10/09/2013 Newsnight

Beirut, the question of what to do about Syria is being played out

across the world in Washington, in Moscow, in Paris, in Damascus, but

if President Obama does send bombs or missiles they will strike 100

miles or so across the border over there. This country is already

offering refuge to three-quarters of a million Syrians and in a

population the size of Lebanon that is like Britain sheltering nearly

11 million strangers. Far more than the entire population of London. In

Washington President Obama's plan to get strikes authorised by

Congress has stalled. Everybody seems to have been left behind by

the pace of diplomacy. Also on the show tonight. Come on move your

blooming arse. It is a long way show tonight. Come on move your

from Pygmalian, 60% of us claim to be working-class, can it be true?

Life on Mars, maybe in a decade, 200,000 people have signed up for a

one-way ticket. Who would want to? They talked in Washington, they

talked in Moscow, they talked at the UN and doubtless they talked in

many other places. The plain fact is that the military strike which

Obama threatened last week hasn't happened. What his officials played

down is a bit of vague conjecture by the American Secretary of State

the Russians have turned into a peace plan, although thus far it

has no status at the United Nations. It has, however, kiboshed President

Obama's attempt to get congressional endorsement. If the

ball is in anyone's court now it is in President Assad's. First, let's

go to Washington. The President came to the hill this

morning, his policy convoy heading one way, lobbying the Senate and

preparing tonight's TV address, while diplomacy was taking another.

To put Syria's chemical Arsenal under inter-- arsenal under

international control. That further undermines support here for a

military strike. I don't believe America's long-term credibility is

at stake here, President Obama's credibility is. I don't want to see

that shaken further if he presses a vote, which at this point in time,

certainly in the House, I don't believe he can succeed with. And

the Senate, could he even get it through the Senate given the latest

developments? I think it would be tough. Part of the problem is

President Obama has not been making the case as he should have for the

last two, two-and-a-half years of why Syria the events in Syria pose

a national security threat to America. He headed into a meeting

with Democratic senators, knowing that even those who at first

supported calls for strikes were hard at work drafting a new motion

that would tie such action to future Syrian violation or a new UN

resolution on their chemical weapons. Bob Casey was among those

developing the new Senate bill. I have supported the authorisation

for use of force, I think it is in the national security interests of

the United States. I think we should move forward with it. But

this does allow us to take away a threat if they are serious about

meeting all of the details of removing the chemical weapons,

having them secured and doing it in a very tight time frame. This is

not, this should be a question literally of days, not even a

question of weeks. In the short- term, the creation of that new

Senate resolution will slow everything down here. But the

President insists that he would still like a congressional vote

backing force in case diplomacy falters. I don't think that we

would have gotten to this point unless we had maintained a credible

possibility of a military strike, and I don't think now is the time

for us to let up on that. I want to and I don't think now is the time

make sure that norm, against use of chemical weapons is maintained.

make sure that norm, against use of That is in the national security

interest. If we can do that without a military strike that is

overwhelmingly my preference. That initiative will also tie things to

progress towards a new Security Council resolution in New York.

France tried to get that moving today. But evidence soon emerged of

France tried to get that moving differences of approach with Russia.

Russia has already quibbled with the wording of the French draft

resolution, and talks broke up this evening without agreement.

President Putin, meanwhile, has hinted that the option of US force

must be taken off the table. It will take time to resolve those

diplomatic differences during which the US military option will have

been stalled and people will be asking whether President Obama has

been sold a pup. The fact of the matter is public in opinion in

America is strongly against military action. I think it is very

dangerous for an American President military action. I think it is very

to engage in military action, you have to be committed to success.

How can you remain committed to suck iss if you don't have the

backing of the American public. Again we're in a very bad situation,

I think made worse by this President's lack of action to date

I think made worse by this on Syria. But, we have got an

opening here. He has talked about military use, that threat obviously

has, from my standpoint, resulted in this lifeline being tossed.

