13/12/2013 Newsnight

Remember this? It is the right thing to do, not to go ahead with the

third runway at Heathrow. Except now Heathrow expansion is firmly back on

the cards. Well a report out next week give thepm cover for a U-turn?

When it comes to airport expansion it looks like the Government is

heading for a bit of political turbulence. Goldsmith is here.

Removed from office on Sunday, executed on Thursday, what is North

Korea telling us about the way it deals with dissent. We talk to

someone who spent years in the hermit kingdom. I expect to make

anywhere from ten to 100 times my money back on those if I'm

successful. So marijuana has been very good to me so far. If you're

over 21 marijuana is now legal in Colorado and Washington state, is it

also becoming a normal way to earn a living? So it is agreed we should

return? I don't know anything about the gold standard I'm afraid, but I

do love little kitten, they are so soft and furry. Is this the template

for a successful marriage afterall, we have someone willing to argue

that it could be. Hello and good evening, our goal is

to make Heathrow better not bigger, we will stop the third runway,

proclaimed the Conservative election manifesto of 2010, three years on

there is a strong chance that vote-winner of a pledge may be

quietly forgotten, this programme understands that expansion at

Heathrow Airport is looking increasingly likely, with a

publication of a report early next week. Three of the favoured option,

including construction, have a new runway in there. If true it will

prompt a fight between David Cameron and some of his MPs. We will talk to

one of them in a moment. First we have this. The captain has very

definitely put the seatbelt sign on, politically this could all get very

bumpy. Since the last election the Government's aviation policy has

been in something of a holding pattern, doing lazy figures of eight

across the skies of the south of England. Now, well it's about, if

not to come into land, at least give us an indication of where we might

be heading. With an eye perhaps on the precious marginal seats in west

London and beyond, in opposition the Conservatives campaigned hard

against expanding Heathrow. High-speed rail, said Mr Cameron

made it unnecessary. So when our economy is overheating in the

south-east, but investment is still required in the north, it is the

right thing to do not to go ahead with the third runway at Heathrow,

but instead to build a high-speed rail network. David Cameron has

little room to manoeuvre on this, not east because of pressure from

the London mayor, Boris Johnson. I think you have heard him today, hold

on, we will do this. I want to make one final point that is relevant to

this area. And there it is, you can hear it, I will not support, in fact

I will oppose a third runway... After the election, the coalition

agreement ruled out a third Heathrow runway. But there were still urgent

questions to answer on airport provision. To answer these the

Government appointed an expert commission under Sir Howard Davies.

Well there has been so much politics as far as concerns of airport

capacity, particularly hub airport capacity in the UK. There was a

White Paper under the Labour administration in 2003. The current

Government issued its own White Paper, but the discussion continued

at political level. Finally you could say common sense prevailed.

But an independent commission was set up with experts taking the

political sting out of it so that a neutral, well informed, well

researched conclusion could be reached. The commission was -- is

expected suggest next week that expanding Heathrow is a serious

option that should be considered. The huge expansion in the numbers of

people using air travel is testament to the fact that lots of people love

flying, they love going somewhere exciting. What they are less keen

on, of course, is having a runway or flight path near them. Boris

Johnson's solution, a Thames Estuary airport to replace Heathrow, it is

unlikely, believe commentators, to give Boris Island clearance for

take-off. There is to credibility in establishing a brand new airport in

the eyes of the airport community, those who operate the hub model,

because it takes too long. The complexity of running an airport,

the specialist skills in the work force at an airport, you can't close

the doors of one hub airport overnight and the next morning open

a brand new one elsewhere. According to Heathrow's owners this is what

the third runway option looks like, without the extra capacity London

and Britain could start losing business. Labour's position too is

politically tricky. As climate secretary, Ed Miliband, threatened

to resign from the Brown cabinet if a third Heathrow runway was

approved. Now, according to reports at least, he and Ed Balls are more

worried about economic growth. Whatever this review suggests next

week, well the Government isn't exactly going to be rushing towards

the final destination, this is only an interim report coming out. The

final report, when is that due again? Zac Goldsmith, the story MP

who has long campaigned against Heathrow expansion is here. That may

be the truth, we won't know what the final decision will be for some

time, if what we are hearing about Tuesday is correct there could be

several options on the table and most of these roads are now leading

towards Heathrow expansion? That was certainly the case a few days ago.

