14/03/2018 Beyond 100 Days

You're watching

Beyond One Hundred Days.

A return to Cold War expulsions.

23 Russian spies are sent packing

by the British Prime Minister.

It the biggest number

of diplomats expelled

by Britain in 30 years,

as Europe and the United States come

out in support of London's response.

Poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his

daughter has been formally tied to

the Kremlin which denied the

deadline for information.

They have

traded the use of military grade

nerve agent in Europe with contempt.

Russia says the UK is engaging in a

serious provocation.

Also on the programme.

A month on from the school shooting

in Florida, students stage a 17

minute walk out across America

in solidarity with the 17 who died.

Sometime ago I discovered black

holes are not lack after all.

And tributes to the visionary

physicist Stephen Hawking,

who's died at the age of 76.

Get in touch with us

using the hashtag

'Beyond-One-Hundred-Days'.

Hello and welcome -

I'm Katty Kay in Washington

and Christian Fraser is in London.

Forty per cent of the Russian

diplomats in the UK have just been

given their marching orders.

They have a week to leave.

It's the biggest expulsion of known

intelligence agents since 1985,

the year Mikhal Gorbachev

came to power.

And not since the Cold War have

relations between London and Moscow

sunk to such a level.

The Russian Ambassador

to London said Britain

was trying to concoct

'an unfounded

anti-Russian campaign'.

'We won't keep you waiting,'

he added 'for our counter measures'.

All high-level diplomacy

between the two countries

is forthwith suspended.

It promises to be a long

confrontation, in which the Prime

Minister will need every bit of help

from her allies.

It was right to offer Russia had the

chance to provide an explanation.

But their response is demonstrated

complete disdain for the gravity of

these events. They have provided no

credible explanation that could

suggest they lost control of their

nerve agent. No explanation as to

how this agent came to be used in

the UK, no explanation as to why

Russia has an undeclared chemical

weapons programme in contravention

of international law. Instead they

have traded the use of military

grade nerve agent in Europe with

sarcasm, contempt and defiance. So

Mr Speaker is no alternative

conclusion other than that the

Russian state was culpable for the

attempted murder of Sergei Skripal

and his daughter. And for

threatening the lives of other which

is systems in Salisbury including

Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey.

So here's what the Prime Minister

has set in motion -

among other measures.

The expulsion of 23 diplomats -

who have one week

to leave.

Increased checks on private

flights, customs

and freight.

The freezing of Russian assets

where there is evidence they may be

used to threaten the life

or property of UK

nationals or residents.

And predictably

ministers and members

of the Royal Family are to boycott

the Fifa World Cup in

Russia later this year.

Russia has been crossing red lines,

at home and abroad,

with growing impunity recently.

There's Georgia, Crimea,

Ukraine, the interference

in the American election,

in European elections,

and the poisoning of not one but two

Russian exiles here in Britain.

Is that why the West

is taking the attack

in Salisbury so seriously?

I have been speaking to the Chair

of the Commons Intelligence and

Security Committee Dominic Grieve

who says it's time NATO allies woke

up to the reality of the threat.

When it comes to the behaviour

of murdering people on other

people's sovereign territory,

it's very serious indeed.

But because we live

within a rules-based system,

we do have a common lawful

and proportionate response

to what Russia is doing.

And if we unite in doing it

and sustain it we have the best

prospect of actually getting them

to change their behaviour.

But I'm not sure at the moment

that we are succeeding

in that as much as I would like.

Can you suggest things that

might be proportionate?

Well clearly more sanctions

would undoubtedly be proportionate.

Visa restrictions on Russian

officials can be proportionate.

In so far as the action

we are taking in expelling Russian

agents in their embassy

here in London, other countries can

also do likewise in respect

of Russian agents who are present

in the embassies in those countries.

So I think we need to be

acting collectively.

But you will know that

when the British Government

was pushing for more sanctions,

tighter sanctions, after the enquiry

into the Litvenenko poisoning,

the Europeans were dragged really

kicking and screaming

towards sanctions.

They have not been

particularly supportive.

Countries like Italy for instance

get a lot of their gas from Russia.

Even the Germans who do a lot

of trade with Russia.

Not particularly keen.

Yes and I can understand that

but I think that in view

of the seriousness of the threat

and its brazen nature,

I think we really do all have

to think very long and hard

about the collective action we can

take as otherwise it simply

is going to embolden Mr Putin

and he will do more of it.

And he will do it selectively

in whatever country he chooses.

