:00:17. > :00:26.Welcome to this special edition of The Editors.
:00:27. > :00:34.We thought it would be a good idea to gather here almost halfway up The
:00:35. > :00:38.Shard, the tallest building in Western Europe, which opened during
:00:39. > :00:47.this past year and has already shached London's skyline. -- shaped
:00:48. > :00:52.London's skyline. I'm joined by three stalwarts from the programme -
:00:53. > :00:57.Nick Robinson, political editor, Bridget Kendall, our contributing
:00:58. > :01:00.editor, and Mark Easton, our home editor. Thanks to all of you for
:01:01. > :01:17.coming. Hello and welcome. We'll remember
:01:18. > :01:22.2013 for all sorts of things no doubt, not least because it was the
:01:23. > :01:25.year when we finally lost one of the world's genuinely inspirational
:01:26. > :01:30.leaders. Not too many of them around of course. Nelson Mandela. It is
:01:31. > :01:37.hard to think of any equivalent to him in modern times, just Mahatma
:01:38. > :01:43.Gandhi perhaps. Even I was too young to meet Gandhi, but I did meet
:01:44. > :01:50.Nelson Mandela on many occasions and I can echo Gorky's comment, while he
:01:51. > :01:54.is alive no-one is entirely an orphan. I feel we've all been
:01:55. > :02:00.orphaned a little bit. Nick Robinson, do you think it is going
:02:01. > :02:06.to change things in the world, let alone South Africa, not to have
:02:07. > :02:12.Mandela alive and around? We've lost a symbol haven't we? Global leaders
:02:13. > :02:15.have lost a single figure they could look up as representing all that
:02:16. > :02:20.they think leadership should be about, being above and beyond
:02:21. > :02:24.everyday politics, capable of bringing people together rather than
:02:25. > :02:28.dividing them. Does it change day-to-day politics? No, after all
:02:29. > :02:32.Nelson Mandela hasn't been in control of South Africa for a long
:02:33. > :02:36.time. The thought he was close to death, that it wouldn't be long, has
:02:37. > :02:40.been around for a long time. But that gathering of all the world
:02:41. > :02:43.leaders together, that was a moment when they could come together and
:02:44. > :02:48.reflect on what they had lost and what they had learnt. Bridget
:02:49. > :02:54.Kendall, do you think that, do you agree with Nick that politician did
:02:55. > :02:59.regard him as something too emulate? Or do you think they just thought,
:03:00. > :03:04.there he is on his pedestal but I can carry on with politics in my own
:03:05. > :03:09.way? I think some. I was struck by the words of the words of the
:03:10. > :03:14.Nigerian President, Goodluck Jonathan, who said, he was such a
:03:15. > :03:17.selfless man, he only served one term. You think of all the other
:03:18. > :03:21.politicians in Africa and beyond, when they had the opportunity
:03:22. > :03:25.certainly served more than one term and sometimes meddled with the
:03:26. > :03:30.constitution so they could carry on even longer. It set me thinking that
:03:31. > :03:35.maybe the way that Nelson Mandela was able to become in his own
:03:36. > :03:40.lifetime, go from being a political prisoner to a legend before he died
:03:41. > :03:43.was precisely because he wasn't so much of a politician. He was only in
:03:44. > :03:47.office for a short time and didn't have to make so many of those grubby
:03:48. > :03:55.compromises that so many politicians do. Mark Easton, do you think we
:03:56. > :03:59.needed to have a Nelson Mandela figure, that we want d to have
:04:00. > :04:05.somebody who was a little bit above politics in the way that he was? I
:04:06. > :04:10.think that normally our default position on politicians that they
:04:11. > :04:15.are weasels or toads, so when you have something like Mandela, he in a
:04:16. > :04:20.way merely by comparison makes our lot look so shabby. That's a bit of
:04:21. > :04:24.a problem in a way, because we've seen this year and in previous years
:04:25. > :04:28.institutional trust being eaten away. Faith in politics, faith in
:04:29. > :04:33.politicians is under real attack at the moment. This makes it very
:04:34. > :04:38.difficult for political leaders to operate actually. So in a sense,
:04:39. > :04:43.having Mandela there as this, he said he was never a saint but