This review we have just heard about was always supposed to be an

independent, arms length review. It seems very clear now it is nothing

of the sort. It looks very much like George Osborne, in particular, has

been knocking it about in the last few days, so that what finally

emerges on Tuesday will not just be about Heathrow expansion, and we

will have a few synthetic options thrown in to allow the Government to

maintain ambiguity, cynically until after the election I believe. Why do

you think that? We will have to wait and see onture, but very, very

compelling sources are saying that there has been massive activity in

the last few days. And the three options you have identified, which

are absolutely in the report, will be supplemented by a few extra

non-Heathrow-based options as well. The idea of that is this is not

genuinely to expand the choice, this is about enabling, I think, all

three party leaders to defer any kind of decision making until after

the election. None of them, frankly, have the courage to front up the

voters before the election when it really matters. It could just be

that the case is now overwhelming, that Heathrow expansion is looking

commercially like the most sensible thing to do. Your argument is

bluntly discredited? I think there are a growing number of voices, I

would say majority voice, both from within business, and I'm not just

talking about people like myself who could be described as him in bees,

-- NIMBYs. The idea is not to double the size of Heathrow, there is

congestion nobody has looked at, 50 million extra passenger journeys

every year backwards and forwards from Heathrow, it is impossible to

look at that working out. People say it is impossible to create a

foreign-owned monopoly on the edge of the city. It would create a

monopoly, when we see competition has liberated Gatwick, it is a good

airport and doing things we were told it couldn't. Stanstead is a

good airport. Why not have a multicompetitive and ait delivers

more choice every time for customers. Will we not know this

until after the general election? Because we know what was in the

original first draft of the report. Irrespective of what is produced on

Tuesday, we know if the parties accept this report in general they

are accepting Heathrow expansion, they need to come clean about that.

What will you do if that is the case? I have always said to my

constituents if the Government changes its position, which it

hasn't yet, if it changes its position on Heathrow expansion I

would trigger a by-election. If it happens in the manifesto in the next

election, I wouldn't stand as a Conservative. This is a massive

issue for people in my parish. You have always talked about the need

for this to be this positive tension between backbenchers and the

Government. Why don't you stay around to enact that now? David

Cameron himself has to take, has to really think very carefully about

this, politically a U-turn on this issue would be catastrophic for him.

You have to remember it wasn't just a few party speech, David Cameron

went to every single constituency effected, he stood up and said no

ifs, buts, there will be no Heathrow expansion. It was not a throwaway

line at the end of a speech, he went to places like Richmond and

delivered that one line. People voted for him on the back of it to

give him a chance. If he does a U-turn on this, it will be an off

the scale betrayal, he will never be forgiven in west London, people

outside west London, even if you don't care about Heathrow, they will

take note, they will wonder how many promises can be trusted, how much

can the Prime Minister himself be trusted if he's willing to break a

promise so crystal clear. It is a big deal for David Cameron, he will

have to think about this. This is close to your heart, when you became

an MP, the green dream was all the rage for the Tories. I'm wondering

if you feel slightly used? I think there are a lot of things said by

all parties before elections that turn out to be synthetic, it is one

of the reasons people don't like politicians or attach a lot of

significance or importance to manifesto promises because they are

broken so easily. I do think in certain respects the things that

were promised in our manifesto in relation to energy, for example, we

are more or less delivering, I think the language that has been used by

the Prime Minister, reported low, and other people at the top of the

Government, has been very loose and has done some harm in terms of

investor confidence. In signalling a potential change of policy. What

about the green side of energy, any of the green issues? I'm not sure,

if you want to criticise the Government in terms of its green

energy issues, which is what you are talking about, you don't look at the

policies. In terms of policy we are doing what we said we would do. We

are, it stands up to scrutiny, we are not doing enough, some of our

policies haven't worked as well as they should have done. Green Deal

could have been boosted in my view, we are doing what we said we would

do. The problem is the language, when you have loose talk between the

Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition and you hear reports in

