15/05/2014 Newsnight

Turkey's grief turns to rage, can the Turkish Government's response to

the terrible mining disaster get any worse. We will ask the chairman of

Turkey's Committee on Foreign Relations. He took President Obama

to the White House, David Axelrod has landed. If you put the glasses

on, you should be able to see it in a few days. A success story with a

lot of torque. Bond Lear villa for rent, hundreds ofms below surface

for rent. One MasterChef says it is fabulous. I will be on Newsnight

talking about growing underground. Good evening, the outrage at the

Turk irk Prime Minister's handling of the worst mining disaster his

country has ever seen, was only compounded today of an image that

showed his political aide kicking a protestor during the protest of the

visit to the mine yesterday. Thousands of people have felt

teargas and water canon on cities across Turkey, in three days of

morning for the dead. 284 so fashion and 150 still missing deep

underground. The first funerals were held today amidst accusations that

the privatisation of the mining sector has made working conditions

more dangerous. This was twins, 32-year-old and working at the mine,

on Wednesday they were buried together in the home town. Their's

the first of many funerals up and down western Turkey, this is the

country's worst mining disaster and the death toll keeps rising. With it

a sense of outrage directed at pretty much anyone in authority.

This was the scene in Soma when the Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan

came to pay his respects. His official c surrounded, battered,

almost overwhelmed. And a walk about that seemed to go badly wrong. Video

of the Prime Minister's defensive reaction has been published on

newspaper websites. And so have these, pictures of a member of his

staff kicking a protestor. Is this, people wonder, the authentic face of

the Government's response. We must understand that the tragedy happened

in a country that was already polarised enough, in a country where

there was already a lot of anger and division. Both the people who

support the party, and people who are against the party are more

consolidated, if you will. And the gap between these two segments of

the Turkish population is quite large now. The Prime Minister's

first press conference after the disaster was less than impressive

too. The pristine formal setting seemed a million miles from the soot

and grief of Soma. The Prime Minister promised a thorough

investigation, but then launched into a carefully-prepared catalogue

of mine disasters throughout history, including England's worst

at Oak's colliery near Barnsley in 1836. TRANSLATION: These kind of

accidents happen continually, unfortunately. But anger about

events in Soma has spread, this was a port city today, protests dealt

with in familiar fashion by Turkey's heavy-handed police. There were

demonstrations elsewhere and a nationwide strike by unions

demanding better working conditions. Even before Tuesday's disaster,

safety at the Soma mine had been questioned. Opposition MPs demanded

an inquiry, and an effort rejected by the Prime Minister's own ruling

party just last month. One of his allies was grilled on TV about why

he dismissed the inquiry as trivial and petty. Is this a party and Prime

Minister increasingly out-of-touch. I do believe his image has been

tarnished, most alarmingly. The messages that he has been given, you

know, recently, I find it very problematic. It sounds as if he

cares mostly for the people who voted for him, but what about the

other half of the Turkish population. I think as a result

people feel distanced, belittled, and that increases the frustration

and anger. So is this another moment, a repoet of last summer's

burst of anger against an authoritarian Government. Not yet.

The last protests was primarily missle class, university educated

youth in Turkey, expressing their deep dissatisfaction of the type of

governance by Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Where as Soma was a man made

disaster, again and the level of protests has been much, much lower.

The Turkish President visited the mine today, showing rather more

empathy than the Prime Minister 24-hours earlier. But emotions are

still running high. The mine was privatised by this Government,

people wonder if crony capitalism is partly to blame. They will be

burying the dead for days, possibly weeks to come. Turkey's unenviable

record on industrial safety has deteriorated even further. Could all

this still come back to haunt the country's Prime Minister. We have a

member of Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Government and chairman of Turkey's