There is diplomatic opening and we should take advantage of that

diplomatic opening and push it and prb it hard. The President --And

push it hard. The President left the Senate with supporters left

uncertain about timings, wording and much else. Our schedule is

being driven by developments. Developments that are taking place

not some Developments that are taking place

is why I took it off the counter last night to have a vote tomorrow

morning. As I said last night, I will tell everybody again. It is

important we do this well, not quickly. The diplomatic track may

have got the President off the hook over the use of force in Syria, but

if it fails it may also leave him with nothing, having looked to

Congress for support but failed to get it. Look -- looking at it from

a long way away, is a deal on these terms even remotely possible? That

is a question they would love to have an answer to in the White

House as President Obama prepares his prime time address to America

later this evening. It was thought that it would be that sort of "my

fellow Americans I'm taking force because..." type of address, but

now it will have to accommodate all of the uncertainties raised by this

diplomatic opening. We know that when the French move their draft

resolution earlier today in New York it contains some terms that

were extremely objectionable to the Russians and the Syrians. It talked

about the Syrian Government taking responsibility for the attacks of

the 21st of August. It talked about them destroying their chemical

weapons, as well as placing them under supervision, and it talked

about possible war crimes proceedings for those responsible

for the 21st of August attacks. Now great elements of that will be

unacceptable. The Russians have said that straight away. The real

question is what they end up with at the end of that. John Kerry is

going to Geneva on Thursday to have concrete discussions with Sergey

Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, about whether

Lavrov, the Russian Foreign find a way forward. I think the

thing they are clinging to here is the understanding and hope that

Russian anxiety that chemical weapons could go adrift and end up

with militant Jihadist groupss, if the Assad regime falls, is one of

the things that underpins their position and it is therefore a

sincerely held position. Let's speak now to two Syrians who live

in Beirut. We have a writer and political analyst who supports the

Syrian army and a student here who wants to see imdeposed. Do you

think are we -- him deposed. Do you think we are in any better position

tonight that people are talking rather than expecting a missile

strike, are we in a better position? I think we are advancing

now. The current decision of the Syrian Government to put its

chemical arsenal under the international control is sending a

very clear message to the international community that it is

willing to negotiate and it is willing to compromise, this is the

first point, the second is it is not willing to use this arsenal

against its own people as the international community claims. But

it does mean the initiative now lies with Assad? It deficitly does.

The concession will most probably be made by the regime because the

recent weeks have exposed their inability to deal with an

international initiative as strong as the one that has come in the

last weeks, although it hasn't reached anywhere really. We were

talking earlier and you sounded to me like a man in some despair about

the state of his country, are you? I am, definitely, I am deeply

concerned. It has changed the lives of many Syrians, many of which I

know forever. Is peace any more near tonight than it was a week

ago? It definitely isn't.Isn't? And if this initiative goes through,

I believe that things will become as static as they were last June or

July and whereby most of the territories have been dealt with by

the regime and the opposition and it is more static and takes time.

