that. You might have to?

That is coalition politics, unfortunate lo. It is such an

important thing, it is too important thing to play petty

politics with it. Sharon's Government did a lot in this area.

We have struggled for years, we have some of the most expensive and

lowest-quality childcare in the western world, we have to fix that

for parents. When David Cameron says it is the Holy Grail, and he

presumably did think he had a deal on this, and Elizabeth Truss

thought she had a deal in December, you must be irritated? I am and

disappointed. We talked a lot about ratios, we haven't talked at all

about the additional money we are going to give parents about the

affordability problem. All the other structural changes that will

mean child minders who had exited this industry in droves because

they were driven out by red tape will come back and give parents

more flexibility that they need. you regret when Labour was in power

you didn't do enough on this, this is when the problem really became

significant? We inherited such a terrible situation with regard to

childcare and the work force, and we did a lot. And the work force,

the status, the qualifications was raised a lot. But currently we all

recognised we face a childcare crisis. More than a decade to sort

it out? We did do a lot. Everybody usually acknowledges it. Childcare

since 2003 has risen by 77%, costs. Everyone will say that? Why did the

Government one of the first things they did was cut the Childcare Tax

Credit from 80% to 70%. That was immediately taking money off people

that they were using to pay towards their childcare. The subject to

hand is ratios, I think ratios don't have to be discussed in this

whole debate. A lot of the things, some of the things that Liz Truss

is talking about with regard to the qualifications and Professor Katy

Nutbrown we agree with her, but she says the proposals on ratios would

be detrimental and damaging to children's safety and quality.

Again, forgive me, I have huge amount of respect for you

colleagues, there is scaremongering about ratios, we are relaxing them

to French models. We hold them up to Scandinavian and French models

saying it is a better system. is a great deal more state

intervention in the way it is run. You would accept that. They are

strongly run by the state. That is where the money comes from.

particularly deprived two-year-olds. This isn't a shortage of money we

spend twice The OC D average. is not true, that is disputed, it

is less it is �4.5 billion at most. Every child gets vouchers worth

�2,000 a year, there is a lot of money spent and the system is

broken. There has been a dramatic fall in the number of child minders.

I don't think it is chieped child minders with time on their hands,

we don't have enough of them. I support the other issue of

childminder agencies, so people passionate to look after children

who don't want to file tax returns and all that, will concentrate on

doing what they love best. Are you saying the ratios question is now a

dead issue, it is gone and won't go through? We haven't seen the

evidence that it would help either on making childcare more affordable.

Unless you have the evidence you don't have a firm way forward.

have just come out of committee, which is one of the things that

Nick Clegg might have looked at. We had a massively fierce debate in

committee were this was discussed. The lack of evidence, under

scrutiny this policy fell apart. There is no evidence in support.

Where is the evidence that reducing the ratios. All the experts, the

parents, the voice of parents in this should be listened to, as well

as the experts and the professionals, they are all against

it T If we have the tight, again I don't want to talk about ratios, if

we have the tightest ratios in western Europe and we are not

delivering affordable high-quality childcare with those ratios it is

right to look at the industry and say we have to be bold and take

some really big steps to try to deliver better childcare. The point

was raised about the possibility of a vote next week on the European

issue, which may be completely different issue, or it may be that

the irritation that David Cameron is feeling about one thing means

he's saying he's quite relaxed if Conservative members vote against

Government policy? I think again, people watching this will be

depressed to hear that politicians are engaging in tit for tat votes

in the Houses of Parliament. don't think they are. Is that how

you see it, as a tit for tat vote? Potentially. Not on this, parents

are massively against it. We have a childcare system that is broken, we

have very expensive childcare in the country, we have a situation

where the costs have gone up and the ratios need to be reduced.

is the answer, what would Labour do. We are looking at this, we have a

childcare commission. You had 13 years to look at it. We did so much.

Drove up the costs 70% that is quite an achievement. It wasn't our

policies that drove up the costs, there are all sorts of other issues

in play that affect the cost. One of the things was we improved the

standard of the work force, we started improving that, we brought

in the early years professional status, that was massively welcomed.

No disagreement on. That we get back to the point of saying, we

never talk about parents and say what do parents want, which is more

choice in this, we have to take important decisions and try and

educate people, educate everybody as to why this could be the right

thing to do. Still to come:

Legendary drummer Ginger Baker bashes out an interview with Steve

Smith. Tomorrow the Government is expected to announce a public

inquiry into one of the most murky unsolved murders of the past 30

years. In 1987 Daniel Morgan, a private investigator was killed

with an axe, his body found in a south London pub car park. In a

moment we will hear from his brother, Alastair, who has

campaigned through five police investigations and a collapsed

trial for someone to be held accountable. In March 1987 the

private detective, Daniel Morgan, was found dead, an axe in his head,

in the car park of the Golden Lion Pub in south London. His family

believe he was on the verge of exposing police corruption. Ever

since they have campaigned for his killers to be brought to justice.