And then trust that with the passage

of time people will want to turn

over a new leaf, reset

the relationship and he

can get away with it.

And seeing that his activities

are extremely dangerous I think

we just need to try to focus on how

we can meet this threat together.

Ordinarily you would

expect our closest ally,

and an American president, to stand

behind the UK but he is not imposing

the sanctions that have

been set why Congress.

And there is not much trust that

President Trump will fall in behind

the UK in any meaningful way.

I think it is a reflection

of the curious way in

which President Trump

conducts his policy.

I think there's no doubt

there are many around him

who are very concerned

about what Russia is doing

but for for a variety of reasons

he doesn't seem to be

taking a measured response

and there is a sense that whilst

he is supportive he does not

seem to have a strategy.

So of course that is the subject

of anxiety but of course that

could change with time.

Well let's pick up

that final thought

with Matthew Rojansky,

director of the Wilson

Center's Kennan Institute.

We are reminded that America matters

in a global response to threat and

the world is looking to Washington.

Do you agree that perhaps they will

not get what they want from

Washington when it comes to

retaliation against Russia.

It is

unlikely Washington will be the tip

of the sphere in retaliation on this

particular attempted murder because

it was in the UK and the UK must be

in the lead. I think there will be

further were coming from Washington

in response to other actions by

Russia including what we are

learning about ongoing election and

other political interference.

Russian behaviour in the Ukraine

etc. The Treasury Secretary

indicated pretty clearly that the

administration intends to respond in

some meaningful way to the

Congressional legislation despite

the public report that rightfully

was cited as being pretty thin.

You

spend a lot of time in Russia and

you know one thing that could have

an impact is hitting Russian money

in London. One person that could be

targeted as the Deputy Prime

Minister who has apartment buildings

in the middle of London web around

$50 million. If you're Kate wants to

send a message to Putin and those

who support him would it be smart of

them to go after the money.

I've

always felt that sanctions are like

any other weapon and you can fire

that but there is a cost each time.

In the case of the UK we see this

clearly, the UK has benefited for a

long time from the presence of

significant amounts of Russian money

in the British banking system, in

the London real estate market.

Secondary services including

tailors, lawyers. Some of that is

pro-regime, some of it anti-regime

and then hangers on who might

literally be assassins. If the UK is

willing to take on that problem as a

whole and potentially willing to

scare off some of that money then it

can fire the weapon. But having your

cake and eating it is probably not

possible.

If the Russian state is

involved then surely no coincidence

that President Putin has provoked a

crisis with the West just days ahead

of an election.

I think the election

cannot not be significant for Putin.

So if he has ordered this and I do

not say this to indicate that the

Russian state is not behind it but

remember there are many actors in

the Russian state that may simply

operate as a matter of course to

take out someone they consider to be

a traitor, if Putin ordered this and

the question of timing is important

for him, one week before an election

he is looking for the narrative that

the West is out to get Russia.

Looking to mobilise his base and to

build Western leaders essentially

into making exactly the kind of

provocative and hostile threatening

statements towards Russia that they

have been doing, even if many

consider them not to be enough, this

is perfect material for Putin. And

after the election if he needs to

roll things back and see better

relations he has two or three fields

of operation. Ukraine, Syria, North

Korea. And the West would have no

choice but to respond in a tough and

helpful way.

Thank you very much for

coming in. So interesting speaking

about the domestic politics in

Russia and what is behind that.

Let's look at domestic politics in

the UK. It would benefit the UK in

or mislead if the body politic in

the UK were united on the issue but

it seems to be clear they're not.

Well a lot of focus today on Jeremy

Corbyn who was loath to criticise

Putin much like the trap is that he

said he wants evidence of the

culpability of the Russian state

before he apportions blame. And

today he added the UK does not have

a good history when it comes to

weapons of mass destruction, the

intelligence not being accurate. But

this time WMD has been found in a

cathedral city here in England and

we are very lucky that more British

people had not been killed. So not a

happy afternoon amongst Labour MPs.

Our political editor in fact said

that this motion was put down today

and use the names scribbled at the

bottom. And I think there is a

possibility that some Labour shadow

frontbenchers could resign tonight

over the statement today from their

leader. So a lot of anger and the

uneasy truce within Labour seems to

have gone. And exactly what Russia

wants. That division within the

party.

Exactly. And that question

about whether the UK is prepared to

withstand the possible impact of

sanctions against Moscow.

Here in the US, students

across the country

left their classrooms today -

in protest at gun violence and to

demand restrictions on gun sales.