That is now how it feels to you? I think the Syrian crisis is more

complicated on this. It depends on the will of the Americans to push

further their allies who are fighting on their proxys in the

Syrian territories. Any compromise other deal should put both sides on

the table, but the Syrian regime and the opposition, and this needs

the will of the Americans and the Russians both sides. It took this

question of chemical weapons to get the international community

motivated, this is a Civil War that has gone on in a horrible fashion

and killed well over 100,000 people before there was any kind of

energetic intervention by the west. If the chemical weapons is removed

some how from the equation, where is Syria then? As I told you siria

will be exactly where it was a day before August 21st whereby the

regime has the upper hands when it comes to strategic weapons with

artillery and fighter jets and scud missiles which have been targeting

densely populated areas, even months before chemical weapons were

used. You will understand why it is frankly incomprehensible to many

people that bringing more weapons into a crisis, killing more people

is actually going to make peace any more likely? I would like to point

out that firstly the Syrian crisis has been in the recent weeks been

mystified a lot, and it has been surrounded by this aura of mystery

that we do not need to intervene because we might get inadvertantly

get swapped into this whole mess and it is not really that messy. Of

course it is but there is still people responsible for war crimes,

for systematic killing of civilians for strategic or morale-related

means. And I think to actually negotiate would be granting the

regime a legitimacy that should by now they should be striped of that

legitimacy. I don't believe the issue of the chemical weapons has

anything to do with the internal conflict, this weapon is for

deterrent purposes. The Americans are now trying to get this

deterrent from the Syrians just like they did with Iraq and Libya

before and then they invaded it. So this issue might be an opportunity

for the Americans to invade in the future, not now. Because the

Americans are not willing now to go into Syria and the Congress

according to the recent polls and the recent reports will vote for no

to go into Syria. Although that is the recent reports will vote for no

kind of irrelevant at present until we know how the diplomatics out? I

believe thatest me of the Congressmen now they are asking

Barack Obama what is the excuse to go to Syria, it is the chemical

weapons. If it is the chemical weapons if the Syrian regime is

saying OK we will put the arsenal into the UN, what context do you

have to go to Syria and strategic gain will have have to strike Syria

and military bases. If you bombed gain will have have to strike Syria

it, will you pave the way for the gain will have have to strike Syria

extremists to enter into Damascus, that is the question for Barack

Obama. We will talk about that tonight. Can I rebuttal?I have to

move on. The Syrian civil war has lasted the best part of three years.

For most of the time the rest of lasted the best part of three years.

the world looked the other way and left places like Lebanon to cope

with the consequences. It was the use of chemical weapons which

crossed the called red line, which galvanised much of the rest of the

planet. Russia's scheme to put the singularly reviled weapons beyond

use and under international control would change everything. Question

though, can it be done reliably. One for our science editor, Susan

Watts. The images of victims of the One for our science editor, Susan

August 21st attack in Damascus are amongst the most haunting the world

August 21st attack in Damascus are is ever likely to see. Each side of

the civil war in Syria blames the other. Samples gathered by the

inspection team that visited the site are being subjected to

forensic examination. Under the oversight of the organisation for

the prohibition of chemical weapons, here in the Hague. The UN report on

what their team found could come here in the Hague. The UN report on

before the end of the week. In the meantime the proposal that Syria

place its chemical weapons under international control may fall to

this same inspection body. Already operating under intense pressure.

The proposal raises numerous questions, not least about the

practical risks of any such process. And who would carry out this task

of finding, securing and dismantling any chemical weapons,

in a country where a civil war still rages. Is it a wild card or a

game-changer, so the question is how many countries would be

prepared to send substantial numbers of personnel, probably

mostly military, on the understanding that they would in

turn be guarded effectively by the UN in an unpredictable and violent

environment. That is hard to judge. Maybe there will be a kind of crowd

contagion effect when more countries put their hands up to to

it. Geneva is where the world first countries put their hands up to to

tried to put serious limits on the countries put their hands up to to

use of chemical weapons, with the Geneva protocol of 1925, following

use of chemical weapons, with the the use of chemical agents such as

mustard gas in the First World War. The chemical weapons convention of

1993 went further. Banning their production too, Syria is not a

signatory, but tonight said it may now be prepared to sign up. One

scientist here in Geneva with 30 years experience of international

controls on chemical weapons told us they thinks the safest way to

dismantle Syria's weapons is by putting people physically on the

ground. But given it is such early days in this latest round of

diplomacy and it could yet fail, doing it militarily is still

possible. Though messy, because of the risk of spreading chemicals

down wind. In bunkers it is probably is the use of precision

munition niings and the creation of high temp -- munitions and the

creation of high temperatures within the bunkers. Whether you can

achieve that, you shoot the hole into the structure and fire in with

a second weapon and that create a fireball inside and you hope that

the temperature is high enough to incinerate everything inside. If it

is on the outside I honestly have doubt if you can do it in a safe

way. He told us there may be clues buried in the inspectors' report

about who was responsible for the recent attacks on civilians. From

what he has seen published so far has him puzzled? The question about

who fired is really the amount, it is that whole thing on the outside

was all filled up with agent. Calculation on that it could be up

to 50 loters of agent. To make 50 litres of chemical agent is not

done. That is semi-industrial process. It looks like a system has

been adapted to fire it. It doesn't look like the sort of thing I would

expect in the chemical weapons stockpile of an army. Does it leave

you coming down on one side or the other? I'm on the fence. Because we

are in a situation where even parts other? I'm on the fence. Because we

of the opposition will be able to get their hands on agent. If they

know where it is. Whilst diplomatic of for thes to avoid military

action proceed, the details from the inspectors' samples are crucial.

In managing stockpiles and holding to account those responsible for

attacks. Once the samples from Syria arrive with the organisation

for the prohibition of chemical weapons here in the Hague, they are

split up and sent to several sent to civil independent laboratories

to identify the finger print of any chemicals they might obtain. Is the

plan to rid Syria of chemical weapons for the future realistic?