the Sun of words I'm not allowed to use on this programme in terms of

green policies, I think the investors out there are beginning to

panic. If it is the case we need ?120 billion just to get our energy

infrastructure up to scratch. You won't achieve that creating the

uncertainty when you use the loose language we have heard. A lot of it

is politic rather than policy and I think, I hope the Prime Minister has

taken that on board. ??FORCEDWHI. Perhaps it was the speed rather than

the event itself that shocked the world fours days after North Korea's

second-most powerful politician was removed from his post. He was, we

ups, machine gunned to death, for state treachery. It mark as

humiliating fall from grace It mark as humiliating fall from grace. It

was an announcement that was in keeping with the flour I had --

florid language used in Korean state media. A man has been executed,

described as a dog, despicable scum, words used to describe South Korean

leaders. No-one, not even family has immunity against the leader's wrath.

Found guilty of a military coup, Jang Song Thaek was accused of

trying to overthrow, Kim Jong Un, it is a far cry from when he was at the

side of his nephew, not just at state events, but also guiding him

when in power. He was considered the chief architect of economic policy,

focussing on partnering his country with its neighbour and ally, China.

He ascended to a post that put him second in power only to Kim. His

Petersburg is being watched by allies and those with serious

concerns. Already removed from official document TREESHGS either

the message of no mercy is being sent, or some analysts believe

serious instability may be around the corner.

My guest was in North Korea for ten years and worked to produce

sanctions against the country. Even by North Korea's standard this is

pretty extreme, isn't it, do you understand what has gone on? They

have never done this before. They have purged people in the past, but

purging people in public like this, with state television showing his

removal from a party meeting and then we see him absolutely at the

tribunal on the front page of the paper. North Koreans must be aghast

at what is going on. They are calling this reverse perestroika, a

buttoning, a battening down maybe of the hatches. Was this a show for the

outside world rather than North Korea itself? I think it was a show

for both. It was a show for North Koreans so THAEFSH knows, not just

Jang Song Thaek the man is dead, but also the vision he stood for, of a

less closed North Korea, of a North Korea that earned some money by

trading rather than trying to manufacture everything by itself,

which he was severely criticised in the indictments. He was what we

might call a moderate in North Korean terms? He was less

conservative than many of his colleagues, let's put it that way. I

wouldn't paint him as a saint everythings an unpleasant man, but

he believed the best interests lay in a more open economy. This put him

on a foothold with the Chinese. He was the closest that China had to an

ally in the Government. The Chinese regarded Jang Song Thaek as their

man at Kim's court. Their reaction after his sudden purge has been very

telling. Firstly you had a stunned silence, then a statement and then

military exercises on the border of North Korea. Maybe nervous about a

flood of refugees. What about this submission to his alleged crimes. Is

there any truth in the kind of things they were accusing him about?

Parts of it may well be true. We know for a fact that some of the

trade referred to there did indeed take place. They did, for example,

sell the Chinese a five-year lease on parts of the zone. That is not a

crime, but he did it. It is rare for show trials in North Korea that

people convicted are found to be plotting against the Government. How

far any of that is true we really don't know. But interestingly, and

importantly, he is accused not just of plotting against Kim Jong Un, but

of doing so in contact with senior military officers who were appointed

by Kim Jong Un's father and grandfather. They are not going to

sleep now? Not for a long time. You think essentially a purge is on the

way for anyone who he has talked to? How does it work, the language, the

handshake of the banquets, how do you have the conversations and

taking people aside? People purged in North Korea find their friends

desert them, nobody answers their phone calls and their e-mails are

scrubbed. And people cross the street to avoid them, when it

happens you know you are in deep trouble. I suspect that is precisely

what is happening to a lot of Jang Song Thaek's former confidents. They

will be blacklisted? Yes and eventually court martials by the

military, and made just disappear. A lot of people will be very

frightened right now. We look at this country with something like

purance, trying to get a sense of what it is about. Does anything that

has happened bear any relation to our own safety or our own position.