foreign affairs committee. He joins me from Istanbul. When the political

opposition called for an inquiry into work place safety, they cited

Soma as one of the offenders. Was it now a dreadful mistake for the

Government to vote against the idea of that inquiry? Well, I think the

picture should be seen in its own perspective. In the parliament work

the sessions start with the opposition taking the floor and

asking for investigations or formation of committees. And if we

had really formed those committees we would have more than 500

different investigations had. But you have a poor record on industrial

safety, did you vote against the idea of having this inquiry? Well

this inquiry was voted yes, the Government party rejected this. But

it wasn't just because it was on the new measures on the mine industry's

security. But normally we have really closed over 100 mines in the

last few years, and this particular mine was investigated twice last

year and it was investigated this March. Nothing wrong was found

there. I think what the position was doing was perhaps correct, but it

wasn't exactly to an investigation commission cturing. It was just to

take the time of the parliament. Two things, these checks weren't carried

out without warning. But secondly the company involved in the mine

said in 2012, it boasted it had dropped the cost per tonne for

extraction from the mine from $140 to just under $24. Didn't that set

off alarm bells? That shouldn't be looked at like that. When you have

privatisation, or if you are having a private sector working anywhere,

the costs go really below the Government functioning of any

institution. You can't say that because that. That is a radical

drop? You can't say the security also went down. The security went

down as well. You heard the dismay that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip

Erdogan's speech about the disaster caused, particularly when he said

these disasters were not quite common place, and cited disasters

around the world, including one going back to 1860 in Britain. Has

the Prime Minister misread not only the domestic mood but the

international mood about the disaster? Well that I think, you

should look at the picture correctly. The Prime Minister

cancelled his visit to Albania, he was supposed to be there. He

convened the ministerial council and declared the three days mourning. He

sent the minister of energy there, the minister is there for three days

now. Every minister relevant was there. He went there personal. Why

did he have to make historical speeches about something that is

very real and immediate to hundreds of families? Well it wasn't

something historical. It was answering a question and he just

gave some examples. That was all. But what he did was actually he

wanted to comfort the people by going there. He has instructed an

amount equal to the salary to be paid to the families of the lost

miners. He ordered also an investigation. He said that if this

investigation result proves that anybody is guilty he will not be, or

she will not be tolerated. You said the Prime Minister went there to

caress the people, what was his aide doing kicking a protestor then,

kicking a member of the family. Should that aide be sacked now?

Well, look, the Prime Minister didn't kick anybody. I said his

aide, his aide? That is an individual issue, somebody from his

staff did that, but he also made a statement that he was deeply

saddened that he couldn't control himself. Should he be sacked? In the

provocations. You should take that as a young person who lost his

nerves. You cannot attach this to the Prime Minister at all. I would

just like to ask you, you are a senior politician. He went there to

find a solution to the problem, if somebody from his staff... I have to

press the point, to be absolutely clear, you are a very senior

politician, it is the Prime Minister's aide, this isn't some

ingenue, when an image of him kicking a protestor or a member of a

bereaved family and you think this is an action of an individual that

perhaps was inexperienced, surely the least the Prime Minister should

be doing is censoring that and saying that aide should be

dismissed? Well, you haven't seen the end of the story yet. We are in

a very difficult moment. The worst disaster happened, funerals are

taking place we are still looking after the people mission. Under

these circumstances I think we shou, everybody should wait for a few days

in order to see what measures are being taken or if a Prime Minister's

aide is dismissed or not. I think looking at the picture today from

that perspective is wrong. We are really suffering, everybody is very

sad and we're trying to go into the mind, trying to find the missing

miners alive or dead and at this point I think looking to the

particular case of a aide of the Prime Minister is wrong. Thank you

very much. All the measures will be taken and the investigation will be

on and if there is anything missing in this security of the mines in

Turkey, new additional measures will be taken. I think looking at the

perspective from one person kicking another is wrong. We are really

suffering from a worst mine disaster. The population is very

sad, families are very sad, and the Government is announcing it will

take all the measures necessary. Thank you very much, I'm affray we

have to stop you there. We have run out of time. Ed Miliband welcomed

his star signing to his Shadow Cabinet meeting today. David

Axelrod, the man credited with putting President Obama in the White

House jetted in for two days of intensive meetings as polls have

questioned Ed Miliband's leadership by putting the Conservatives ahead

for the first time in more than two years. They were having dinner

tonight, so perhaps they are sitting with whiskeys working out what

material Axelrod has to work with. If only it were this ey to pull off

an Obama-style victory, a few striking colours but Ed Miliband is

finding change isn't always a simple message to spell. Step forward the

newest member of Team Miliband, David Axelrod, meeting the cabinet

today, he was President Obama's strategist. Labour insiders are

saying this isn't a Labour makeover, you don't get someone of his calibre

saying this isn't a Labour makeover, to tell you what tie to wear, said

one, although they were wearing the same colour time. It is about

helping Labour frame and communicate its message. He can frame messages,

soundbites, speeches, the way Ed Miliband sound and looks. Now there

is nothing there that the Labour Party couldn't work out for itself.

