29/04/2014 Newsnight

You wouldn't imagine things could get much better for UKIP, but then

tonight they did. A Conservative MP discredited by sleaze stepped down,

forcing a by-election, the party reckons it might be able to win. I'm

an ex-soldier, I believe when I get something wrong you have to fess up

and get on with it. No point in shelly shallying and trying to avoid

it. We will ask if that ex-soldier just stuck a bayonet in the guts of

his own party. Our chances of treating many forms of cancer have

improved hugely. Is the emphasis on defeating the disease though

starving other illnesses of resources? This shows one single

stock market share being traded right around the world in half a

second by a computer. Will we look back soon fondly on the mere greed

of the City trader. Instead of the bottom of the class at Oxford and

Cambridge going to work in the City, it is the top of the class. And the

top of the class is capable of doing unlimited damage to everybody else.

And this: Unsex me here and fill me from the crown to the toe, top full

of diarist cruelty. They are here, they are there, they

are everywhere, the United Kingdom Independence Party have achieved

quite a feat considering they don't have a single MP in parliament. In

just over three weeks' time at the European elections, we shall see

whether the anxiety of the big parties which do have MPs is

justified. And tonight, with the resignation of the disgraced Tory

MP, Patrick Mercer, there is even the chance of the UKIP leader

running for parliament himself. In the meantime there is the question

of whether UKIP is racist? The UKIP council candidate who said that the

black comedian Lenny Henry ought to emirate to what he called a "Black

Country", and he didn't mean the West Midlands, which actually is

where Lenny Henry comes from any way, resigned from the party today.

But all the other parties, the older parties, continue to assert that

UKIP is racist. # So while you work... Dads Army is

coming back. Your name will also go on the list. What is it? Don't tell

him Pike! 45 years after it was first seen on TV, it is about to hit

the big screen as a feature film. The reworking, this time with Bill

Nighy and Toby Jones, look impossible to fail. But the timing

of the venture play be superb. Half a century on the story of a small

island alone and under siege still seems to have enduring appeal. A

small Band of Brothers, led by the local bank manager, waiting with

baited breath for the invasion of an impending force, energy occupied

Europe. Sound familiar? Not war but quite possibly a sentiment that goes

straight to the heart of the UKIP message. That seems to be garnering

support. Tonight news from an ex-soldier that may well blast a

hole in the Tory battleship. Patrick Mercer, an MP suspended for six

months over "cash for questions" allegations, has announced he had a

stand -- will stand down, triggering a by-election. I believe when you

get something wrong you have to fess up and get on with it, no point in

shilly shallying and avoiding it, I'm ashamed of it. I will do what I

can to put it right for the constituency of Newark. Bad enough

for the Conservatives if it ended there, reminders of more financial

sleaze, so soon after the Maria Miller affair, will do nothing to

cheer the troops, weeks before voters held to the polls. But within

minutes of the Mercer resignation came reports that Nigel Farage, or

to give him the full title "the man who scares the living daylights out

of the Conservatives" may try to stand in the seat that is vacant.

Under by-election rules it can't be fought until after next month's

European elections, when UKIP might be riding high. Today there were

predictions for next week's European elections, they predict UKIP with 20

seats up by 13 last time, beating the Conservatives into third place,

and second to Labour who they are putting on 28 seats. It looks as if

the UKIP gains will be disproportionately at the Tories'

expense. But interesting to note that last year 4% of the Labour vote

of 2010 was heading to UKIP, this year that number has almost doubled.

UKIP is becoming an issue for all the main parties. The question now

is how they choose to tackle it. Last week when UKIP launched their

campaign, these posters were labelled racist by a Labour MP.