Five separate police inquiries have failed to do that. Now we

understand the Home Secretary will announce an independent judge-led

inquiry into the case. It was the Leveson Inquiry which brought

Daniel Morgan back into the public sigh. At the inquiry the former

Crimewatch presenter, Jackie Hames alleged collusion between those

suspected of Morgan's murder and the News of the World. In 2002 her

husband had been leading a new inquiry into the Morgan murder and

the couple had been put under surveillance bit paper. There was

various things that happened and you can't, I think any reasonable

person would find it very difficult not to put them together and feel

that there was in some way, there was some collusion between people

at the News of the World and people who were suspected of committing

the murder of Daniel Morgan. I can't put it any clearer than that.

Jonathan Rhys, Daniel Morgan's business partner has been suspected

of the murder, he has always denied it. According to the Morgan family

the two men had fallen out, partly because Rhys had been employing

offduty police officers at their firm. The Metropolitan Police have

since admitted, at the highest ranks, commissioner and Deputy

Assistant Commissioner level that initial inquiry was crippled as a

result of corruption, corruption amongst those investigating and

corruption amongst those who protected the guilty parties.

16 years there were four separate investigations, none came to trial.

The family kept campaigning and then the Metropolitan Police

authority supported them. Finally the police apologised. The case,

particularly in the early stages suffered from the taint of

corruption. That was written by the deputy commissioner in 1986.

Another inquiry began and in 2008 four people were charged over

Daniel Morgan's murder. But the trial collapsed over the use of

Supergrass evidence. Now the family's lawyer hopes the new

inquiry, looking at old police files will show exactly who knew

what and when over more than two decades. The information that is of

interest to this family and the public will lie in those shelves in

those filing cabinets. The exchanges between the senior

management of the Metropolitan Police. The exchanges between the

Metropolitan Police and the Home Office. As the authority governing

the police. The exchanges between the Metropolitan Police and the

Crown Prosecution Service which allowed this matter to remain

unaddressed. Daniel Morgan's family hope that the inquiry can do the

work quickly. Though any report might have to wait until possible

criminal trials, hacking and corruption, are over.

A little earlier I spoke to Daniel Morgan's brother, Alastair.

What do you hope will come from this new inquiry? Well I suppose

more than anything else a recognition of the extent of the

corruption that has gone on in this case. You have had 26 years, five

police inquiries, you have had one court case, which then collapsed.

There must be somewhere in the back of your mind you think this could

be another deadend? My experience of dealing with this case. The more

I find out about it, the worse it gets. If we are going to deal with

corruption in the police force, we have to look at it straight in the

eye. We have to see how it works, the nuts and bolts of it, where it

started what decisions were made et cetera, et cetera. What I want from

this inquiry is to look at this corruption straight in the eye, if

we want do that we can never begin to deal with it. Why do you think

five police inquiries have gotten nowhere? Because of corruption.

Corruption in the beginning, corruption which basically

sabotaged the first inquiry. A refusal to recognise that

corruption, repeatedly, over many, many years. Coming to a point where

evidential opportunities are lost and where the case has been, and is

so weighted down with the failings of previous investigations that it

becomes a legal nightmare to deal W -- With. Would you accept the

police in 2013 are very different than they were in 1986, would you

accept that? No, I don't accept that. You hear that was then and

this is now, I mean if the same thing happened now as happened 26

years ago I would be very fearful that the police would act in

exactly the same way. That the reflex default cover-up mentality

is still there in the British police. You have now a Home

Secretary in Theresa May who appears to be taking this very

seriously, you have also got something else that has changed. We

have had the Hillsborough inquiry and the Leveson Inquiry, we have

had all the stuff about the phone tapping, do you think that helps

you in a way? Yes it has set the scene. I think it has provided the

background to what has been happening in this case and in many

ways the fact that Daniel's murder came up in the Leveson Inquiry

helped us. Once again it brought back into focus this murder and why

would were the News of the World doing what they did in that context.