But never underestimate the power of an expensive outsider to make things

happen. If we look at all voting intention polls since 2010, it

appears that Labour's lead has waxed and waned, indeed two polls this

week gave the Conservatives a slight lead. Not perhaps where Labour needs

to be a year out from an election. What can David Axelrod do, I met him

in New Hampshire at 2008 at the start of Barack Obama's first

presidential campaign. Then he had an even bigger hill to climb, with

Obama 20 points behind in the national poll One state at a time,

we said when we were 30 points behind national polls we said it

starts in Iowa. Then the candidate was largely unknown to the American

people a year before polling day. The task was to introduce him in the

most positive and exciting day. Way. For Ed Miliband to get here as Prime

Minister, it looks harder. He has already been Labour leader for

three-and-a-half years. Before that he was in the cabinet, so many

British voters have already formed an opinion as to who he is and what

he stands for. If the polls are accurate, that opinion isn't

favourable. Just 19% of voters see him as the best Prime Minister, as

opposed to 36% for David Cameron and 5% for Nick Clegg. That is actually

a worst position for Ed Miliband than he was when he first became

Labour leader. Ed Miliband comes across to millions of voters as a

very bright, very argumentative, undergraduate. We doesn't have the

gravitas, he doesn't look like he's serious number, a man with gravitas

who can run the country. What he has to do in his speeches at prime

ministers' questions and interviews, is to be less argumentative and more

magisterial so he sounds as if he's in the job already. Labour's best

period, according to the polls, started after the budget in March

2012. A series of coalition tax announcements on caravans, hot food

and charities that rapidly unravelled helped matters

considerably. Even people within Downing Street are calling it an

omnishambles budget. But if we look at a graph for polling on the

economy, since the last election, Labour has been consistently behind

since early 201, and now that -- 2013, now that gap seems to be

widening. He predistribution says we can't allow ourselves to be stuck...

Ed Miliband has introduced new language into the debate, like

"predistribution", Mr Axelrod's job is to refine these. Labour needs to

have a critque of this the largeage, like the kind you would have in work

or the supermarket that says this is what's wrong with the economy, these

people have all of the money and power in society and it needs to be

shared more equally. And getting that kind of message out I think is

one that is popular and speaks to what Labour is good at and what the

Conservatives aren't. Any honest election guru will admit there is a

limit to what any election guru can do, they can shape and polish, frame

and label. The people around Ed Miliband say they have the ideas and

the message, all they are looking for is a bit of help in getting them

across. Joining me now is Ed Miliband's biographer and political

editor for the Huffington Post UK. Phil Collins a former Tony Blair

speechwriter, and Lorraine Candy the Editor in Chief of Elle. The subject

tonight is Ed Miliband. Does he need to make a new political narrative

for him? A bit of both. This question of image, Ed Miliband's

makeover that Phil's paper was talking about today, clearly

undeniably he has an image problem. We shouldn't exaggerate it, there

was talk of gravitas and looking primesal. The best way to look --

prime ministerial. There is always that talk the best way to be prime

ministerial is to be Prime Minister! We in the media are obsessed with

the leader, if you look at the academic evidence who study this,

they say people don't vote on the basis of leaders, we don't have this

presidential system. Journalists love debating it but it doesn't

affect the outcome of the next election. There he is behind on

polling on the economy, and he thought he would breakthrough on

cost of living, he was punting that and he still hasn't managed to make

narrative out of that, that has been stopped dead in its tracks? We don't

want to be distracted by the image part of it. It is not the most

important part, it is what it is. He came out in one poll as being very

honest, the public said they felt he was honest. I would think that is a

positive thing for someone talking to the public about cost of living.