Possibly the wrong approach, John WoodAlcock tells me, the mainstream

parties can't afford the "fruitcakes, racist and loonies"

line any more without isolating their own voters. Those posters

might time with people, if we label the party racist, the worry is

everyone who looks at those posters and is stirred in some way by them

feels like we are calling them racist. They are not, they are

concerned about their jobs and their livelihood. This week a cross-party

group, Migration Mars, has launched the fightback, has accused UKIP of

eur-racism, and some are not frayed to hit where it hurts. We need to

expose the activists in UKIP who are the BNP in blazers. They are saying

the same thing about foreigners and people of a different coloured

different. As the National Front used to say before them. We need to

show that these are not the charming, reasonable, normal people

they pretend to be. Why do the main parties ause UKIP of being racist or

zenophobic, but refuse to believe that could be applicable to those

who vote UKIPble to those who vote UKIP. A party's leader and the

people who vote for them are not always the same. The people who tap

into the "the country is going to the dogs" sentiment. They talk about

issues which have little to do with politics. They talk about the

teacher killed yesterday in her own school. Or much more prosaically

about the difficulty of finding a human voice when you call your local

bank. They say that the three main parties have stopped listening,

stopped caring, given up on Britain, now that is much harder for them to

tackle than any one underlying policy. Tomorrow Nigel Farage has

promised to announce if he will stand in Newark, place your bets

now. The Conservatives have a 16,000 majority there, that could be hard

to shift. Now Newark is not warm -- Warmington-on-sea, the fictional

down in dads' army, but it may be the place where they go to war.

My guests are with me. Doesn't the very formation of a cross-party

campaign from all vested interests like you and your colleagues and

other parties demonstrate precisely why UKIP is successful. That you are

out-of-touch with public opinion and they are not? No I don't think it

does at all. I think it is the mainstream parties saying there are

very real differences about Europe, there are very real differences

about immigration and let as discuss them. But don't let's have it in the

way where we pander to the lowest common denominator, where we have a

campaign in which if we were talking about black people or Asian people,

people would be up in arms, but it is OK to talk about people from

Europe, 26 million of them apparently, are coming over here

looking for jobs. Let's look at the poster here, you tell us why this

poster, 26 million people in Europe are looking for work, whose jobs are

they after, why is that racist? Because it is an absolute nonsense.

It may be nonsense, that doesn't mean it is racist? There are 26

million people, alarmist in Europe. That wasn't your accusation, your

accusation it was racist, why? If you substituted for the word

"Europe", you substituted "people from Africa" or "people from Asia"