:04:44. > :04:47.certainly he felt very much a very special person sitting on an
:04:48. > :04:53.extraordinary pedestal. I think for other politicians he was a bit of a
:04:54. > :04:58.problem. I think that in his passing has focused a lot on that, on the
:04:59. > :05:02.standard of our politics generally. Perhaps without him, perhaps we'll
:05:03. > :05:07.be slightly more forgiving to our politicians. I wonder. It is a neat
:05:08. > :05:13.point that bridge et makes, that in a sense he propose to power without
:05:14. > :05:18.making those compromises. Of course he made the ultimate sacrifice, he
:05:19. > :05:22.was 27 years in prison. But he was frozen in people's minds. They could
:05:23. > :05:27.say, we hugely admire his willingness to do this, what he
:05:28. > :05:31.stood for and the generosity of spirit he displayed afterwards. But
:05:32. > :05:37.what he didn't have the the person he pushed to one side, the element
:05:38. > :05:42.of hypocrisy, something said one year and contradicted the next. He
:05:43. > :05:47.was free of that. That doesn't mean on leaving prison he could have made
:05:48. > :05:52.a terrible mess of it, but he did the opposite. He was free of what
:05:53. > :05:59.most people who have to rise to power have to have, the greasy pole,
:06:00. > :06:06.the compromises needed to climb, as Disraeli said, the greasy pole. I
:06:07. > :06:09.wonder if the passing of Mandela will make people remember, that
:06:10. > :06:14.extraordinary moment when he left prison, how the times then were
:06:15. > :06:19.simpler. It was a simple issue getting rid of apartheid. It was a
:06:20. > :06:24.moral issue. You look at the world now, the problems in solving what
:06:25. > :06:28.seems to be a huge moral issue. For example Syria. What to do about all
:06:29. > :06:34.those refugees, all those people in trouble. Looking back it feels as
:06:35. > :06:39.though maybe something's -- some things were simpler. Let's talk
:06:40. > :06:44.about Syria. Because in 2013 the balance of the awful civil war there
:06:45. > :06:48.tilted back it seems to me in favourite of the Assad regime. And
:06:49. > :06:53.we had written off until that moment and the regime of course was of a
:06:54. > :06:57.particular brutality, is still and had been of great corruption, which
:06:58. > :07:03.had provoked the civil war in the first place. The UN says that more
:07:04. > :07:10.than 100,000 people have died and over 2 million have become refugees.
:07:11. > :07:14.After the regime's decision to use chemical weapons on its own people
:07:15. > :07:18.the war stood to impinge on the politics of the outside world much
:07:19. > :07:23.more than it had. President Obama seemed determined to do something
:07:24. > :07:26.about it and was then badly wrong footed by Russian diplomacy of all
:07:27. > :07:32.things. Britain was shown to be completely out of its depth and so
:07:33. > :07:36.was France. The scourge of chemical weapons came back. Bridget, because
:07:37. > :07:40.you raised the issue of Syria I'm going to ask you first. Would you
:07:41. > :07:46.accept that this idea which I confess is my own that the balance
:07:47. > :07:53.has tipped back in favour of Assad? I think that's right. I think if we
:07:54. > :07:56.look back maybe with a bit more hindsight on 2013, people will
:07:57. > :08:00.perhaps remember it as the year when the Western powers stopped saying
:08:01. > :08:05.not only Assad must go and Assad will go, and even he will be gone in
:08:06. > :08:11.six months, and began to realise that perhaps he is not going to go.
:08:12. > :08:15.That the battle on the ground maybe stalemate. Maybe he is winning
:08:16. > :08:19.ground but he is not losing that much ground. But also that there are
:08:20. > :08:24.other things happening in Syria. Maybe that are worse than President
:08:25. > :08:28.Assad. The groundwork which was laid, we now know, for the deal that
:08:29. > :08:32.was done on chemical weapons went back some time. President Obama and
:08:33. > :08:38.President Putin have been talking about it for over a year. Secretary
:08:39. > :08:41.Kerry went to talk to the Russian Foreign Minister back in the spring.
:08:42. > :08:45.I think that's the moment actually when everything shifted on Syria.