Do you think you will live to see someone finally put on trial and

convicted for the murder of your brother? I think that is extremely

unlikely at this stage. The police have, I just don't believe so, I

don't believe so. To put place any hope in it I think would be asking

for further disappointment. What keeps you going, 26 years?

remember more than 20 years ago, when I reached a point where I

found it completely unacceptable what was going on, I made a promise

to my brother, I said I'm not going to stop until I see this exposed. I

wanted convictions. As we have seen we haven't had any. But the

corruption I promised myself and my brother that I would expose this

corruption. I think if I hadn't done it, knowing, having seen what

I saw then, I would probably have, I don't know, you know it would

have destroyed me, I think internally to not take any

responsibility for it. Just the fact that the Home Secretary is

going to announce another inquiry, is there a sense within the family

that you have been vindicated after all these years? Yes, there is

finally a sense that somebody outside the police is taking us

seriously. That, yes, there was corruption. We have been trying to

tell you that for a quarter of a century, you know. Yeah, to that

extent we feel vindicated, but there is a way to go. The anatomy

of this corruption needs to be looked at very carefully. Thank you

very much. He was said to be the greatest drummer of his generation,

one of the first-ever super-combos Cream. Now Ginger Baker has told

the story of his own life in a new documentary.

Cream, the first super-group, Eric Clapton on guitar, Jack Bruce on

bass and in the drum chair, Ginger Baker. When I met Eric I went, got

it, it was a rewarding, especially the first year or so, then it

started to go all awry by these bloody things with Marshall written

on them.Am Pli fires, too loud was it? --AmIfyers? Wow, my hearing is

damaged from the last days of Cream. Shall we sewer Rick? Jack was the

main culprit with the volume. A useful drummer and equestian and

polo player, Ginger Baker isn't in the saddle so much these days at 73.

Maybe all that hellraising back in his pomp has taken its toll. In a

new documentary Baker's illustrious former sideman grapples with the

drummer's enigma. I won't be his doctor or psychologist or make a

diagnosis, I can't make a diagnosis of Ginger, when I was driving in

today I thought do I know Ginger well? Do I? I have been with him in

fairly rarified situations which have allowed me to see certain

sides of him, I probably haven't seen him like you have seen him

because I didn't take the effort, the time, the risk to step into his

life. I was only a risk to myself, says our man. Take that time with

the glass door in the New York hotel. Anything that happened was

always me. I have never thrown a TV out of a hotel window in my life. I

walked through the GoramHotel glass doors one day, not intentionally.

But it was, I went to kick the door open and missed the bar and went

through the glass and walked through the glass. Ginger is as

good as gold, unless you push him too far, as the documentary-maker

found out. Ginger Baker hit me in the BEEP nose. I don't like silly

questions, he asked how did it feel, and I go, I don't know. How did it

feel! No. They are a four piece, Ginger Baker, Jack Bruce and Eric

Clapton and Paul on Bass. Now this is what late-night BBC Two ought to

look like. After years of living abroad, GB is back in the UK. And

on the road. Not with this band, but with the unimprovably named

Ginger Baker's Jazz Confusion. thought I had retired. I managed to

outlive my pension, as it were, so I had to go back to work. Watching

that film, one version of your life, somebody else's version of your

life, did it make you feel yeah there were things you regreted

along the way? I have got more regrets than most people, I think.

Enormous regrets of things that I wish had never happened. No I do.

Lots and lots of regrets. I lost everything, I have lost everything

six or seven times in my life. makes you an incredible survivor

doesn't it, you keep coming back? Yeah, yeah. I think a lot of people

would have committed suicide several times if they had happen to

them what I have had. When you lose everything, especially when you

have worked for years at it, I trusted the wrong people. You

really should trust the people that are not always pleasant to you. I'm

a mug. If I may ask you this question, how would you like to be

remembered Ginger Baker, when that distant day comes? Drummer.Before

the end of the programme we will have tomorrow's front pages. First,

if the traditional fault lines in Britain have always been defined

one way or another by class, in the United States they are also often

defined by race. You might think in the 21st century with an African-

American President that racial barriers are destroyed or in the

process of eroding. Every so often something catches the attention

where race becomes a persistent sub-plot in American life. It is

mixed with stories of rich and poor. Earlier this week the extraordinary

rescue of young women, apparently held captive for years in Ohio led

the man who helped free them, Charles Ramsey give this account of

what happened. I knew something was wrong when a little pretty white

girl ran into a black man's arms, something is wrong here.

Dr Cornel West is here joining me now. That was just a little thing,

but it really caught my eye, what did you make of that kind of

comment? I think he's speaking from his soul. I think in the United

States we have made tremendous progress in black elites having

access to opportunities, but in terms of the black working-class

and poor, including white, red and yellow poor and working-classes,

they have been devastated by the policies of the last 30 years or so.

The policies, all the policies? goes back to Reaganism, through

Clinton. You financialise at the top, with the oligarchic economy,

greed with profits by any means, and privatisationing public

education and prisons and then you have militarising. The national

security state expands, drones dropping bombs on innocent people,

war crimes, you have got attacks on whistleblowers, Brother Julian

Assange, I was bless today talk to him this week. Bradley Manning,

dealing with trying to tell the truth about secrets and dirty wars.