are coming here for work, everybody would think that is racist. There is

no reason why it says Europe that isn't racist in exactly the same

way. It is alarmist, it is nonsense, as Nicholas Soames says it is

completely devisive. Where does your party appeal to racists? I don't

think it does any more than the other parties. I think we are under

enormous media scrutiny, which I don't complain about, as ming

Campbell said to me yesterday, "welcome to Test Match cricket",

where there are people who have expressed racist sentiments we root

them out and take disciplinary action. You don't accept the poster

is racist? Of course it isn't. We in UKIP are proposing an immigration

policy which would be a level playing field with every country in

the world. A points-based system so the migrants who can benefit Britain

can come here. What we have at the moment is open-door migration from

more than two dozen neighbouring countries and the absurd situation

where an Indian engineer or New Zealand brain surgeon would struggle

to get in, but an eastern European a very grant has a complete right to

come. That is the double standard, and it is crazy. Why are you raising

your eyebrows? I think Patrick doesn't quite appreciate that we

have a system at the moment which is points-based. Not for the EU. Anyone

can come from the EU? We have the level playing field. It is not

level, that is the point. There are a lot of British people, as you

know, working and living in Europe and you give them no thought. But

the question is this isn't it, we hear almost on a daily basis about

extreme candidates. If they are not attacking Lenny Henry, you have

these UKIP candidates now, today, attacking Mo MoFarah for not being

British enough, and talking about banning Islam. Isn't it enough when

you have the leader of your party saying to the Guardian on Saturday

when asked should people be worried about Romanian families living in

their street? He says yes. Is it any wonder that you are encouraging

racists of this kind. I completely refute that accusation. Quite rank

frankly, let's be real about this, people value their sense of

community. When any people come from another community or nationality,

that causes them to worry about their community cohesion. So you

disagree with your leader on this subject? You would be happy to have

Romanians living next to you, unlike your leader. What we know about the

Romanian influx is there is cashpoint fraud, and begging in the

streets. That is a whole country. You have an amazing thing of putting

words in my mouth, if you let me finish. There are many Romanians who

work extremely hard, and Romanians who, with those values coming to

live in your street fine, once you get to know them. If it is a

Romanian running a cashpoint skimming gang you have every right

to be concerned and sustain that concern. The question wasn't are you

happy to have people indulging in criminal activity living next to

you. It was Romanians in general. To make the whole statement about a

whole country strikes me as extraordinary, is it any wonder you

have people aligning themselves with you with this view. It is great

pity, there are very, very many decent people who have voted for

UKIP in the past. How sweet of you to say so. And who will vote for

UKIP in the future. They will. It is a great shame that some of their

representatives and candidates have these extreme views. Two things we

know, 70% plus of the British public don't want open-door, unlimited

immigration from the rest of the European Union. The second thing we

know is there is an extraordinary degree of antipathy towards the

Westminster political class represented by you today. You are a

lovely person but with enemies like you who needs friends, that would be

UKIP's analysis of today. We will stop this before it gets personal.

Thank you both. For anyone, if any of us is unlucky enough to be

diagnosed with cancer figures published today give some comfort.

An average of half of us could expect to still be alive in ten

years' time, the survival rate is much better for some cancers than

others, but the advances in treament treatment have been so impressive

that the picture is quite changed. Cancer one of Britain's biggest

fears. Partly because as recently as the 1970s, treatment was very

ineffective. People thought of it as a death sentence. It is certainly

still common, in 2011, 330,000 people were diagnosed with a form of

the disease. In the same year, 160,000 people died. But there is

good news. Back in the 1970s, around one half of people diagnosed with

cancer died within a year. But survival rates have been rising and

rising. The latest estimates imply that around one half of people

diagnosed with cancer will survive a decade. That's because we have got

better at all parts of the treatment process. We are spotting diseases

earlier and treatments are much better. But the progress hides some

major variation. Ten -year survival rates for breast cancer are 78%. For

bladder cancer they are 50%, for lung capser they are 5%, and for

pancreatic cancer they are just 1%. More common cancers tend to attract

more research time. But, even some relatively prevalent cancers like

lung cancer have just proved difficult to crack. Differences in

survival rates also reflect things like how quickly the cancers tend to

get found and diagnosed. That is an important reason why survival rates

for pancreatic cancer have barely moved in 40 years. Still there has

been improvements, it is of course great thing. But we should also

remember that Britain could do much better. A recent study found that 9%

of British people with lung cancer survived for five years. In Norway

it was 14%. In Australia 17%. And in Canada it was 18%. So we should

celebrate the recent improvements in care, cancer is, in many cases, now

a manageable condition. But, there is still a long way to go.