All the west cares about is nuclear might? It does affect the rest of

the world. We ament what the North Korean Government does to its own

people, but there is a serious risk that in trying to cover up his own

weakness, and clearly a purge this weak shows a big split in the North

Korean regime. But North Korean will seek a foreign diversion. We have to

remember that in 2010 North Korean sank a South Korean cor vet, and an

island. We have been watching the helicopters fly to the southern sea

board. There is a risk, I think that we may be in for further

provocation, we can't be sure that South Korea will treat them with the

patience th did in 2010! . A year ago this week in two of

America's United States marijuana was legalised for the over 21, the

change has meant not simply that authorities are burning a blind eye

to those using it but that many in Colorado and Washington are looking

to this new found freedom as a business opportunity to make a

livelihood. We have been to Seattle to see how the state has ponded

responded a year on and whether it means the war on drugs is dead.

Public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse. In

order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a

new, all-out offensive. How things are changing in America. For more

than 40 years the only answer to drugs has been declaring war on

them. And then, all of a sudden, legalisation came along. It

literally happened overnight, for us dinosaurs it takes a lot more to get

our mind around it than the brand-new younger officers. With the

new law comes a lot of new opportunities. I'm no crusade e I'm

in it for the money. I view it as buying distilleries and breweries

right before prohibition ended. The last time I was in a room like this

it was on a police raid. But the growing of marijuana is emerging

from the shadows. It has been legalised, not just for medicinal,

but recreational use, in Colorado and in Washington state where a huge

experiment is going on and a multibillion dollar industry is

blooming. This particular strain is great for variety of things,

headaches, cramps, anything with pain. Can you make comparison

between this and let's say alcohol in terms of strength? Yes, so these

are going to be more like a light beer, OK this is going to be more

like a whiskey. Angel is in the medical marijuana business, as soon

as her license comes through she will sell it for recreational use.

She used to be avid anti-cannabis, her daughter had lifelong digestion

problems, but it only improved when her college friend gave her hash

cookies. I was very upset, explaining her how horrible an idea

it was, she would lose our scholarship and all the wonderful

things in life. The plant was not nearly as lethal as I was led to

believe. Legalisation of cannabis means people know how strong the

dose is, however they take it. There will be licensed producers and

retailers, it will be taxed heavily, 25% at every level. And this is what

legalised recreational cannabis looks like. A career to the day

since voters backed a ballot measure, proposed by marijuana

activists, they hosted party. The first time they were ever given a

permit to smoke dope in public. Well, in a big tent, out of view and

a long way from the nearest school. There have been many challenges for

those tasked with creating a legal industry without of something that

was illegal. And as far as the federal Government is concerned it

is still a category I controlled substance, like heroin or cocaine.

It is a crime under US federal law to lawneder money and introduce the

proceeds of criminal activity into the banking system. Since cannabis

growing is a criminal offence under federal law, banks are refusing to

open accounts for cannabis stores. It means the customers can't use

credit cards, and the store can't deposit receipts at the end of the

day. Washington State has had a liberal approach to marijuana for a

decade, as the police reclassified it as the lowest priority. In the

city where the first ever Starbucks opened, there are now twice as many

outlets for dope. Loopholes around its legality is attracted all sorts

of entrepeneurs and investors. We used to fly planes. Jim used to fly

for the Navy, chasing drug shipments across America, he never touched

drugs and voted against legalisation. Then realised there

was money in it. It never occurred to me that I would be an investor at

this industry at the time when we were trying to put the people in

jail. The irony of that, the supreme irony of that cannot be missed.

Security systems, software to help businesses keep track of tax,

Jimmy's found a whole variety of new investment opportunities.. When I

earn money it is at least 18% return, and my bank is paying me 1%.