:08:46. > :08:49.When he came out of that meeting and made it sound as though maybe
:08:50. > :08:52.President Assad didn't need to be history before there could be peace
:08:53. > :08:57.talks. That was a concession by the West. Maybe when we look back on
:08:58. > :09:02.2013 it will be the year of western concessions on Syria. Wasn't it in
:09:03. > :09:06.part, Jon, was the west craved a simple solution? It goes back to
:09:07. > :09:11.what Bridget was saying earlier about South Africa really and the
:09:12. > :09:14.difference with now. Looking for a post-Assad solution they couldn't
:09:15. > :09:18.find one, couldn't agree one, didn't know how to reach it. They ran out
:09:19. > :09:23.of road really. What height have been a good idea six or 12 months
:09:24. > :09:26.previously suddenly didn't look possible because of the rise of
:09:27. > :09:31.extremism on the opposition side in Syria. Presented with chemical
:09:32. > :09:36.weapons, in a sense there was a sim splift, right, we can all agree we
:09:37. > :09:39.are against those. Recould reach a deal, it turned out to everybody's
:09:40. > :09:44.surprise that the Russians were up for it and the Assad regime. And
:09:45. > :09:48.there was almost I feel here in London and elsewhere a kind of smack
:09:49. > :09:51.of relief - thank God there is something we can tell our peoples
:09:52. > :09:57.we've done. You need nowadays, don't you, to have a moral cause that can
:09:58. > :10:03.unite people. Weapons of mass destruction. Weapons of mass
:10:04. > :10:07.destruction. Didn't work for lock. -- for long I think the political
:10:08. > :10:11.situation in Britain over Syria, the British public had after Afghanistan
:10:12. > :10:15.and particularly after Iraq didn't believe there was such a thing as a
:10:16. > :10:19.simple war, that we are going to go in there and sort it out and come
:10:20. > :10:23.home again. And they were right. And they were right. As far as Syria
:10:24. > :10:27.were concerned, the politics of Syria became almost impossible for
:10:28. > :10:32.the Prime Minister. You must remember, Nick, the night of the
:10:33. > :10:37.vote. The ayes to the right, 272, the noes to the left, 285.
:10:38. > :10:42.CHEERING It is very clear tonight that while the House hasn't passed a
:10:43. > :10:45.motion, it is clear to me that the British Parliament reflecting the
:10:46. > :10:50.views of the British people does not want to see British military action.
:10:51. > :10:55.I get that and the Government will act accordingly. It really was a
:10:56. > :10:59.defeat not only for David Cameron personally, not only for the
:11:00. > :11:07.Conservative Party, the coalition, possibly, but it was also a block on
:11:08. > :11:11.British pretensions in the world wasn't it? It was. A dramatic
:11:12. > :11:17.change. Remember that David Cameron had seen Syria not as a repeat of
:11:18. > :11:21.Iraq. He had seen it as a repeat of the Balkan wars of the 1990s. He
:11:22. > :11:26.thought this was a moment in which the western leaders in particular
:11:27. > :11:31.should not look as though they were willing to stand by as people were
:11:32. > :11:35.massacred, as they had in Kosovo, as they had in Bosnia and elsewhere,
:11:36. > :11:40.and it was therefore his moral duty to do something. This is what he
:11:41. > :11:45.wanted. He kept talking about it. There were people in his cabinet who
:11:46. > :11:48.tried to hold him back, and Obama was unwilling to do at this time.
:11:49. > :11:51.When he finally presented it to the House of Commons for a vote, he
:11:52. > :11:56.found, as Mark said, it wasn't just public opinion didn't want it to
:11:57. > :11:59.happen, parliamentary opinion aware of that, simply could not be
:12:00. > :12:03.Marshalled in a way that would give him the votes he needed. One of the
:12:04. > :12:07.big challenges for David Cameron domestically has been the issue of
:12:08. > :12:12.immigration and the rise of UKIP. Nick, I remember neatly summed up
:12:13. > :12:17.the issue in his film for this programme some months ago. For
:12:18. > :12:21.decades the whole question of immigration was inextricably linked
:12:22. > :12:25.with race, which is why mainstream politicians were so terrified of the
:12:26. > :12:29.subject. But now the new influx of immigrants are white and from
:12:30. > :12:33.Europe, that link's largely been broken. But the pressure is still on
:12:34. > :12:37.the politicians, because of questions of integration and
:12:38. > :12:44.questions of whether the country is simply too full. Mark, do you think
:12:45. > :12:49.that it really is a game changer all of this? Or is it just a phase that
:12:50. > :12:53.we are going through and when we start to get jobs back again and
:12:54. > :12:57.money we won't be so worried about it? Sfrnlt I think it is certainly a
:12:58. > :13:00.huge political issue, there is no question about that. It will be
:13:01. > :13:04.hugely important in the run-up to 2015. I think in what Nick was
:13:05. > :13:08.talking about, the huge numbers of people coming from Eastern Europe.