Here now is the Medical Director of Cancer Partners UK. And Chris, who

has lived with breast cancer for five years and set up the cancer

awareness cancer charity, Coppafeel. And a member of the Alzheimer's

Society. This changing experience of cancer, how is it altering the way

we look at the disease? I think cancer is rapidly becoming a chronic

illness, like diabetes and high blood pressure. That is a long-term

illness? A long-term illness. When I began as a consultant 25 35 years

ago, 25% of patients would survive ten years, now it is 50%, and in the

next 20 years it will be 75%. The fear goes with the statistics. So

that changes the way people think about it? It does, people come to

the clinic, telling someone they have cancer no longer has that

dreadful conotation it did when I started. Having said that there are

still sad situations and people are still going to die of cancer. So we

could do much better if we put more effort into it. Tell me if the

terminology is wrong, you have lived with cancer now, you were diagnosed

how long ago? Five years ago. Breast cancer? Yeah. And you have lived

with it since then? Yes, I was already diagnosed with secondaries

when I was first told I had cancer. So I didn't go through a stage of

being diagnosed and thinking I was going to be OK. It was already stage

four breast cancer when it was found. And do you recall what the

impact of that news was and can you contrast it with how you feel about

the disease now? I knew very little about it. And I actually didn't know

what the conotations were of it, being the secondary compared to it

being primary. So I just, I didn't also know anything positive about it

either, so I knew it was bad. But I didn't really think I would be here

five years on. What do you think about it now? I am very much veering

towards the side of it being more of a chronic illness. Because I'm

living with it. And I have an identical twin sister and you

wouldn't be able to tell I'm the one who has cancer. And I know so many

other people living with the disease as well. So surely that's when we're

starting to think it is a manageable disease. This is a great advance

isn't it? Absolutely. I think it is really great news for cancer and for

people with cancer, but it is also a great news story for medical

research in general. Because it shows that by putting the right

investment in medical research, we can realise a discovery as new

treatments and cures for medical conditions. It is great news for

cancer, we need to see the same happening for dementia and

Alzheimer's and other diseases. I want to clear up one point with the

professor here, why is it there is a huge discrepancy between the

survival rate in some cannisters and others? -- cancers and others?

Pancreatic is the worst, 3% 40 yearsing and 3% now. It is partly

because of late diagnosis, but also because there is something about the

cells of the pan crease of the pancreas that we don't understand.

We are hoping to discover it through molecular analysis, so what applies

to cancer will apply to dementia. It is about reducing a reductionist

interpretation of what makes it cancerous. Clearly it would be

better if we had survival rates of the kind that exist in Norway or

Estonia, I think that is another one, or Australia. How do you

improve those? You need some money and you need to change the system.

You need to get better earlier diagnosis. What Chris is doing

through her charity is raising awareness of breast abnormalities,

persisting through an often negative system, general practitioners, going

to clinics, getting through that there is something wrong with you. I

guess the name explains what your charity is about Coppafeel, feel

your breasts, and that is a step towards early diagnosis? And not

ignoring symptoms, having the confidence to say to your GP, I have

noticed these changes, they are not right for me, it needs to be

investigated. Is there some sort of measurable result? Awareness is very

hard to measure, but we are seeing more stories come through, case

studies of people saying it was because of your message that I went

back to my GP and it was taken more seriously and I asked to be referred

and I was subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer and it was found

early. We need to make shower that breast cancers are found early, that

is when you are more likely to survive it. You have already

referred to the difference between the sort of resource that is are

available in cancer care. And the sort of resources, Alzheimer's is

your field, dementia. Do you resent the attention that cancer gets?

Absolutely not. The amount going into Cancer Research is fantastic,

even though today's news is good news, there is still a lot more that

needs to be done in cancer. What we can do in the dementia field is

learn a lot from Cancer Research colleagues about awareness raising.

We can bring new money in to dementia to make progress. The

Government have doubled its spend on dementia, and the Alzheimer's

Society will spend extra over the next ten years. That is a step in

the right direction, we need to keep the momentum going. The political

spotlight we have on dementia but seeing a big increase in research.

Do you feel because cancer has a particular talismanic, terrifying

impression upon people, that you some how have an unfair share of the

cake? I do feel that sometimes. I have been a great campaigner and I

think maybe I'm taking it away from someone. But I think the great thing

I know about Cancer Research, the lessons we are learning there will

alie right across the board of many different diseases. The epidemics of

our time are not the plague and infection, they are non-communable

conditions, chronic diseases. In all of them the molecular basis of them,

and how we treat them better, comes down to an analysis of the genes and

DNA, where it has gone wrong. The social implications of dementia and

older people especially living with cancer there is a lot of commonalty.