The National School Walkout came

on the one month anniversary

of the school shooting in Parkland,

Florida which left 17 people dead.

And today's events were scheduled

to last 17 minutes -

one minute for every life taken

in the attack.

The action came ahead

of an even bigger rally

in Washington later this month,

that will bring students together

from all around the country.

Our North America Editor

Jon Sopel reports.

The last time we saw children

pouring out of school it was with

their hands up in terror after the

Florida shooting. Today they came

out across America at this time with

their fists clenched demanding

change on gun control. In Washington

at ten o'clock on a bracing cold

morning with their backs turned on

the White House 's students fell

silent for 70 minutes, one minute

for each of the people who died at

the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas school

in Florida last month. There's no

doubting extraordinary success these

young people have had in changing

the whole terms of debate on the

subject of gun control. Their

problem is that the man who lives on

the other side of that offence seems

to have got cold feet. When Donald

Trump met youngsters on the Florida

School at the White House he seemed

to offer his support for tougher gun

control measures like raising to 21

the age at which you can buy a

rifle. And he later tried it

lawmakers for being frightened of

the National Rifle Association.

Some

of you people are petrified of the

NRA.

But he is now backed off those

proposals and so the end people are

intensifying their campaign.

We want

them to pass common-sense gun

reforms and ban assault rifles. We

do not want to be scared in school.

We are tired of being scared. We

want change.

This is a curtain

raiser to a mass demonstration in

Washington in ten days' time. They

are a long way from getting what

they want but the power of youth

protest has got them further than

anyone could have imagined and then

not in any mood to surrender. Dashed

they are not in any mood.

Plenty of anger around the country.

After six months of coalition talks,

Angela Merkel has been

sworn in for a fourth term

as German chancellor.

She'll lead a coalition of

conservatives and Social Democrats.

In Italy, 223,000 people

have been evacuated

from a town on the east

coast after an unexploded

World War Two bomb was found

during the construction

of a drain in Fano.

Officials say the 225 kilogram

bomb was British-made,

and there was panic

when it was accidentally activated.

The device was removed

and dropped into the sea.

He bridged the gap between academia

and popular culture -

an extraordinary scientist

who inspired millions.

There have been tributes

from all over the world today

for Professor Stephen Hawking

who has died at the age of 76.

He was diagnosed with a rare form

of motor neurone disease

when he was just 22 and told he had

only a few years to live.

But he defied expectations and went

on to become one of the most famous

physicists in the world.

Our Science Editor David Shukman

looks back at his life.

There is nothing like the Eureka

moment of discovering

something no one knew before.

Stephen Hawking had a gift

for inspiration, a powerful spirit

overcoming an ailing body to allow

a mind to roam the cosmos.

Earning him a place as the most

famous scientist in the world.

It has been a glorious time to be

alive and researching and doing

theoretical physics.

Who else could draw

crowds like this?

The man who gazed at the stars

became one himself.

His story poignant and uplifting,

his career involved concept

so alien and complicated for most

it was a struggle to keep up

but he explored the strangest

of features of the universe,

black holes, drawing together

the science of the largest things

in space with the science

of the small, part

of a quest to come up

with a theory for the universe.

He made these incredibly original

insights that set up the modern

theory of black holes.

And made great contributions

to cosmology, and so

he was a huge figure.

I was devastated, really upset.

I met him a couple of times

but he had an impact on my life.

It is the passing of a great

scientist who will be truly missed.

As a student his intelligence stood

out but at that moment he was given

a warning that motor neurone disease

would cut his life short.

When I was diagnosed at 21,

I was told it would kill me

in two, three years.

Somehow he kept going.

In a high-tech wheelchair

and a synthesised voice.

Communicating first by touch,

then by twitching a single

muscle in his cheek,

a daunting burden for anyone.

His children saw him as an example.

People who live in extreme

circumstances seem to find something

inspirational in his example

of perseverance and his ability

to rise above the suffering

and still want to communicate

at a higher level.

Life was not straightforward,

his first marriage ending

in divorce, as did a second to one

of his nurses.

Claims emerged that he had been

physically abused, the case dropped

because of lack of evidence.

His book sold at least 10 million

copies and everyone wanted

to meet him from the Pope

in the Vatican, to the Queen.

To President Obama,

who awarded him a medal of honour.

His fame reached beyond

the world of science.

Your theory of a doughnut shaped

universe is intriguing.

Even appearing in The Simpsons.

I did not say that.

In an episode of Star Trek he had

the chance to tease Isaac Newton.

Not the apple story again!