It is practical if the world wants it to work. But it is dangerous and

difficult. You could get people out fairly fast, if the mandate and

political will were found. But the actual destruction of the chemicals

wouldn't be impossible but it would take month, I suspect. That's if

you could agree that you had got them all. That might be disputes

over the validity of any declaration, which could bog the

whole thing down. If Syria really is prepared, as it has said tonight,

to tell the world where its chemical weapons are and stop

making them, the experts we have spoken to says the chance to put

them beyond use is an opportunity. But for it to work dialogue on all

sides must be sincere. Just a short time ago we spoke to

the former weapons inspector Hans Blix who hold Newsnight that any

reliable inspection by weapons inspectors under these

circumstances in Syria would be more or less impossible. We are

ajoined by a political analyst. First off, it has now become a

diplomatic rather than an imminent military threat, that, how is that

playing here? It plays he very well military threat, that, how is that

within the Syrian regime. We know that the Syrian regime always

relies on the element of time. We have seen that with the

assassinations and along the his tro, four decades of the regime.

Whenever -- history of the regime in the long history four decades of

the regime. Whenever they can move forward with that agenda it works

well for them. Shifting it from a military operation to a diplomatic

operation, or diplomatic solution, if you want, works perfectly for

the regime. Does it shift, as it were, the balance of power? It

gives them more time, you see I always picture the Syrian regime as

playing poker. He they always have these you know when you play poker

you have different cards to play with and you always bluff. If you

put you know the different cards that they hold with the bluffing it

gives you a clear idea of what the that they hold with the bluffing it

regime has always been doing and what it is doing now. It hasn't

brought an end to the war any nearer? No and unfortunately it

won't. What effect is the war having on the region as a whole,

this is a horrible thing to see, we are 2,000 miles away and it looks

horrible from are 2,000 miles away and it looks

what effect is it having? It has been spilling over, he specially to

Lebanon on different fronts -- especially to Lebanon on the

different fronts, especially with the refugees. Lebanon is a small

country with very limited resources, it has also blocked our only land

you know border with Syria. Because we have closed it on the Israely

side, we are land looked with what is happening. It has spilled over

in terms of tension between the pro-Syrian camp and the anti-Syrian

camp on the political level, with Hezbollah's involvement in Syria.

camp on the political level, with Lebanon has been affected with the

latest bombing in Sunni suburbs and Shia suburbs. It has been adding up

to the increased tension in the country. Looking broader than

Lebanon in the area as a whole, you have all these other countries,

whether they be Iraq, Jordan or further afield, what effect is it

having there? If you look at it on an international level, it is more

of a, we are back to the Cold War. Russia supporting one side against

the Americans on the other side. Then if you take it to the regional

level it is Iran, Syria, part of the Iraqi regime, with Hezbollah on

one side, with the gulf states and the pro-US allies on the other. So

the rift between the pro-US camp and the Iranian camp it is widening

and it is creating tension along and the Iranian camp it is widening

sectarian lines in all the neighbouring countries. Does it

feel more dangerous now? It is dangerous but it is still in a

place where we are, we could manage the crisis. It not yet totally out

of control. If the international community assumes its

responsibility in dealing with the regime proper low in Syria and

really trying to push whether a diplomatic resolution or military

intervention. We know after a military intervention they were

supposed to go to the Geneva II convention with all these elements

on the table they might reach a diplomatic solution, a political

solution, as we call it. Still the international commune toe has to

push more towards that direction. We're at the 1 10,000 deaths

besides the detained and the tortured and the misk. So it is

really growing in numbers. Thank you.

I will be reporting later this week from some And the missing. So it is

really growing. I will be reporting later this week from Lebanon. We

can talk to Hans Blix from Sweden, the former weapons inspector. Are

you optimistic this Russia plan can work, is it possible to put the

weapons beyond use? I think it is a very valuable opening that has

taken place. Some things are doable very valuable opening that has

and easier, but others are very difficult. If the Syrian Government

is ready to make a commitment, not difficult. If the Syrian Government

to use the chemical weapons, whether in the form of the

ratificaton of convention or some other way, this can be done

relatively fast. If the Government is also ready to give a declaration

of its stocks and where it is, what qant toes and where it is, that

could also -- quantities and where it is, that could also be done fast.