And cancer patients have other diseases as they get older. Do you

feel you are slightly jeopardising funding for other areas of medicine?

No. Not at all. If anything awareness is quite different to

buying items needed for research. I can still go out on the street to

tell someone to check their breasts without money in my pocket. That is

not to say we don't need money because we need it to do the

projects we are talking about. We are about taking the message early

and educating young people, so they don't start learning the fear of

cancer and get anything there before they even start doing that. Thank

you all very much. President Obama rounded off a visit to the Far East

today by trying to defend the way he deals with the rest of the world.

Soft and consistent seem to be his themes. They could hardly be a

greater contrast to his predecessors George W Bush's eagerness to send

soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan. But yet failing to appreciate the

mood of Russia and failing to do in Syria. As he approaches the end of

his time in the White House. Obama is obviously thinking of his

reputation. Aware of how many people see him as a disappointment. This

week the President has been in the Far East. A trip designed to

emphasise his foreign policy tilt towards the Pacific. Come on now,

ready, right here. But the scorecard has been mixed. America has given

guarantees on Japanese and South Korean security but not got a whole

lot back. And with the crises simplering elsewhere in Syria and

Ukraine, President Obama felt he had to answer his critics. Typically

criticism of our foreign policy has been directed at the failure to use

military force. And the question I think I would have is why is it that

everybody is so eager to use military force. After we have just

gone through a decade of war at enormous to our troops and to our

budget. When it comes to sports and photo opportunities, basketball has

always been the Obama game of choice, and even during his first

campaign, his emphasis on ending wars and choosing diplomacy was a

Lambert dunk with the American public. President Obama came to

office with the thought that when you talk to the people around him

that the US was overinvested in the big land wars of the Middle East and

south Asia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and underinvested in terms of his

time and attention in terms of East Asia. Power in the world, economic

and military power is shifting towards East Asia, I think President

Obama, I think maybe his greatest achievement has President has been

to redirect the strategic attention of the country towards the Far East.

And along with the abandonment of unpopular wars came a deliberate

focus on healing America's economic ills. Over the last decade we have

spent a drill I don't know dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and

hard economic times. Now we must invest in America's greatest

resource, our people. America it is time to focus on nation building

here at home. And in the 2012 campaign that was portrayed by his

opponent as an abandonment of American global leadership. In an

American century we lead the free world and the free world leads the

entire world. If we don't have the strength or vision to lead, then

other powers will take our place, pulling history in a very different

direction. And as the President defended his emphasis on healing

America first, he ridiculed his opponent for suggesting that America

might still have enemies, like Russia. I'm glad that you recognise

that Al-Qaeda is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked

what is the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said

Russia, not Al-Qaeda, in the 1980s are calling to ask for their foreign

policy back. The reset in relations with Russia was a cornerstone of

Obama's first attempt at foreign policy, and the attempt to make a

friend of an enemy that have subsequently led to charges of

naivity. Both Republican candidates in the 2008 and 2012 presidential

races were explicit in their opposition to Russia. With

Republicans and other critics of the administration are hitting home is

on Syria President Obama did draw a lion in the sand, and when President

Assad crossed it, President Obama did not respond in the brutal,

cynical world of Middle East politics that was a blow to US

credibility. In the Ukraine and the Crimea process, President Putin has

been highly opportunistic, strategic, very quick and decisive

and both Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Obama have been a

couple of steps reacting behind him. Russia, in basketball terms is the

President's biggest mis. For the plans in Syria and the wider Middle

East, and even the administration concede as complete re-think on

security policy. Basketball aficionados might have noticed he

has slowed down since he was Senator Obama, the dynamic of simple policy

has gone, to be replaced by a more complex calculation, and the

knowledge that sometimes a draw is the best you can hope for. A little

earlier I spoke to a spokeswoman for the Obama administration at the

state department. In what way is the world a safer place than it was when

President Obama took office? I would make a few points, when he took

office we had 150,000 US troops overseas engaged in two large wars.