:13:09. > :13:13.Absolutely right. They went everywhere. There isn't a postcode
:13:14. > :13:16.from the land which hasn't seen someone from Eastern European
:13:17. > :13:21.countries in their area. People are hearing foreign voices at the bus
:13:22. > :13:27.stop, shops selling strange beer in the high street. That makes people
:13:28. > :13:32.feel uneasy. It makes people whose families have been here for
:13:33. > :13:36.generations feel uneasy, and the new arrivals fuel uneasy in society.
:13:37. > :13:40.That change does pose some real questions. What I think is happening
:13:41. > :13:43.and I will be interesting to hear what Nick feels about this. I wonder
:13:44. > :13:48.if the debate is slightly changing. We've been having a debate probably
:13:49. > :13:54.for the last perhaps nine years. Really since the A 8 countries
:13:55. > :13:58.joined the EU, about immigration. As a subject. Just immigration. What I
:13:59. > :14:02.think has happened in this year, 2013, and I think we are going to
:14:03. > :14:07.see more of it in 2014 and the run-up to 2015 is more of a nuanced
:14:08. > :14:11.debate, what immigration? What kind of migrants do we like and which
:14:12. > :14:15.ones do we not like? When you ask the public, there is a big
:14:16. > :14:21.difference. Foreign students, which is the one we've cut most to try to
:14:22. > :14:26.get net migration down. They are the ones they worry about least. I think
:14:27. > :14:29.a lot of stories in the papers, we are going to have a grown-up
:14:30. > :14:34.discussion about immigration, just feel that now it is absolutely
:14:35. > :14:37.mainstream, on the end, no-one has concerns about talking about
:14:38. > :14:43.immigration, but it would be like talking about money and saying, now
:14:44. > :14:47.it is a bit more to it than that. I don't know what you think about it,
:14:48. > :14:53.Nick, but I think the discussion is becoming a bit more layered Partly
:14:54. > :15:02.because of what I was getting at in that film, most of the at tuts to
:15:03. > :15:06.politicians -- attitudes of politicians to immigration is that
:15:07. > :15:09.it is associated with racism. We've talking about the wave of
:15:10. > :15:15.immigration from the Commonwealth, from the Caribbean or Africa or
:15:16. > :15:18.India and Pakistan and Bangladesh. Now because it is not that it
:15:19. > :15:22.liberates people to feel that they can have a conversation. And because
:15:23. > :15:27.people have grown up even in quiet rural inquiries with a sense that we
:15:28. > :15:32.are a multicultural and multiracial society, they are able to say we are
:15:33. > :15:36.relaxed about students and we are quite relaxed about people with high
:15:37. > :15:40.skills. What we don't want is low-skilled people who refuse to
:15:41. > :15:44.speak the language. There is a more nuanced debate but it is a vigorous
:15:45. > :15:48.one. With the European elections next year, that's when the big test
:15:49. > :15:54.of UKIP, the UK Independence Party comes. People often forgets, what
:15:55. > :15:57.drives votes to UKIP haven't Europe but immigration. Do you think this
:15:58. > :16:02.is part of the diminishing of Britain in the world? That not only
:16:03. > :16:06.are we not as powerful as we used to be but we are rather nasty, we don't
:16:07. > :16:10.like foreigners? I think for a lot of people around the world they see
:16:11. > :16:15.Britain as a destination that they would like to go to. Partly because
:16:16. > :16:20.of the language. It is seen as an affluent country. Very developed.