Astounding to think the Lord

created this in seven days.

Incorrect.

It took 13.8 million years.

More recently he was happy to play

along for Comic Relief.

He saw himself as an ambassador

for science and in this interview

told me of his hopes

for the Large Hadron Collider.

He had a sense of adventure.

I am very excited.

I have been wheelchair-bound almost

four decades and the chance to float

free in zero G will be wonderful.

Even braving a zero gravity flight.

No surprise his death

prompted tributes.

Founder of the world wide web

Tim Berners-Lee tweeted...

And Nasa said...

If you reverse time and the universe

is getting smaller.

Eddie Redmayne played him

in the film The Theory

of Everything and today said,

we have lost a truly beautiful mind.

A scientist who delved

into the realm of black holes

offered an incredibly engaging story

that achieved something remarkable,

it touched a global audience.

And joining me now is

theoretical physicist -

Dr James Gates, Jr.

You met Stephen Hawking is several

times.

On many occasions. I would

have loved to be there for these

conversations. Talking about things

I would not understand? Or just two

men who shared a passion.

It was

more a conversation of people

sharing the same passion for

science. Stephen was an amazing

person with a I referred to him once

is the bravest physicist of all. I

first met him in 1980 and there was

a conference and I was attending and

we interacted with Stephen and he

gave a speech and I was amazed that

he rose to the challenge and just

perform relenting.

What about is

what was that the fact, if Stephen

Hawking had not been banned to a

wheelchair he would still have been

one of the greatest physicists ever?

Absolutely. He said the foundations.

The disease did not stop his mind

from working at the highest levels

that human minds can work and that

was something to be admired.

His

body to one extent limited what he

could do. He could not set out like

other scientists mathematical

derivations and equations and long

form explanations so we had to be

more concise and abstract in the way

he explain things. Is that what

ought to the masses, you think?

I

think it is a story for the ages. It

is the prototypical story of a hero,

enormous odds against success,

succeeding and then retaining his

humanity and reaching out to people.

Something I think is a universal

story.

Lots of people have got in

touch saying could you explain what

he actually did for the common man,

what he did that was so good for

mankind. I know you are made of the

same matter Stephen Hawking so I

brought along my son and I will set

you a little challenge. Can you as

concisely as he did in say 45

seconds explain the 1971 black hole

mechanics.

Can you do that? I will

make the attempt. So in the 1971

paper Stephen pointed out something

no one thought about before, there

are these things, black holes, come

the Einstein theory of general with

Nativity and Stephen looked at those

and other physicists did as well. -

dashed general relativity. And they

figured out that these things are

not exactly black. Stephen figured

out if you believe in a quantum

mechanical universe that it has got

to spit something out a bit like the

sizzle of bacon or the sizzle of

space time if you like.

I was

getting stressed with the clock

ticking, you handled it brilliantly.

Doctor Gates is a great mind but I'm

not. But it sounded really good to

me. We did not even managed to get

the clock ticking, that is how

limited we are! If you were to say

there was one thing that the world

understands now that it did not

understand because of Stephen

Hawking, if he had not lived amongst

us, what would it be.

I like to call

them the black hole whisperer. He

brought this piece of madness into

the realm of reality and when it is

finds it means that perhaps someday

humanity will use these strange

objects perhaps to our benefit.

Thank you very much. He gave a

something that we might be able to

use in the future, not necessarily

today because we do not yet have the

technology but if we can develop

that one day we may be able to use

these things for the benefit of

mankind.

Extraordinary how many

tributes have come forward today

especially in a society that does

not easily celebrate its finders. It

is not something you talk about

often. But he certainly crossed the

divide. A man with such unbounded

imagination.

This is Beyond 100

Days from the BBC.

My timing is all over the place

today! We still have one minute

until the break so let's just keep

talking about Stephen Hawking!

It is

rare that I get extra time from you

so I will use it all up. What is

remarkable about him coming here

this interesting persona, clearly he

was very humble about the work he

did and everyone described in in

terms of that humility. But also he

was someone had clearly liked

celebrity readings and none that

respect he became an ambassador for

science. We have a different view of

physics, even if we do not

understand it, he gave us something

by popularising complicated notions

of physics. 45 seconds!

A pretty

good explanation, well done.

Coming up for viewers

on the BBC News Channel

and BBC World News -

the Democrats are claiming victory

in a special congressional election

seen as a referendum

on President Trump's performance -

should he be worried?

And one of the founders of Facebook

thinks super-rich people

like him should pay working people

a guaranteed income.