Today one of those wars is over. Americans are home with their

families. If you look at the threat from terrorism, from Al-Qaeda corp,

the group that attacked us on 9/11 was out there when the President

took office, they were operating freely in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Today that group sumpivically is a shadow of what it once was. I could

mention many more things but the negotiations with Iran over the

nuclear programme today. We are engaged in the most serious and

sensitive negotiations with the best chance of peacefully resolving our

concerns over their nuclear programme. None of this is easy,

many, many challenges remain. Those are just a few examples of how we

have made progress during the last six years now. Do you still believe

that the relationship between your country and Russia has been, as it

was put, "reset"? Well that was -- Well that was a certain time in our

policy, how we describe our relationship with Russia today is

complicated. Anyone looking at the situation would describe it in the

same way. We clearly have fundamental deep-seated differences

with how Russia is behaving in Ukraine today, we have been clear

about, that yesterday sanctioning more Russian officials, when we can

work together, for example on the Iran negotiations I mentioned, we

will continue to do so because it is in our national security interests

to do so. Wh Secretary of State Kerry describes the Ukraine crisis

as "putting the entire model of global leadership at stake", what

does he mean. ? What he means is in 2014 it is unacceptable for a

country to invade its neighbour. To take the steps we have seen Russia

take when it comes to Ukraine. We have been very clear that countries'