:16:21. > :16:24.And actually quite a place where you can do what you want to do. That's
:16:25. > :16:29.what quite a lot of foreigners say to me. But it depends how much money
:16:30. > :16:33.you've got. If you are poor and you can't make the grade, it may feel as
:16:34. > :16:36.though Britain is less welcoming. That feeds into a much bigger
:16:37. > :16:43.question, the idea of European values. Part of the world which was
:16:44. > :16:47.believed in ustice and equality and suddenly they want to close their
:16:48. > :16:51.borders. Not just Britain but other countries too. Whether the rest of
:16:52. > :16:57.the world looking in decides this is an example of hypocrisy not just in
:16:58. > :17:01.Britain but in Europe. Perhaps that's diminishing morally. I would
:17:02. > :17:04.slightly question the premise of your question as to whether Britain
:17:05. > :17:08.is a nastier country than it was. I think in many ways the evidence is
:17:09. > :17:12.that we are a lot more tolerant than we were. In many respects. We are
:17:13. > :17:19.certainly intolerant of people who break the rules. People who abuse
:17:20. > :17:22.their power. People who break the law. Very intolerant of that. But we
:17:23. > :17:26.are much more tolerant of difference. We are much more
:17:27. > :17:30.tolerant of people who've come from other backgrounds. Quite welcoming
:17:31. > :17:34.in that sense. In fact I think this is one of the phenomenons of the
:17:35. > :17:39.age. We are seeing a country that is a lot more at ease with the change
:17:40. > :17:44.than often we give it credit for. Let's turn to a slightly better news
:17:45. > :17:49.item I suppose for the Government of this country. It is the economy. The
:17:50. > :17:53.year began, it seems such a long time ago, with the threat of a
:17:54. > :17:59.triple-dip resolution. But as the year went on provisional figures
:18:00. > :18:02.started to show that far from going through a triple-dip, Britain had
:18:03. > :18:08.never gone through a double one. The Bank of England had a new Governor,
:18:09. > :18:13.the Canadian, Mark Carney, who took over from Sir Mervyn King. Mr Carney
:18:14. > :18:18.says an economic recovery has taken hold. So, what are we thinking? Is
:18:19. > :18:22.this now the defining issue? Is it still the defining issue of the
:18:23. > :18:27.Government? And have they actually managed to do what they promised? Or
:18:28. > :18:31.is it smoke and mirrors? I think it is undoubtedly the defining issue.
:18:32. > :18:36.The argument about how real the recovery is, how lasting it is, and
:18:37. > :18:40.by how real I mean, do people feel it? Is it not just in the numbers
:18:41. > :18:46.but people's everyday experience. That Mr Be the defining issue of the
:18:47. > :18:50.2015 general election undoubtedly. The argument that still rages about
:18:51. > :18:56.whether austerity was the reason we had a recovery and whether we would
:18:57. > :19:00.have had one sooner and faster would rage not through the next election
:19:01. > :19:05.but people will be writing economic history books in 50 or 100 years'
:19:06. > :19:10.time. Mark, do you think it has done us permanent harm or is it something
:19:11. > :19:17.that we can get over? Like the Americans got over the '30s? I will
:19:18. > :19:22.tell you what I do think. In terms of Britain's attitude to austerity,
:19:23. > :19:27.a lot of people don't think it has been that bad. We did a poll not so
:19:28. > :19:32.long ago, a few weeks ago, for the BBC. The aim was to try and find out
:19:33. > :19:37.did people think public services had got worse, stayed the same or got
:19:38. > :19:43.better. 60% of them thought they were the same, despite the cuts, or
:19:44. > :19:50.a proportion thought they had improved during the cut-backs. I
:19:51. > :19:54.think that's because the way that this downturn has played out has
:19:55. > :19:58.been narrow. Certain groups have really struggled. You look at the
:19:59. > :20:03.Treasury's graph of who is really being hit by all the measures in
:20:04. > :20:07.terms of welfare and tax and the rest of it, the people who've been
:20:08. > :20:12.hit most of all are the richest 10% in the country. After that, it is
:20:13. > :20:16.the poorest 10%. And then the next poorest 10% and the next. This isn't
:20:17. > :20:20.a story funnily enough about the squeezed middle. It is the opposite.