We'll be asking him why he wants

to give his money away.

Once again it has been a day of

mixed weather fortunes across the

UK. Across the western side you have

had some pretty wet and that times

windy weather as well. Thanks to the

area of low pressure the rain has

come as this weather front has

gradually come to dominate many of

those western areas. But eased it

has been a much more acceptable sort

of day, quite breezy but at the same

time some sunshine and some spring

one. Through the evening the weather

front still all over the South West,

accompanied by gale force wind. The

rain just keeps on coming into

Northern Ireland and becomes a

little bit more of a feature perhaps

across the western side of Scotland.

Further east underneath those clear

skies and for some in the Far East,

the greater part of the night

temperatures will fall away. Down to

three or 4 degrees or so. Up towards

the West rain just keeps on coming

in Northern Ireland, becoming ever

more present through Wales and into

the Midlands and South East. Making

for a pretty miserable start to the

day. The weather front makes

progress further north, and

following on behind we have brighter

skies but there will be occasionally

some sharp showers. Underneath that

front temperatures struggling.

Around six, 7 degrees or so. Through

into Friday the onshore flow keeping

things cool and we could see some

wintry showers overnight on the

hills of northern Britain. And

following on behind still relatively

mild at this stage but still the

prospect of some sharp showers and

even a rumble of thunder. If you're

getting used to this relatively mild

spell of weather I urge you to

cherish it because as we get towards

the weekend as the passion starts to

look familiar, feeding in much

colder weather across all parts of

the British Isles eventually. You

can imagine if you fully exposed to

that easterly wind it is going to be

one of those and there will be more

snow.

Archive stores. The British premise

or expels 23 Russian diplomats after

blaming them for the poisoning of a

former agent and his daughter.

Russia denounced pushed denounces

the expulsions, calling the move

hostile and short-sighted.

Coming

up, an emergency meeting of the UN

Security Council is being called,

will be live there in just a moment.

And what President Trump's choice of

the next Secretary of State tells us

about American foreign policy going

forward. Democrats declare victory

in Pennsylvania, and should

Republicans be nervous?

Let us know your thoughts

by using the hashtag #Beyond100Days.

More on our top story now,

the state of relations

between London on Moscow.

Arguably Theresa May's best hope

for hitting Russia in a way that

actually hurts is to make this

an international issue.

IF she can get the US,

the EU, even NATO on board

the power of the response

will be much stronger.

One forum for making this global

is of course the United Nations,

which upholds that the use of nerve

agents is unlawful.

Today the UN Secretary General

called the attack on Sergei Skripal

an unacceptable violation

of international law.

So, what's the UN actually

going to do about it given that

Russia sits on the security council?

Nick Bryant is at the UN for us.

What kind of discussions of the

having there, and what action will

that lead to?

The discussions had

just gotten under way, they were

delayed for an -- 30 minutes, the

Russians were involved in some

wrangling time wasting, and the

ambassador here has just started his

speech in front of this global

forum. The British are trying to

internationalize this, looking for

solidarity from other members of the

Security Council, not least are the

European here -- European Union

members and the United States. We

understand the key Haley will be

delivering a very hard-hitting

speech. -- Nikki Haley. I'm just

struck by how extraordinary this is.

Here the United Nations, what I

normally talk to you both, we are

talking about Syria and places like

North Korea. But today we are

talking about Salisbury, an English

cathedral town, and Salisbury being

linked with a chemical weapons

attack. Again, something we normally

talk about only in connection with

places like Syria. This is an

extraordinary event at the United

Nations.

We will talk to Jonathan

Allen, the UK Deputy permanent

Representative to the security

council, and he is talking, as you

can see.

We can conclude that Russia

is in serious breach of the Amoco

weapons convention. This fact alone

means you should discount any

arguments you hear about the

possibility of other companies --

countries having access to this

technology. At Russia at -- declared

and destroyed their own programme,

there may have been some truth to

this. Mr President, on the 4th of

March, a weapon so horrific that it

is banned from use in war, was used

in a peaceful city and my country.

This was a reckless act, carried out

by people who disregard the sanctity

of human life, who are indifferent

to where this whether innocents are

caught up in their attacks. They

either did not care that the weapon

used would be tracked back to them,

or mistakenly believed that they

could cover their traces. Russian

officials and media channels have

repeatedly threatened those they

consider traitors, even after the

fall -- March four attack. Russia

has a history of state-sponsored

attack -- assassinations, including

that of Alexander lived up...