territorial integrity and sovereignty is a key notion that

underpins the whole international system of which Russia is a key

part. That is what it is referred to. Are there any circumstances

under which the United States commit troops should the Russians intervene

militarily in Ukraine? No, we are not talking about that. For a couple

of reasons. What we want to s is the situation deescalated not

escalating, also we have no interest whatsoever in engaging with some

sort of proxy war with Russia that harkens back to a time decades ago,

which we have no intention of going back to and don't think the Russians

should want to either. This is rather like the situation in Syria

where a threat is made and the country doesn't have the means or

the desire to follow it through? Absolutely not, I would disagree

with the emise, in the Ukraine we have promised a number of things,

economic pressure through sanctions, economic and diplomatic pressure to

punish them for what they have been doing in Ukraine. We won't commit

military resources there, because we don't think there is a military

solution. We have also said on the flip side we will stand by the

Ukrainian Government and people. We believe the best way to support them

is through economic, diplomatic assistance. That is exactly what we

are doing now, exactly what we said we would do. Do you like the Braing

snake-hipped greedy Charlatans that become the poster boys for 21st

Septemberry capitalism. Silly question, no-one does, or anything

like how much they love themselves. The red-meat eating good guys come

last trading world doesn't care. And capitalism depends on them to

function N a remarkable new book, Michael Lewis analyses the damage

being done to capitalism, by the way some so called high freakcy traders

are behave -- frequency traders are behaving. First an explanation of

what they have been doing. Imagine reaching into the chiller

cabinet, only to have someone snatch it from you and make you pay extra

to get your hands on it? That is one of the ways that high frequency

traders make money, taking millions of pound out of our savings and

investments in such tiny amounts we don't even notice. For example the

big pension fund might place a big order for shares in one exchange,

because the order is so bad there are not enough shares on that

exchange so it is pinged around to other exchanges in turn. What the

high frequency der gets there first and buys them up and sells them on

to the pension fund with an increased price. We are not talking

about peanuts here, one fund manager lost 1% of his total every year to

the high frequency traders. You can get an idea of how staggeringly

lucrative it is, when you look at how much they will spend to get the

tiniest advances. One company spent ?300 million to shave three seconds

off the link up time between Chicago and New York. It is ultimately paid

for by our pensions and savings. At the moment we are talking about

things, the high-frequency traders do that are illegal if morally

questionable. However the FBI this month announced it is considering

whether this practice of frontrunning, chatsing orders around

the world should be considered -- chasing orders around the world

should be considered illegal and insider training. There are some

things that some high frequency traders do that are flat out

criminal. Like spoofing. A trader might like to buy a quantity of oil

more cheaply by putting a order in below the prize price, they then

places orders at increasingly lower prices, fooling traders that it is

dropping, he buys quickly cheap and cancels the sell order. He can make

a quick profit by doing the reverse. It is all over by the time it takes

you to blink. The popular idea of financial markets looks like this,

but this is what they look like, black boxes using trading strategies

none of us understand. This is risky, a catastrophic meltdown, only

ever a nanosecond away. I caught up with Michael Lewis yesterday. Was

what these guys are doing wrong? It is an open question whether it is

illegal. It is unclear whether the way the stock market has evolved is

in the end illegal, I think it will be answered in the court of law

whether it is illegal. But the, what is troubling about it is you have

got a financial system that is behaving in ways that are not good

for investors. There is a lot of behaviour that is probably all legal

but still distasteful. Has anyone been charged as a result of your

reflations? The -- investigations. The FBI has opened an investigation

in the last month or so, they haven't charged anybody yet. They

were They were asleep on the job until somebody woke them up? I'm not

sure what woke them up, the characters in my book might have

woken them up before I did. The people who are really asleep on the

job was the Securities and Exchange Commission, the regulators of the

financial sector. They seemed incapable of being at all active in

the financial market. They respond to crises but don't prevent them

happening. I don't know what these guys who were fixing the market were

doing that was wrong? If it was smiled upon by the regulators, they

were just acting as those sort of people have always acted, weren't

they? I think that's probably their point of view. That their behaviour

was just, was being condoned by the financial regulator, how could you

possibly accuse them of illegal activity, however that is what the

New York Attorney-General is about to do. So we may have a very curious

situation where people are accused of crimes for doing things that the

financial regulators condone. But you know this world, has something

changed in it? Are they different sort of people? Yeah it used to be

just nice men who went to work in the financial sector. The appearance

of probity really mattered to those figures? They didn't require high

intellect, this was an advantage, they can only do so much damage when

they aren't that bright. What has happened now is instead of the

bottom of the class of Oxford and Cambridge going to work in the City

it is the top of the class. And they are capable of doing unlimited

damage to everybody else, making it complicated in ways we don't

understand. That complexity is like a no-pass, it is like what is going

on. If the only people who lose money as a consequence of their

activities are hedge fund deals, those sort of people who cares? If

that was true I would care a lot less. But the effect of the rigging

of the stock market is to essentially tax all investment

capital. It isn't just hedge funders on the other end of this, every

stock market transaction is susceptible to being scalped. Trades

by little people, trades by big people. The bigger problem isn't

just the scalping going on. In order to arrange the technology so it can

owe cushion you have to make it a lot more complicated than it would

have been. Their complexity ends up being unstable, they have companies

crashing and exchanges going down for hours at a time. Even within the

financial system there is a misgiving about the way they have

structured it and a concern it is like a catastrophe waiting to happen

because the technology has got too complicated. Let's hope it is not a

catastrophe, a scandal has been revealed, you have revealed a

scandal here, and the authorities will bring in new rules and then the

next bunch of smart kids will work a way around them? That is one

possible outcome. Surely that is the whole pattern? That has been the

pattern. The reason I was interested in telling the story, this is the

first time that there has been reform within the market that hasn't

depended on regulators doing anything. You had people who were

Wall Street insiders, from exchanges and high freakcy trading firms from

banks -- frequency trading firms from banks, they need to say the

stock market needs to be unrigable and announce to everybody that the

markets are rigging things. The people whose money they control and

those they were supposed to be creating, once you create that

market pressure to move the market into place where it can't be

scalped, I think you possibly have a sustainable, unrigable, unAble

future. I think the broader picture when you pack away is Wall Street is

less and less necessary. It is more and more obnoxiousious. But

technology has eliminated the need of what they do. It is a case of the

society forcing the issue and saying we don't need you in this, get out.