:20:21. > :20:25.The people who've been hurt most are at the extremes. The very rich and
:20:26. > :20:29.the very poor. I think what was so interesting about that poll is that
:20:30. > :20:32.it may be that the suffering of the poorest 10% is relatively
:20:33. > :20:37.invisibility. It doesn't crudely sell papers. It is not something
:20:38. > :20:45.people choose to present to their readers. Closed shops in high
:20:46. > :20:50.streets. Anecdotal evidence that everyone has heard of young people
:20:51. > :20:54.finding it so hard to find a job. Unless that changes, the figures
:20:55. > :20:58.might look better but people will say, what recovery? We want to see
:20:59. > :21:05.tangible things that change in our lives. Are we changed as a country
:21:06. > :21:09.as a result of this? In one sense we are changed less than I thought we
:21:10. > :21:12.would be. At the beginning I thought there would be a fundamental debate
:21:13. > :21:19.about the shape of the state. Do we as a country conclude regretfully we
:21:20. > :21:23.think we have to all pay for our own healthcare for example? I'm not
:21:24. > :21:28.saying it is not right or wrong, but we haven't had the debate. Nobody's
:21:29. > :21:31.had the argument. If you look at what Governments should and
:21:32. > :21:35.shouldn't do, the argument hasn't been had. Some on the left are
:21:36. > :21:40.trying to say, look at that latest statistic that said that the core
:21:41. > :21:44.state would get back to the level of 1948. It hasn't stimulated much of a
:21:45. > :21:58.debate. Let's turn to something, as they say, completely different. 20 3
:21:59. > :22:02.saw two major changes in the wide (Inaudible) we'll look at Iran in a
:22:03. > :22:08.second, but the new leadership in Beijing headed by Xi Jinping is
:22:09. > :22:12.obviously trying to open up the Chinese system. In all sorts of
:22:13. > :22:17.ways, without allowing the Communist Party to lose control. An immensely
:22:18. > :22:21.difficult thing to do, if they can pull it off. The outside world's
:22:22. > :22:26.economic health, of course, increasingly has depended on China.
:22:27. > :22:31.David Cameron will say, you and I were there Nick earlier in the
:22:32. > :22:34.month, on a trip which he said secured valuable trade deals and
:22:35. > :22:40.improving the relations between the two countries. Actually I wasn't
:22:41. > :22:44.really sure that he was right about that. What do you think? He
:22:45. > :22:49.obviously wanted to make it seem like that but he didn't come back
:22:50. > :22:53.with much. In trade deals there wasn't that much. Anybody who has
:22:54. > :22:57.done these trips before will know the ones that were unveiled were
:22:58. > :23:03.done weeks before and were held back. I was struck by two things.
:23:04. > :23:08.This doesn't mean it was right, but the businessman travelling with him
:23:09. > :23:12.to man and woman said we think this helps to break through. We are way
:23:13. > :23:15.behind the French and the Germans in terms of our trading relationship
:23:16. > :23:18.with the Chinese. Enormous amounts of Chinese money comes to Britain,
:23:19. > :23:22.this city in particular. But when we are trying to sell things there I
:23:23. > :23:25.think we are fourth, behind the two European countries in particular. On
:23:26. > :23:31.the political side, it was all in the mood music wasn't it? The Prime
:23:32. > :23:38.Minister eventually got himself a dinner with President Xi and
:23:39. > :23:42.regarded it as a concession. But does it change anything? What do you
:23:43. > :23:47.think, Bridget? It is part of a foreign policy which has been in
:23:48. > :23:51.place since the economic crisis of 2008 really, but definitely with
:23:52. > :23:57.this Government. It has shifted the policy towards the focus on trade.
:23:58. > :24:01.That means doing what you can to have better relations with countries
:24:02. > :24:05.who might help your economy, even if you don't like some of their
:24:06. > :24:09.policies. China's one, it is the most important but it's not the only
:24:10. > :24:16.one. David Cameron's repaired as far as he can relations with Russia. He
:24:17. > :24:21.has courted the Gulf, he's been everywhere. India, shouldn't forget.