Poisoned by radioactive materials in

my country a decade ago. Russia has

a history of interfering in other

countries, whether the botched coup

in Montenegro, repeated cyber

attacks on other states, or seeking

to influence others's Democratic

processes. Russia has a history of

flouting international law, most

egregiously in Crimea, eastern UK,

and Georgia. Russia shows disregard

for civilian life, we all remember

flight MH 17, shutdown but the shot

down by Russian proxies supplied

with weapons. Russia has shown in

its repeated protection of Asad's

chemical weapons use that it has

different standards when it comes to

the use of these terrible

substances. We have not jumped to

conclusions, we have carried out a

thorough, careful investigation

which continues. We are asking the

OPC W to independently verify the

nerve agent used. We have offered

Russia the chance to explain, but

Russia has refused. We have

therefore concluded that the Russian

state was involved, and we have

taken certain measures in response.

In taking these measures, we have

been clear that we have no

disagreement with the people of

Russia, who have been responsible

for so many great achievements

throughout history. It is the

reckless acts of their government

that we oppose.

Jonathan Allen

making his opening remarks at the UN

Security Council. Let's bring in

that pride again. There is the

chemical weapons convention, I

suppose with the Security Council

would like is for the organisation

to go into Russia, so the load test

laboratory, which we are told is in

central Russia, and see what

happened?

The British were talking

about giving the OPC W some of the

substance use, so they can

independently verify what the

British have found. Of course the

UN's hands are tied on this, because

to take action would require a vote,

and the British will not vote

through the Security Council while

the Russians have their veto. So

with the British are looking for,

not sanctions today, they're not

necessarily looking for action. What

they're looking for is a show of

solidarity, and international

shaming of the Russian Federation on

the world's biggest diplomatic

stage.

Thank you. That is one issue

that will land on the desk of the

new Secretary of State.

What will the appointment

of Mike Pompeo as secretary of state

mean for US Foreign Policy

in the Trump administration?

As CIA Director he aligned

himself with the President

and earned his trust.

He is tougher on Moscow

than Mr Trump but on other issues

has shown he is in lockstep

with the President and,

critically, he has his ear.

He's confrontational on Iran,

unlike Tillerson, and on North Korea

he is also more hawkish

than his predecessor.

It's a topic that Robin Wright has

written about in the New Yorker

and she joins us now.

I want to get your reactions to what

we just heard in the United Nations

from the deputy Burnet

representative of the United Kingdom

there. Very tough language coming

out of the United Kingdom, will they

get back up from a Pompeo and the

new Secretary of State?

Will be very

hard for the trumpet administration

not to go along with its British

ally. The question is, what will the

United States do in the product --

broader issue of its own problems

with Russia? Neither the president

nor his new Secretary of State had

indicated they will take a tougher

line or follow on sanctions voted on

by our own Congress. So this is an

extraordinary development, to have

this play out in the West, the use

of chemical weapons. It will put

extra nerve pressure on the

administration to at least be seen

to say something, if not do

something.

Say something, not do

something, that maybe you where the

appear on the issue of Mike Pompeo,

at various points, Rex Tillerson has

acted as a buffer for some of the

President's more radical

foreign-policy on the states. But

Mike Bob -- Mike Pompeo Lisicki will

not play the same role?

No, these

are two men and a policy pot. They

think a lot alike on similar issues.

When he was in Congress, he called

for a regime change in Iran, not

just the scrapping of the nuclear

deal. Last summer at the security

forum, he talked quite openly in

front of a group, and I was there,

about the need for a regime change

in North Korea. So it will be very

interesting to see not only him

backing of the president, but what

he suggests after the Iran nuclear

dear -- nuclear deal is scrapped and

made.

You have to look at the whole

national security team, and the

president is deftly shaking it up.

The word on the Hill is that HR

McMaster might not be long for that

job, and we don't know yet who will

replace them. But it is obviously

someone who will be in lockstep with

the president. So what do you think

that means? Is it going to isolate

Secretary Matus, the defence

secretary, who has at times been a

break on some of the more hardline

approaches by the president?

He was

one of the adults in the room, the

rumours that John Bolton, the former

hardline UN ambassador, is likely to

replace HR McMaster. The striking

thing about this shake-up is that

the president now seems very self

confident about making those

decisions himself. He brought in a

lot of establishment figures to give

him advice, and they warned him

against things like declaring julep

-- Jerusalem the capital of the

Israeli state and moving the US

Embassy there, and when there was

not a reaction in the Arab world, he

felt he was right. So he is feeling

very much that he wants people who

think like him, not wanting to

challenge him or offer alternative

ideas.