You want honesty around that. What he looks like and wears is

incredibly important, but it is not the only thing. Nobody ever has an

image problem that doesn't have a problem beneath T I'm a big fan of

Ed Miliband, I think he's very good at getting the message out. The

message is the problem. It is not that he is unable to articulate what

he thinks, he's been very clear about his analysis of capitalism, a

series of retail policies that are re clear. You think him standing at

a podium talking about redistribution is getting across

well. That is an important message about distribution of wealth. Energy

prices. He made the weather on energy and then he fell away. He

couldn't carry it through, why is that? The reason for that, he has a

series of things that are in themselves popular adding up to

something that is proving not to be popular. The reason is he's not a

credible messenger for that story. Would you have said the same about

Margaret Thatcher? At the moment he's an underdog and people tend to,

it is a long time before the election in terms of politics and

voting and actual three what women think, and I keep being told what

women think over the next year is really, really important. How does

he, does he appeal to women actually? I think of all of them

he's possibly, possibly could be the most appealing, but we don't know

about the women around him. His wife is incredibly intelligent,

incredibly likeable, we don't know that much, but if a woman like that

loves a man like then the package I need to know more about as a

possible voter. The package was not just about Obama but about Michelle,

and the same about Samantha Cameron? His brand and image, right at the

beginning, their family and her was incredibly important. If you look at

the pictures of Ed Miliband with his family in a more relaxed way, with

his great v-neck sweater. We don't see enough and that is important.