When it comes to knowing whether it is a declaration or not that is a

harder thing. We saw that in Iraq and our work and the inspection

pages. Even worse, of course, is more difficulty to inspect whether

the declarations are right. You can't go into every basement or

store in the big countries is not easy. We did it in a country that

was not at war. The inspectors didn't have a risk to be shot at,

but in Syria with a raging war all around this sounds very, very hard.

Watching the destruction I think is harder still. Never the less, I

think it is a valuable opening. What is unsatisfactory about this

solution, as well as the solution of the punitive strike is that it

is limited. It is like telling the parties that OK, you have to do

away with this, you will be punished for it and there after you

can go back to your war. I think what the Syrians need with00,000

dead and the whole world -- 100,000 dead and the whole world watching

is a ceasefire and end to hostilities and conference. I see

this as an opening to a dialogue, to show the Security Council is not

necessarily paralysed and there are things to talk about. Do you think

this has any chance of technically working? The first part, as I said,

they could do so, but the second part of inspection and being sure

that frg has been declared, no I don't see that as working in the --

everything has been declared, I don't see that working in a raging

war. Thank you very much. Has Russia pulled off a remarkable fete

of world diplomacy, well Russian -- feat of world diplomacy, well

Russia thinks it has. We spoke to to our guest. He asked what did he

imagine the timeline to be? It will depend on a number of things, it

will depnd on the United Nations how quickly how soon they are ready

to come to Syria. It will depend on which sites they want to visit

first. It will probably depend also on the situation on the ground. As

you know the war is still raging in Syria. But to my mind, and

basically that's what we think in Moscow, the most important thing to

have the general agreement of all sides for this solution. Two days

ago, one day ago we were on the brink of a big regional war. The

stake were extremely high. Today we have a working proposal by the

Russian Foreign Ministry which seems to have been accepted by

President Obama, by David Cameron, by the European Union, by Ban Ki-

Moon the General Secretary of the United Nations and by Damascus, we

have to strengthen this general agreement. We cannot allow to those

who would like to strike Syria at any cost. To come back to this

military plan. Let me take you back 24 hours, of this plan inspired by

the words of John Kerry yesterday? As far as we can judge and as far

as we can trust what President Obama said. He discussed this

possible option with President Putin during their short meeting at

the G20. As far as I understand this was aired even before John

Kerry mentioned this possibility. As for John Kerry's remark, I have

to say it was a very unconvincing remark, I would say. Because he

said that if Assad agrees to bring his chemical arsenals under

international control, America would consider the possibility of

not striking. Then he said of course it will never happen,

because we don't trust Assad and he will never do this. One hour later

the state department basically denied what Kerry said, they said

it was a receiptorle kal sentence. Kerry was -- rhetorical sentence.

Kerry was thinking allowed the possible scenarios about which the

American side is sceptical. Then Obama's assistant on national

security said it will never happen, don't think it is possible, it is

out of the question. Americans first aired this idea and then

started to play back. They took Obama's personal appearence own ABC

to hear that the American side will a gree -- agree. I will be pointing

out that to John Kerry. It is force may be used if Syria doesn't

complay with chemical weapons, do you accept that? I don't think

Syria will not comply. I think it is absolutely in the interests of

the Syrian people, of the Syrian Government. Of President Assad to

bring those weapons under international control. If they

don't, would it agree to a resolution? I wouldn't go that far,

I wouldn't see any signs that would preclude them from doing this. I

don't see an interest from the Syrian Government to do this. The

French Government wants to sound very resolved and decisive and so

on and so on. Actually playing a very minor role in the whole story.

Paris shows himself a big worrying. It is up to them. But I think that

all those assertions do not look credible for me. Because the Syrian

Government wants to prevent it work, I don't think they will not apply.

Let's talk about the practicalities, decommissioning on the ground,

would Russian troops be prepared to go into help the process? It will

be an international effort, a United Nations effort. I don't

think that national troops will be brought to Syria, national

contingents will be brought to Syria. It will be up to the United

contingents will be brought to Nations and it will be the United

Nations responsibility and United Nations operation under the

auspices of the Security Council and on the basis of the Security

Council resolution. But would that include Russian troops, would you

be happy to see that? It is not discussed in Russia at this point.

So I am really, I don't think I can answer your question because there

were no statements made by neither President Putin nor Mr Lavrov, I

think we are still not at the stage where this is being considered.