Thank you very much for

joining us. A lot going on in

Washington and in the White House,

as well as the country.

Special

election on Tuesday.

Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional

District was the bellweather

in a bellweather state.

And Democrats are giddy

with excitement today

because they say they have

just taken it.

The special election

on Tuesday became a symbol

of opposition to Donald Trump.

And the reason they are so happy,

is because this district was one

of the most conservative

in the country.

The Democrat Conor Lamb looks

like he has snatched an area

of the country which Trump won

in 2016 by a whopping 20 points.

Mr Lamb's opponent has yet

to concede but Republicans

are calling this a wake up call

for their party as they head

into mid term elections in November.

Here to help us break it

down is Ron Christie,

former advisor to George W Bush.

How do Republicans go in the space

of a year and a bit, from winning a

district in the country by 20 points

to losing it?

I will break from

conventional wisdom here and say

this is not that big of a deal.

Connor Lamb ran as trouble light, as

a Democrat. He is pro-life, which

many Democrats are, he said he

opposed Nato policy being the

leader, he came out and supported

President Trump on tariffs. In a

race that many Republicans thought

they might actually lose by five

points, if we lose it by one point,

that is not such a bad deal, but it

is a wake-up call and indicates that

many people are looking at this as

the first referendum on President

Trump.

It also suggests that if

Democrats can find candidates who

are matched to the districts, and in

this case, they needed someone who

was conservative, although he is

prounion, prolabor, he has some very

early classic Democratic positions

as well, but if they can find the

right candidates for the district,

they can overturn a 20 point

majority, that is still a pretty

important indication for what

Democrats can do around the country?

No question about that. People I

spoke to earlier this morning, they

are worried, the Democrats only need

23 or 24 seats to flip the House of

Representatives, and we already have

40 -- 30 members who have indicated

they will not run for reelection,

Republicans. Don't let any

Republicans flew by saying this will

be locked up and in the majority

after the November election, there

is lots for them to worry about and

lots of time for the Democrats to

raise the money to be competitive.

I

will put my pen down and challenge

Ron Christie's unorthodoxy on the

selection. I get that we lost to by

one point, but they spent $10

million in this district to a seat

which he will not do it -- be there,

because they will redraw the

electoral map and Pennsylvania. And

now surely, when you are circulating

among friends on the Hill saying

that they will have to spend a lot

of that war chest defending suburban

districts, we would have to defend?

Several astute observations, let me

unpack them for viewers and

listeners. One thing as absolute

certain, to spend $10 million on a

seat at the Pennsylvania legislator

is going to drop out again is a body

blow to Republicans. Now you have

the prospect of not only having to

find another candidate to run in

several months, but that is millions

of dollars that Murphy, the

candidate who was the representative

that left in scandal, he won the

district by 20 plus points. Now we

need to spend more money, get more

candidates, and we should be on the

offence and not defence. And this

will be seen across United States

instantly districts, Republicans

were feeling confident that now

they're looking over their shoulder,

the object in the rear-view mirror

seems a bit closer, and that is a

Democrat winning that seat.

Not to

get to technological about this, but

if Connor Lamb scares the goodness

out of the party because he is

conservative, they can also breathe

a sigh of relief to some extent

because he did not have to go

through a Democratic primary

process. So he was not pulled to the

left by ten other Democrats wanting

to win and prove their left wing

liberal bona fides, he could just be

appointed. So they could tailor make

the candidate for the district, they

will not have a Democrat with a

luxury -- luxury with the Democrats

and other races?

They will not, and

that is something that gives

Republicans confident that this was

a blip, and aberration. We see the

press trying to receive an pub --

Republicans, but they will have to

run in a very crowded primary,

spending lots of resources. And one

thing important to realise is

incumbent members of Congress do not

like supporting candidates in a

jumbled primary, so these folks will

have to battle it out on the own and

raise money on their own until they

become the eventual Democratic

nominee. To a Republican in many

cases that is running unopposed in

the primary.

Thank you. Quickly

before we get onto the next Tory,

there is press this news coming out

of the UN, Nicolet -- Nikki Haley

has said that Russia's crime is

worthy of United Nations Security

Council action, and C but she

actually means by that action. That

is coming out of the UN.

One of those people is Chris Hughes.

What if the solution to income

inequality was very simple,

give poorer people cash?

It's an idea that's

gaining traction.

The gap between rich and poor

is growing throughout the West

as the wealthy make more and more

money from investments.

One of those people is Chris Hughes.