Those things are clearly mattering deeply to you. But things like you

have got an African-American President, by I suspect you never

thought you would see in your lifetime? I never thought I would.

A lot of white people who voted for him. In 2008 a lot more African-

American voters came out and voted as a percentage than ever before

some things have changed a lot more the better? There is no doubt there

has been progress, my brother, and I was blessed last night to be at

the University of Sheffield we had a magnificent memorial for Malcolm

X, I was invited by Simon goldhill, I had dialogue with Ben Okrey, and

the result is what, unbelievable progress on one level, but Malcolm

X used to say stab folk in the back nine inches and pull it out six

inches and celebrate your progress. We have poverty. I have read the

Institute of Fiscal Studies where you have policies pushing a million

children here in Britain into poverty too. Why are you

disappointed with Obama, you supported him in 2008. You said of

him more recently April 2013 saying he was a black mascot of Wall

Street oligarchs and a puppet of plutocrats. It is trying to be

truthful and biting because I was so disappointed. I did 65 events

for him in my support. My question is what is your relationship to the

legacy of matter then Luther king others and dor day Day. We talked

for four hours, he gave me the idea that he was coming out of the

tradition in a significant way. Martin Luthur king, there was

Vietnam. There was not a word about the highest level of poverty since

196 0tpwh this regard. Are you saying Obama is responsible for war

crimes? I they commit war crimes when they meet on Tuesday and have

a list. If they did it once or twice with collateral damage, and

we have 400 innocent civilians dead and 219 children dead, I'm school

about this. I said the same thing about George W Bush and Barack

Obama, any state that uses violence to kill innocent people, yes.

touched on some of the things that you accept have improved in your

country. What about racism itself, has that changed? I think on an

individual interpersonal level it is much better. That is a beautiful

thing. You all in Britain have the flowering of these wonderful

beautiful interpersonal relationships and so forth, but

institutional racism is at work in the United States and as here in

Britain. We are always talking about race, class, gender and

sexual orientation as the way of keeping track of the humanity in

people. Would you also accept that some people use race as an excuse,

Lauren Hill the other day, the singer who is three months for tax

evasion says she's a child of former slaves who had a system

imposed on them, and an economicies imposed on her, that is silly, she

fiddled her taxes. She's stretching too far, no doubt about that.

are we now, how do you see, you are disappointed in the first African-

American President, many people think he's a lot better than some

of the alternatives? He's better than the right-wing, absolutely, no

doubt about that. Where do you think we are now, where do you

think we are going now in the United States? In my country which,

is both a very precious experiment in democracy an adventure in an

empire we are in a very bleak place. We have a choice between a far

right party and a centrist neo- liberal party, we don't get to kind

of focus, I mentioned poverty before, you have 22% of American

children living in poverty, 40% are red, 40% of brown and 40 % of white

children. 1% owning all the wealth, the top 12% have the top wealth.

I'm interested a lot of your conversation has been about class

rather than race. But that does not mean in any sense that many racial

questions which you have talked about in your lifetime are solved?

That is right. For me, brother, it is about how do we try to be decent,

honest and have some integrity in a moment in which so many people are

suffering? No matter what colour? No matter where they are, we are

living in a moment where people are more and more indifferent to forms

of criminalty. We have got used to them so we overlook, we become more

and more callous to catastrophe, impending ecological cat it is a

trough fee, economic catastrophe, wrestling with immigration with our

precious eastern European citizens, are they being treated with digty.

Neither party in either country are speaking with a level of passion

that Martin Luther King junior would have liked. Now a quick look

at the front pages. The male has the the net closing in on superrich

That's all for tonight, I hope you can join Kirsty tomorrow night.

can join Kirsty tomorrow night. Good night. Good evening, after a

very wet and windy day on Thursday, Friday's prospects do look

comparatively quieter, it looks to be a breedsy day, rain around, but

it shouldn't be as widespread. We are looking mostly at heavier

showers running into the west of the UK throughout the day. Perhaps

merging into some more persistent rain through the afternoon. Across

the south west of England and South Wales. Further north hopefully some

spells of sunshine interspersing the outbreaks of heavier rain from

time to time. Similar mixture for Northern Ireland, 13 is our

forecast high here. For Scotland highs of 12-13. The showers pretty

well scattered, no decent amount of sunshine on the kartd. Showers into

the North West of England from time to time. In the south-east we

should get quite a bit of sunshine through the course of the day.

Highs of 16-17. There is a chance that some of those showers from

further west could run eastwards carried through on breeze. Through