:24:22. > :24:27.It comes back to what I was saying before about European values. Does
:24:28. > :24:31.it matter? Is there going to be a moment when human rights will be an
:24:32. > :24:34.issue that will get in the way of trade relations? At the moment,
:24:35. > :24:38.probably not, because from's still that deficit to pay off. And what
:24:39. > :24:44.are you going to do about it? You need to increase Britain's trade
:24:45. > :24:53.with the world. It feeds into that geophys cal shift in the last five,
:24:54. > :24:59.I six, ten years. Do you think it was wise of David Cameron to have
:25:00. > :25:02.met them? Was it wise? I think he thought it was the right thing to
:25:03. > :25:09.do. I personally think it was a good thing to do. I think the Dalai Lama
:25:10. > :25:13.is a terrific guy. Worked out OK in the end. Part of this is the way we
:25:14. > :25:17.view what happens overseas. How do people in the UK think about what's
:25:18. > :25:22.happening in the rest of the world? What we've seen in the last five or
:25:23. > :25:26.ten years is quite a big change. Whereas foreign news was kind of on
:25:27. > :25:32.the inside pages and you may have seen a bit on the telly or heard a
:25:33. > :25:35.bit on the radio, now actually I find with young people they have a
:25:36. > :25:40.much greater understanding of what's going on. They are talking about.
:25:41. > :25:44.This we talked about Syria earlier. Make Cameron felt that the British
:25:45. > :25:49.public weren't prepared to go to war, but the British public when
:25:50. > :25:53.they see pictures of starving children on the television or on
:25:54. > :25:57.their mobile phones when they are travelling to work in the morning,
:25:58. > :26:03.that changes things. People raising money for Syria. You can feel a
:26:04. > :26:08.slight change this the way that we relate to what's happening intlgly.
:26:09. > :26:13.What about this other subject of Iran? I feel that's been a big
:26:14. > :26:18.change this year, which we've kind of not noticed. Iran wouldn't let
:26:19. > :26:24.many of us go from. They were scared of the rioting that happened in 20
:26:25. > :26:30.#0 #9 So it didn't get much attention outside the country. I
:26:31. > :26:33.agree with you, Jorngs it is the most important shift in foreign
:26:34. > :26:38.policy this year. There I was trashing foreign policy saying it is
:26:39. > :26:44.all about trade but this was about old-fashioned diplomacy. And skilled
:26:45. > :26:48.diplomats. A new Government in turn, definitely, but also western
:26:49. > :26:54.partners who've prepared to compromise. I think it is something
:26:55. > :27:00.that we should all welcome. The clock was at less than five to
:27:01. > :27:06.midnight for Iran getting the capability to have nuclear weapons.
:27:07. > :27:09.Clearly bombing wasn't a good idea. This ask a way out of that
:27:10. > :27:13.predicament if everything goes well. It was one of the issues I thought
:27:14. > :27:20.could destroy this coalition Government. If a Conservative wing
:27:21. > :27:23.in the coalition tried to support, albeit verbally military action
:27:24. > :27:28.against Iran, and the Liberal Democrats would need to say, "Up
:27:29. > :27:33.with this we cannot put." That would have torn the Government apart. The
:27:34. > :27:37.consequences isn't just for domestic politics, which is relatively
:27:38. > :27:44.trivial, but for the Middle East to move to military action. It seemed
:27:45. > :27:49.quite likely if turn had continued to ig ignore this. When the deal
:27:50. > :27:53.came people didn't have that sense of wow! That's quite a change. And
:27:54. > :27:57.they probably don't fully clock how much this could change things in
:27:58. > :28:02.future. We were talking about Syria earlier. It looks as though Iran had
:28:03. > :28:07.a role in pushing Assad perhaps towards chemical weapons. But we
:28:08. > :28:11.could see, I don't know if it will happen in 2014, but in the next
:28:12. > :28:15.couple of years, a change in allegiances so that we are with Iran
:28:16. > :28:21.and Assad fighting Al-Qaeda in northern Syria. It is not
:28:22. > :28:25.inconceivable. In my long experience of Iran, there is always something
:28:26. > :28:30.unpleasant comes up just when you think it is all there. I said
:28:31. > :28:34.something, not someone. We started off this programme talking about a
:28:35. > :28:39.hero, about Nelson Mandela. There's another hero of course who stepped
:28:40. > :28:50.out of the limelight, fortunately still with us, and that is a man 26
:28:51. > :28:56.hn r reign won him flawed its across the globe, including the total of
:28:57. > :29:02.greatest living Briton bestowed upon him. Parents Sir Alex Ferguson, who
:29:03. > :29:07.at aged 71 stood down as the manager of Manchester United after
:29:08. > :29:12.delivering no fewer than 38 trophies for his club. Is he the greatest
:29:13. > :29:18.living Briton? Come on. Of course he isn't. I talked to him about this.