My investments in these two start-up companies, I expect to make anywhere

from one to ten-times my money if I'm successful. -- 10-100-times my

money, marijuana has been very good to you. For somebody who knows

nothing about marijuana, it has been very good to me. It has been a huge

change for the police to deal with, both in the mind set of officers,

and also the public. As many people still believe cannabis should be

illegal. We are, whether we want to be or not, on the forefront of some

what of a, if not a revolution, at least a pretty quick low-moving

evolution. We don't know where we're going to be in a year let alone five

years. Do you think this marks an indicator that the war on drugs has

been a failure? The way we have addressed it, yes. The majority of

the people that we have addressed are people who are addicted. In the

old war on drugs it was only how many people have we put in prison,

how many pounds or kilos have we seized. That did nothing towards the

prevention side and nothing towards the addiction. The green revolution

is accelerating fast, but there are still things to iron out F it is too

cheap or too expensive, it could spark illegal trade over state

borders. Medical users want to keep growing their own, and tax dollars

have to be spent properly on keeping it out of the hands of the under

21s. The big challenge remaining is how to prevent a big increase in

drug abuse, given that you are making a drug cheaper and easily

available and taking awhat the legal end and social stigma. That's going

to have to be addressed. How is that done? Maintaining price, limiting

marketing, providing consumer information that will help people

behave reasonably. In the extreme that is not something either state

has considered yet, I would urge them to consider it. Require every

consumer to register as a consumer and to set a personal quota. There

is a lot more to this than just people who have been smoking dope

for years doing it legally. It costs a huge amount of money to put and

keep tens of thousands of people in prison because of marijuana

offences. Over half of America supports legalisation, which state

wouldn't want the tax, like booze there is a lot of money in

marijuana. This is one battle the war on drugs has lost. A new book

about submission between the sexes has hit the best seller list. It has

nothing to do with Fifty Shades of Grey. Casate y Se Sumisa, Marry and

Submit Yourself is proving to be a hit in Spain and Italy where it sold

more than 100,000 copies. It is a how-to manual for newly-married

women, teaching them to accept criticism of their cooking and house

keeping and how to keep the peace in the marital home. What to make of

it, the author joins me now. Explain to us submission, it is a

provocative word in English, what do you mean by that? First of all I'm

sorry for my English. I'm just starting with my four children I'm

at lesson number two, so the English is not great. I don't know the

colouring the word has in English but I don't use it in a negative

way. It is a word taken from the letters to St Paul to Ephesian, it

is not to be a dormat for your husband. It is about being

underneath, providing the support like a column supports a roof.

Because we as women we are stronger, we are able to put people in

relation, St Paul wrote the woman has the genius and the talent of the

relationship. We are able to be the head, the heart, not the head, the

heart of the family and submission is something very, very good for a

woman. Why then has the Spanish Health Minister tried to ban your

book? She wants it withdrawn? I really don't know because I thought

it was because of the word "submission", but I found that there

are many books with the word "submission" in the title sold in

Spanish shops. Like (titles in Italian) I think the problem is with

the word "marry", because I think that being submitted to a husband is

felt like something terrible. I don't know why, because I think

that, I have to say that I have also written a book for the men we can

translate "marry her and die for her", I think that the main flow,

the main temptation for women is to subjugate men and dominate. Do you

understand why the book has made so many women around the world angry? I

think because maybe we are not free from the need to be recognised from

an outer eye. I think that when a woman is completely at peace with

herself, is completely fulfilled, she doesn't need to be recognised

and she can make a step back, not in the sense of being a doormat, but of

being completely able to be the column. Is the thrust of your book

that feminism, that freedom of work, has damaged marriage? I'm a worker,

I work as a journalist during the day, and I write books during the

night. And I have four children. I think that women who ask the same

rights as men are lacking in imagination and in ambition, because

we are so different from men. We don't need to ask the same rights,

we need different rights. Because we can have all, but in a different

way. And we can also say that in some periods... Of our life. I'm

sorry we have to end it there I'm very impressed with lesson two,

thank you very much indeed. Just before we go we will take you

through the front pages of tomorrow's

That's just about it from us this evening. We don't on this programme

pay lip service to mumbo jumbo superstition about Friday 13th,

indeed we urge people out there to take a leap out of our book, but it

is reassuring to know we got to the end of the day without any

catastrophes, from all of you, we wish you good night!