We're all middle-class now, the then deputy PM Lord Prescott

declared nearly two decades ago, before he was Lord. Tonight it

would appear we are not. The latest British Association attitudes

survey, a statistics-lovers manual, it shows that 60% of people think

of themselves as working-class. Should your accent define your

class or what you do. Why is working-class authentic and middle-

class a bit lame. For all the talk of revolution in

the 1960s, these North London teenagers knew their place in the

social order. Do you think England is still a class-conscious country

or as it is supposed to be working towards a classless society. I

think England is still very definite low class conscious,

speaking to myself I'm always thinking about the next rung up the

ladder. In the 80s when the first British attitudes survey was done,

class was still a national obsession. The BBC brought three

class was still a national 17-year-olds together. One a

factory worker, one from public school, one from Grammar School. Do

you think there is a language barrier between any of you when it

comes down to that. Well I swear a lot more. Compared with 30 years

ago far fewer people have manual jobs, many more people go to

college or university and generally people have more money. So you

might expect that in these surveys rather more people would be

decribing themselves as middle- class. But it is not the case. In

the first-ever report, 60% of people described themselves as

working-class. 34% middle-class. Last year those proportions were

almost exactly the same. It might well be the case that being seen as

middle-class is seen as a bit of an elitist label, that might well put

people off using it. It is also the case that we know from other

research that people do feel very strongly attached to the class they

feel they were born in. It might be they feel really strongly they are

working-class even though the job they have now got is a very

objective low middle-class one. Even in 19 -- objectively middle-

class one. Even in the 1980s class used to drive politics. That is not

clear now. Looking at people's jobs, rather than how they would class

themselves, shows how political affiliations have changed. In 1983

professionals voted Conservative, not Labour, 30 years later the

revrs. As for the traditional working-class voter, in 1983 more

than half said they voted Labour, last year that fell to 41%. So what

than half said they voted Labour, do modern teenagers think, we came

back to the same North London college, the BBC visited in 1964,

very different now, to ask the same question? Do you think England is a

class-conscious society or working towards being classless? I do

believe people aren't classed within society, within education

and outside as well. Everything to do with how people live, how they

look and speak their attitude towards everything in general. They

all agreed, and then talked about the upper-class. If you are upper-

class you would have that confidence as well that your

parents have given you. That you are better than other people.

Nowadays everybody has a degree, it is about who you know and how far

you can get with the people you know and the information you have.