:29:19. > :29:23.The let a little bit of light into the way we work Jon. I'm sitting at
:29:24. > :29:28.home being interviewed by the Today programme about the serious topic,
:29:29. > :29:32.and John Humphrys, bless him, at the end of a conversation on welfare or
:29:33. > :29:37.the economy, says tell me about Sir Alex Ferguson. I instantly turn into
:29:38. > :29:43.the confer sashl style I have with my two sons who are obsess sieve
:29:44. > :29:49.Manchester United fans, I said with inverted commas, he is the greatest
:29:50. > :29:54.living Briton. He proved a remarkable capacity to motivate
:29:55. > :29:59.young men. Which you could translate that into politics, it would be
:30:00. > :30:04.extraordinary. Manchester United is quite an extraordinary thing in its
:30:05. > :30:08.own right isn't it? It led the way in British football. I think
:30:09. > :30:13.Manchester United, I'm going to confess I'm an Arsenal fan, so I
:30:14. > :30:18.cannot share Nick's adoration, but I think both Manchester United and my
:30:19. > :30:23.club are examples of something quite interesting. Which is a new global
:30:24. > :30:29.identity. People who are Manchester United fans or Arsenal fans, and it
:30:30. > :30:34.is true of many big sports teams now, are part of a family that goes
:30:35. > :30:39.right around the planet, that cuts across almost every grouping you
:30:40. > :30:48.could imagine. I sit at the Emirates, the Arsenal ground, and I
:30:49. > :30:55.can see Thailand Arsenal fans, gay Gunners. Every facet of society is
:30:56. > :30:59.there. What Sir Alex Ferguson did at Manchester United was turn a
:31:00. > :31:03.football club into a global phenomenon. Overs have followed. It
:31:04. > :31:10.is what people are searching for these days. We talked about
:31:11. > :31:17.immigration. In one sense people are wanting something distinctive and
:31:18. > :31:20.that's why they are anxious about immigration. On the other hand
:31:21. > :31:24.people are searching for identities that are broad and welcoming and
:31:25. > :31:27.inclusive. That's why I think they support football clubs, which have
:31:28. > :31:32.part of that for them. It is about branding. People want to be part of
:31:33. > :31:37.a global brand. I think what we are seeing this year and for many years
:31:38. > :31:40.to come is this tension between narrow identity and global identity.
:31:41. > :31:48.It will produce all kinds of tensions. Nobody ever seems to like
:31:49. > :31:55.my club, Chelsea. This is part of Britain now though, and Britain is a
:31:56. > :32:00.major, it is part of our soft power isn't it? Absolutely. Football is
:32:01. > :32:06.one way which is putting Britain on the map. I was on holiday in Vietnam
:32:07. > :32:10.and when I stop ed people to ask them the way, they say where are you
:32:11. > :32:15.from, Britain? They always wanted me to tell them not just what my
:32:16. > :32:19.favourite... They didn't say Chelsea though did they? No, they didn't.
:32:20. > :32:24.Manchester United was the favourite club. There was one Ipswich
:32:25. > :32:28.supporter. They always wanted me to tell them the members of all the
:32:29. > :32:33.teams. I realised as a diplomatic correspondent I'm not doing my job
:32:34. > :32:38.properly. When we were in China you go to a luggage of 500 UK and
:32:39. > :32:42.Chinese businessmen. What's the big symbol? The Premier League trophy
:32:43. > :32:45.and everyone is queuing to have their photo taken with it.
:32:46. > :32:49.Absolutely. That's it from this final edition of BBC News The
:32:50. > :32:54.Editors in 2013. So thanks to my fellow editors for having explained
:32:55. > :32:58.the world to us all. And with all our best wishes for a very happy new
:32:59. > :33:03.year to you. Until we meet again, goodbye.