That is the family argument where the woman stands behind the arm? It

is about how you sell yourself, we live in a TV age of three main media

advisers all ex-politicians. Margaret Thatcher in 1979 was a

substantive figure, she came to office and made radical changes, she

was seen as shrill and weird, she trailed Jim Callaghan by 22 points

in the polls on the personal approval ratings on the eve of the

election she won on in a landslide. John Major won by more votes in

history and he wasn't a charismatic man. The idea that Ed Miliband can

sell himself on the notion much family, given how he won the Labour

leadership election is a total fantasy. That is interesting, I

wonder if you think that lingers? Of course it lingers, of course it

does, people don't know a great deal about it. And people aren't going to

vote for him. I don't think you are sell him on the notion of family,

that is not what he's going to be talking about, his policies aren't

just the notion of family, it is an element of it. I'm saying as a man

who is possibly going under a rebrand with someone else in charge

it would be good to know more about him personally and see a relaxed

side to get the message across. Do we live in a less political age,

more presidential p you talk about the TV debates? I think we live in a

much more visual age, women and younger voters do everything

visually. Even if you are eight or nine you can change and filter your

image that you put out on Facebook and other media. We are used to

people changing their images, we are distrustful because we can do it

ourselves. You need to be aof that. How do they make a trustworthy

image? They need to make him feel more relaxed. He's a very

intelligent man. I don't want to go to the pub with a man running the

country, I want someone really clever running the country. He's

very relaxed and good under pressure, a good performer, there

have been times when he has performed very well. Maybe it is

right there are times when his language was too complex. But he's

starting to distill a story. We have to think is this the correct story,

why is it he doesn't have the credibility, why are his ratings as

a potential Prime Minister so low. Does David Axelrod align him to the

Obama story. He has been saying the democrats and Labour have different

issues by share a common goal and this will be a big and important

election. Is he right? I agree I think the issue is not just about

growth, it is about who get the growth. We have seen a report is the

increases in tax share. We talk about Barack Obama, and who he issed

leading on the economy. -- who is leading on the economy, he was

behind in the polls against Mitt Romney about leading the economy. He

did a heresy, he shifted to the left and started talking about inequality

and tax rises and it worked. Here you have it it was said there that

you bring in somebody who costs an awful lot of money and think that

will work, do you think he can make the difference between propelling Ed

Miliband to Downing Street or not? I think it is very interesting the

point you made about bringing an outsider in, bringing somebody who

thinks about it in a totally different way. Obama is a different

things, if I talk about female voters there is not a woman in the

country who wouldn't want to go to dinner with Barack Obama, I'm not

sure about planed at the moment. Someone coming in from the -- Ed

Miliband at the moment. Someone coming in from the outside, as a

voter, it can make a twist. He's far too good to think he can do what he

did for Barack Obama to Ed Miliband. That is partly because it is not

America, and partly when Labour is so far behind on the economy, it is

the 11th hour, it is too late to change it. Too late? Tony Blair was

22 points behind John Major in the 1997 election and won the election

that was on economy. Pfizer has brought concerns about

takeovers for British business, some are worried about a long-term threat

to Britain's science base and manufacturing sector. Kraft Food's

takeover of Cadbury was followed by a closing factory and job losses,

despite promises. Can overseas ownership be good for British

business, some with the best marks. Over the last couple of weeks you

would be forgiven for thinking that foreign takeovers of British firms

are something to fear. But do overseas owners kill jobs? Not

always. Damage our skill base? Not necessarily. Are they bad for

long-term investment? Not everywhere. Immediate the modern,

not so British car industry. Britain benefits massively from being open

to investment. Nissan is now producing more cars than the whole

of Italy. Since the recession motor manufacturing has been one of the

bright spots of the UK economy. Investment is up, exports are up,

and employment is up. So why have foreign takeovers here worked out so

well. And what lessons can other parts of the economy learn from its

success. Nowadays there are six big car manufacturers in the UK, all of

them foreign owned. Back in the 1970s, the British car industry was

mostly still, well, British. But car production was falling. It only

began to rise again from the mid-1980s. With the opening of

Japanese and other foreign-owned plants. The global recession hit

demand for cars especially hard, now though it is on the up and expected

to hit a record level by 017. And about 80% of these cars will go

abroad. The industry was once the go-to example of Britain's status as

an economic failure. Plaged by difficult trade unions, chronic

underestimate, and widespread inefficiency. It didn't help that

Britain generally made rubbish cars to boot. You have had some bad

experiences with the British cars. The bottom dropped out of the Ford

after nine months. Have you tried British cars? I had a Jag before

that and Fords, it was the usual trip down to the garage every

fortnight. You mate remember the Triumph TR-7, a typical British car

from the 1970s, a commercial failure like a lot of those cars. Now things

are very different. Smart Government policy is helping the industry to

grow, with things like training and research and development. Back in

the 1970s policy was very different. It was about cobbling firms

together, bailing out losers and in the end the Government owned a huge

chunk of the STLI. -- industry, we all know how well that turned out.

There are three reasons why the UK is so attractive to the sector,

firstly, a high-quality, flexible Labour force, which has a long track

record now of successfully building quality product d. Secondly our

manufacturing processes are now globaling adopted. And they aredly,

interestingly, I think the relationship between Government and

the industry, through the automotive council means that we have a forum,

where the industry specific issues can be tackled stragically, so we

have a pathway together. The British car industry employs nearly 130,000

people, it generates over ?10 billion a year for the economy.

Foreign ownership in the sector has brought better management technique,

exposure to international competition, and often global

economies of scale. These foreign-owned firms aren't just

producing more here, they are also carrying out high-tech research.

What are we looking at here? This is our 3-D version of the Evoke. At

Jaguar Land Rover's R centre in Warwickshire, they have built a

vertical actual reality cave to test proto-types. If you put on the

glasses, it allows you get right inside the data. You can put your

head inside the engine with these 3-D glasses. Centres like this,

mixed with the research is putting us on an even footing with the

German manufacturers. In some respects we are slightly ahead. We

are using clever techniques in the virtual world that enables us to be

ahead. Both in terms of materials and development process...