We may be headed in that direction. If you are the sort of person who

thinks the old Young British Artists are, were Charlatans, here is a

treat. Julian Scnable has a new exhibition in London. It is greeted

by a few mixed review, from awful to utterly dreadful according to the

Evening Standard. But as the artist and film director told Steven Smith,

don't people have a sense of humour. Why not just walk past him while he

is standing there. He will be annoyed? He will be fine. You are

not left in any doubt you are with a big art world figure when you meet

Julian Snachble. You don't forget he's a garlanded movie director

either. This painting I Always Thought of Myself as Taller was

inspired by old neighbour, Lou Reid. It is as if this is imming were d on

the material instead of on them. We had an SVU, and -- SUV and I I was

opening the boot, and I said I'm sorry you have to watch the top, and

he said I always thought of myself as taller. It was an apology for him

being scared for a moment. He is really not dead, can you hear street

hassle, and Pale Blue Eyes, he was so relevant. He directed a

documentary by the underrated album, he knew a different side of the

artist aside from the swagger. When my father died I called Lou and he

came over, and we sat next to my father dead in bed and looked at him

for a couple of hours and talked to him. And then I wrapped a rag around

his face so his mouth would say shut and I put him in the bag. We went

through a lot of things together. It isn't only American artists that

have inspired him. How did you come upon the works of Bez of Happy

Mondays fame? I love them, Black Grape is a great record. I paint to

music a lot. And the fact that he doesn't sing or say anything is sort

of an emblem of painting, which is mute. So it is kind of a secret. Is

he aware that you have immortalised him in that way? We couldn't let

things rest there could we? I have never, ever seen his work before.

But I am amazed by it. But it is a bit mad with my name all over it

though, it is a little bit like I have come along afterwards and done

a bit of groupie stuff and ruined the picture. But I love it, it is

proper psycadelic sort of graffiti type art. I don't know if they are

good and bad when I paint them. What do you think now? I like them more

than when I painted them. Since he burst on the art world some 40 years

ago, he has not lacked for confidence. And has played the part

of the Maestro to the hilt. Often affecting pyjamas at the easal, as

here? I have no apologies, sometimes the world needs to catch up with

you. A lot of people don't have a big sense of had you more, and

things are done and said in tongue and cheek, and there is one where

basically my head is being put cut off by an art dealer. The artist

insists his paintings will have as long a shelf like as his movies,

like The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, about an artist with

locked in inDrome, which won the prize at Cannes. Then he says film

and art should all hit the same spot? It is like a drug, you want to

have that feeling, you take that, inject it into your arm and you walk

out of that. That is the feeling you get from the diving and butterfly

and looking at one of the paintings, they are just tools to get you into

that state to where you might be conscious of yourself in some way.

Why are we here, what are we doing? That's almost it for tonight. Back

tomorrow, our celebration of Shakespeare's 450th birthday

continues now with Dame Harriet Walter and a murderous sill key from

act one scene five of Macbeth. The raven himself is hoarse, but cokes

the fatal entrance of Duncan, under my battlements. Come you spirits,

attend on mortal thoughts. Unsex me here, and fill me from the crown to

the toe, top full of direist cruelty. Make sick my blood. Stop up

the access and passage to remorse that no compunctions of visiting

nature shake my foul purpose, nor keep peace between the effect and

it. Come to my woman's breast and take my milk for gall, you murdering

ministers. Wherever in your sightless substances you wait on

nature's mischief. Come, sick night, and pull thee in the host of hell,

that I see not the wound it makes, nor heaven Pope through the blanket

of the dark to cry "hold, hold, hold". ??FORCEDWHIT

A lot of low crowd and patchy fog by the morning. Particular low across

the southern parts of England. The fog lifting and the cloud thinning

and breaking and we should see sunny spells emerging. Probably in

different places though for most of the day it is