Which is why while the old class war is over, social mobility is

still around. I'm joined by Terry Christian, best known for

presenting The Word in the 1990s. Thank you for joining us. How would

you describe yourself? I come from a very solidly working-class

background, you know, free school dinners, one of six kids, dad a

labourer and mum a school dinner lady, I have worked in the media

since I was 20, 30 years. It is many ways what has defined me. One

of the reasons nowadays that so many people that aren't working-

class are saying that they are working-class is because a lot of

those middle-class institutions seem slightly tainted nowadays. It

is like so we have this romantised version of an idea of working-

classes. Del Boy Trotter looks like St Francis of Assisi compared to

all the bankers. You look at the Bullingdon Club and there is that

mistrust of politicians, there is the expenses scandals and everyone

likes to feel they have a journey in their life. It is more

impressive to say I'm a doctor and my dad was a hospital porter than

it is to say I'm a brain surgeon and my dad was a brain surgeon. But

is there anything that would have pushed you to call yourself middle-

class in terms of your change now as an adult to how you grew up, or

do you stick to how you were brought up? You still come up

against a lot of subconscious prejudice in people. I work in the

media, which is a very demo graphically 90% middle-class, a

very high proportion of kids that go to private a everything. So

often you are battling against that. There does seem to be a slight

jealousy of your journey from them. It is offering the most innocuous

comment you make means you have a chip on your shoulder. Everyone was

discussing going skiing, somebody said to me do you ski and I said we

couldn't afford it when I was a kid and they said "no need to be so

chippy". It is strange. What about the numbers we are dealing with

today, 60% of people asked say they are working-class. Does that

surprise you, can it be true? Possibly in that there is this

surprise you, can it be true? squeezed middle, a lot of people in

the white collar jobs haven't the security they once had, aren't

getting the money they once had. Also they look towards that idea of

that solidarity. It is like the kind of juxtaposition between this

kind of almost imagined honest noblity of theing classes and the

of a ris of bankers and business people now -- of a ris of bankers

and business people now -- avarice of bankers and business people. If

you ask people they are not shy about saying how well they have

done in America, and not as modest as the British are and clinging to

that? In Britain you are admired for tugging your forelook a bit,

and people saying "he's so humble", if you're a foopbl footballer like

Paul Scholes, saying he's humble, I think he's fantastic football and

he should be allowed to brag and be big headed. There is all those

strange inconsistencies in us as British. We are so class-ridden in

any way. Would you feel betrayed or let down if your kids described

themselves as middle-class? No, not at all. What makes me laugh is

people want to sequester what you have got, you have kids from

privileged backgrounds who I have worked with over the years who

pretend to be smart working-class, and you think that is all I have

got, I have the one thing money can't buy, poverty claim Thank you

very much indeed. It is the kind of present you would

like to buy for someone else, the It is the kind of present you would

four most annoying people in your office, the one-way ticket to Mars

can only be bought for yourself. Despite that 200,000 people have

can only be bought for yourself. applied to be part of a £4 billion

project. It is reality TV meets the new frontier, with no ending

insight. The plan -- in sight. The creator says human settlement will

aid our understanding of the Solar System if we can find the right

people. It is like being snowed in a cabin, if it is your best friends

it is fun for a couple of days. After a month you will be annoyed

with each other. We are looking for the people that no matter how long

they are snowed in together in cabin they will not get annoyed

with each other, that will be the most difficult part of the solution

selection. Who are the right people If the next great step in humanity

is this and I want to be part of it. Jo I would like to have first hand

experience of planet Mars to research the conditions, learn new

aspects of the planet. I want to be an inspiration of people on earth.

I would like a more civilised world for mankind. Mars has been my dream,

but I know I have the skills necessary to make the mission a

success. Just a few of the volunteers, we didn't have room for

200,000. Our guest has worked with NASA and the Johnson Space Centre,

he's the director for the Centre of Space Medicine, and the author of

Extremes, a look at what Mars is regarded now. Let's look at the

time frame, this is projected for 2023? It is enormously ambitious.

That is understating it. If you were an international space agency,

if NASA spent ten-times what it spends now and said we are going to

go before this decade has elapsed - - you might think maybe. But this

is a $6 billion operation operated out of a small office at the moment.

It is ambitious to say the least. Do you understand why people have

applied? It is very difficult to know actually. And you look through

those, when I look and browse through those videos I expected to

see slightly cookie, odd people. But you heard some of them. Some of

them are rational about why they want to go.M So of them sing?. I

would send the singing girl one, she is my favourite. It is

interesting isn't it, even though space stillled holds a place in the

affections of people. And a generation who most people are too

young to remember Apollo. You make it sound very aspirational, bluntly

those people, the ones to be taken seriously are saying I will leave

my friend and family and go and die on another planet. That is what it

is coming down to? Yeah, and it is hard to understand that. I don't

know whether it is just because that is part of the human condition

that we want to explore, that you have to find unknown destinations.

I think it is so hard to d that now and find genuinely unexplored

destinations. The other thing I find interesting, despite the fact

we have all of this remote presence on Mars, despite the fact we are

seeing beautiful pictures from countless probes orbiting around

the surface people still want to go. In you have writ on the subject,

Galileo was laughed at and Magellin ignored. All the great explorers

and discoffers have been -- discoverers have been laughed at.

Until the hast century life and exploration were risky, 500 years

ago almost exactly Magellen circumnavigate the globe, he

doesn't survive, only 18 of 500 crew members return. So to them I

guess circumnavigating the globe must have felt like a mission to

Mars. How long do you think you must have felt like a mission to

could survive on Mars? I don't know, I don't know about the Mars 1

expedition. The interesting thing about Mars is it is much closer to

being within our grsp than it has been for some -- grasp for some

being within our grsp than it has considerable time. There was talk

about going there from the earliest days of space flight. There is a

sense some how it is closer than it was. I don't know how you would

fare, the main thing about is if you want to go to Mars the main

thing is not worrying about whether you will survive the experience or

come back. Thank you very much indeed.

Now the papers. That's all for tonight, but before

we go a small service to our viewers, here is your chance to

avoid a 13 million victim YouTube pandemic, spawned by Ilvis, think

of it as old McDonald for the YouTube generation.

# What does the fox say # Ding ding

# What does the fox say Mx wapowwapowpow

# What the fox say # Hattithatco