Everything seems to be going well for the car industry. Some are

worried about the nuts and bolts. It is no sir about the number of shiny

cars across the line, it is about the number of British components

under the bonnet. The problem is -- bonet, the cars in the 1970s were

100% British and the percentage is lower. If you correct for the

important content we will still only be producing something like

two-thirds the value of output that we produced in the 19p 0s, and rob

-- 1970s, and probably significantly less than in the late 1990s. For a

long time we imported more cars into Britain an exported abroad. Recently

the value of the cars we sell overseas has matched the value of

the cars we buy in. This doesn't tell the whole story. A lot of the

components in British-built cars come in from abroad. Add in all

that, as shown on the red line, and the motor industry as a whole is

still a big importer. Only around 40% of the parts in a British-made

car are from the domestic supply chain. In Germany and France that

figure is nearer 06. Closing this gap could at ?3 billion to the UK

economy. Foreign ownership can be controversial. While we may again

investment, jobs and expertise, profits, accountability and decision

making can flow abroad. There is rightly public interest in where the

ultimate ownership of UK businesses rests. I don't think it is simple to

give a yes or no answer about whether or not foreign ownership is

good for the UK. It is about having a long-term plan and driving through

successful investment, and securing growth in overseas market. The

British car industry is doing well, because firms have invested in

research and development, innovation and their work force. Most of those

firms also happen to be foreign-owned. In other sectors,

overseas takeovers have been associated with asset stripping and

chasing a quick buck. The real divide isn't between British and

foreign ownership, but between those seeking long-term value and those

only interested in short-term profits. UK car manufacturers all

would love to be aiming for the long-term value. And today the

industry is becoming a world beater. The 1970s feel like a very long time

ago. Joining me now is an economist dubbed one of the top world thinkers

by Prospect Magazine, and the editor of City AM. First of all, would the

evidence of the car industry be one that actually if it hadn't been for

foreign investment saving the day we wouldn't have car industry at all?

In the case of car industry that is true. But you have to recognise that

it is well established empirical evidence that other things being

equal, foreign companies will do fewer or higher value added

activities in the host economies like the UK in the case of the car

industry. We have to bite the bullet, if we want foreign

investment we have to accept we are branch factories and not have the

main engine here? That is what I meant. I have no problem if you say

well we are going to be second fiddle, but we will be a good second

fiddle, then it is fine. But very often that debates get very

ideolgical. As with Pfizer AstraZeneca? Some people talk as if

danger is all that matters, and others say it doesn't matter at all,

but it is somewhere inbetween. The Government wants the balance to

change and to have more either indigenous investment here rather

than foreign investment, and more development here changing

conditions. They have set up as well as the automated councils, bringing

all sorts of industries together, Aerospace, life science, to develop

a base standard for things like apprenticeships or conditions, good

idea? I think largely these things are a waste of time. Of course you

have to develop apprenticeships and create the environment for growth,

you have to have great universities producing great scientist. I don't

buy the industrial policies, I don't think they work, I don't think the

own ership of the company mattering at all. I have seen lots of

companies dominated by that. I don't think they are branch offices or

back offices, they are creating very good high-paying jobs, they

contribute hugely to this country. I don't think we should be

nationalistic in any way whatsoever. You both seem to take the same view

in this that we shouldn't be hung up about the headquarters being here,

or the research and development, we in a sense should kind of be the

worker bees and brings people in for whatever it is, Aerospace and

shipbuilding programmes. We don't have the expertise on that? We

should have that, London has more highly value-added jobs in Europe. A

lot of the people who do the jobs and paid very well are working for

overseas companies. I don't think it matters. Is There isn't any sense of

a red flag when someone like Pfizer comes, even if they strip out and

take advantage of taxation, if in the end there is more development at

AstraZeneca... In the face of Pfizer there is the track record of the

company taking over smaller companies, shutting down their

research facilities. Even at the moment the combined, when the two

companies merge the share of AstraZeneca will be about 30-40%,

depending on whether you are looking at employment or direct revenue and

so on. Pfizer is proposing to do only 20% of research in Britain, so

that's a clear sign that indicates to Pfizer that they are going to be

the second fiddle. It is a case by days basis. AstraZeneca has

announced a bunch of job cuts, they have reduced their work force, the

companies are no different. The global companies are completely

global, they couldn't careless where they are based? Location matters.

You agree with you? You node a great university, AstraZeneca gets taken

over and Pfizer takes a research centre, away from Cambridge,

Cambridge will beless less likely to help. Sometimes has OK to play

second fiddle, but it is not OK to play second fiddle in something like

a pharmacompany, where the interintellectual property won't be

part of our economy? It is about your goal and your judgment of the

pet tenancies of the two different companies. As it toad in the 197 OK

0s, they were not able to generate that kind of research without

investigation. You have AstraZeneca, it is half Swedish. But it has a

deep root in the research that scientists and the community are

doing. It has a lot of links with universities. It is that route that

you need to try to preserve. I don't accept this assumption, global

companies are that are not head quartered can employ lots of

scientists and do lots of research, I don't think it matters, if you are

a modern, global firm you can go away and think the reasons are best,

if there is a lot of highly educated people and good tax system, you will

locate activities there. If you don't think it is a good place to

base you won't be based there. I don't think nationalism enters it,

and we shouldn't be and discriminate these companies.

By the standard of the overheated property market in central London it

is almost a snip, a secret Government bunker, room for up to

?8,000. Up now. The air raid shelter hundreds of feet under ground is in

need of innovation, clearing and fixing the leaks, but you don't need

to to far from the travel. If you don't live in the capital,

you may not know Londoners are enchanted by the tube, and like to

tell one another about stories about it. It is said to be a create

Labyrinth, like King Soloman's mines. Deeper even than the

underground lines, and it is somewhere here in south London.

People twelve a parade of fast food restaurants and a nondescript door.

It goes forever doesn't it? It does. Each tunnel is 1 thousand feet long.

100-feet beneath the pavement, this is one of eight level deep shelters.

There are 1,900 bunk beds, each one numbered. Wanted a downwardly mobile

tenant. Finale Holness and his colleagues are letting this bunker.

Excavated in the Second World War and held up to 8,000 people a night

as Hitler's bombs fell on the city. What are we going into now, another

room? Any prospective occupying would have to get up and down 178

stairs, the lift is out of action at the moment. And not mind a certain

solitude. What is that? A Northern line train. About 50 feet above us

we have the Northern line running. On time? Absolutely! It is like

being in the hull of a submarine. The narrow head space, the rivets,

and from time to time the rumble of a great leviathan overhead, actually

a Northern line tube. There is a constant temperature of about 16

degrees centigrade down here. It is dry, on the whole, and there is a

kind of woody, chalky smell. Hard to imagine 8,000 souls packed in

together in fear of their lives. If the bunker looks suspiciously

tunnel-like, no wonder. There was once a plan to link the shelters to

form a magma-scraping Metro system, once a plan to link the shelters to

a forerunner of CrossRail. However arrivals from the West Indies found

themselves here before finding themselves in Brixton to develop the

heartland of black London. No you haven't slumped on the remote and

tuned to MasterChef by accident. Michelle Roux Junior has joined

forces with market gardeners growing veg in another of the deep level

shelters. I thought they were barking mad, growing in a disused

tunnel that is an air raid shelter. I thought it was crazy until I

visited the site. It is awe-inspiring, it is disused space

that would be mothballed and not used. That in itself was fantastic,

it is a closed environment as W it is a constant temperature which is

ideal for growing. He's planning a new signature platter. I think I

will have to create a dish and call it "Le Petit salad vegetarian

surterrain". What is it? Mixed leaf salad of vegtables underground.

Sounds better in French. What about the other tunnels, one is full of TV

shows and film? There are various film Di Canios for big releases like

spider man 3, to 1970s game shows of golden shots, and even older films

than that. Did you find the Newsnight archive anywhere? I

didn't, no. Dozens, literally dozens of people would be interested in

that. A bit wet here? It is not sewage!

Still making your mind up. Clapham south bunker is close to great

leisure amenities? You can exit on to Clapham column. I would like to

do that. We can do that for you, I would like to ping out and frighten

a dog walker. As with the property market generally, the thing about

air raid shelters is you have to know when to get in and when to get

out. Today over a decade on from the worst terrorist attack in a major

city, there was a memorial museum opened on the site. Every victim has

been remembered. We leave you with the images from the day, and singing

from the children's choir that performed at the Opening Ceremony,

good night. # There's a time for us

# Some day a time for us # Time together

# With time to spend # Time to learn

# Time to care # Some day

# Some where # We'll find a new way

A fine warm sunny day on Thursday, and there's plenty more where that

came from, right from the word go on Friday, a lot of sunshine for a lot

of us, and if anything the temperatures will be a degree or so

warmer, they