His life was changed when he went

to Harvard and became room mates

with a young man called Mark

Zuckerberg.

Together, they founded Facebook

and made their fortunes.

Now Mr Hughes is working

on a project to redistribute that

wealth, he writes about it

in his new book Fair Shot,

and spoke to me a short

time ago from New York.

I started by asking him how

he made his fortune.

I was one of the co-founders of

Facebook, alongside Mark Zucker

Bernard. We started in 2004, and the

company took off, I was the

nontechnical co-founder responsible

for things like marketing and

product, communications. For three

years worth of work, I ended not

making nearly half $1 billion, which

is indicative of a fundamental

unfairness in the economy, in a

economy that we have created that is

about winner take all economics,

where a small group of people are

getting very fortunate, while

everyone else really struggles to

make ends meet. I think it is

historically without precedent, we

have a responsibility to fix that.

You have become interested in this

issue of income inequality, and you

have come up with a plan to give

people earning under $50,000 a year

$500 a month. Had with the plan

worked, and is it politically

feasible, given we just had a huge

tax cut reform in this country,

which has given the wealthiest

people a tax cut, not an increase,

which is what you are proposing is

blue I think it is feasible because

of that. But let me step back, here

is what we know.

The most powerful

way that lift people out of poverty

and stabilise the lives of the

middle-class is through cash. With

no strings attached, we have

enormous programmes and our country

called the earned income tax credit,

which provides tens of billions of

dollars to tens of millions of

families to use that money smartly,

to invest in themselves, kids, their

health outcomes, education outcomes

improve, etc. We know that when you

give people money, they user

smartly. In my view, it also is a

promise for a much more efficient

way to provide economic mobility to

people who need it. So I think if

you are making less than $50,000 in

the United States and you are

working in some way for your family

or community, then a guaranteed

income of $500 a month every single

month is one of the most powerful,

if not the most powerful way to

combat income inequality and

stabilise...

The counter argument

would be supporters of the welfare

state saying let's boost the welfare

state. You don't give them access,

you give them better access to

health care and education, so they

don't have to spend so much?

That is

the older traditional idea, and the

research base over the past few

decades has suggested something

different. People can be trusted

with cash, and once more, if it is

much more efficient than creating

new government bureaucracy and an

new administration to adopt a

paternalistic system that forces so

many people to go here and there to

qualify for a particular government

-- government benefit. But instead

if we provide people with cash that

they can choose how to spend, what

we know is that they go out and they

work just as much as they work

before, and their kids do better.

Dizzy to the political question, I

think we're in a transitional moment

when we have the opportunity to make

a very different case than the one

that was made by Trump and

congressional Republicans to pass

last year's tax bill. That bill gave

cuts as we know on corporations in

the 1%, but there is an -- another

way. As the movement grows to repeal

and replace, I think a modernisation

of the entered the earned income tax

credit cannot just help the poor,

but also help tens of them -- tens

of millions of American families. I

don't know if you'll be next year,

but I think it will come.

You

answered by blood question. Thank

you very much.

Thank you for having

me.

That is the question, whether

Republicans would be prepared to see

a hike in taxes on the wealthy in

order to give hard cash to people

who are poorer, given that there has

been quite a lot of suspicion among

some Conservatives about what

happens to money when he just handed

over to him at this idea of trust in

people to spend their money well

that Chris Hughes talks about so

clearly, that is something that is

missing from people who are in

control that might have to give

their money away.

The problem is

when it goes against the orthodoxy

of any financial ministries, but

when you tax the Ritz -- Rich, when

in France they put a higher tax on

rich people, the wealth left the

country. That is the fear, if you

tax the whip -- Rich people, they

simply disappear, not everyone wants

to be a benefactor, and that is the

problem.

Half $1 billion in three

years, we should have done that.

We

are in the wrong job, aren't we?

Talking adopt that would be suited

to us, Stephen Hawking had a

singular galaxy sized intellect.

They prove that all matter within a

black hole collapses to a gendered

-- geometric point in space and zero

volume.

Nine easy concept airhead

around, but Sir Roger Penrose is

here to suggest -- explain what

happens. In 1965 he came up with

this mathematical theorem on black

holes, and you collaborated with

Stephen Hawking at a time when his

disability was starting to take

over?

It was not taking over that

time, it was known that he had it,

but we can still communicate. He was

like a normal person at that time...

Well, normal in that respect.

Why

would you collaborate? You obviously

make giant strides on this theory

about black holes, what was it about

Stephen Hawking that made you want

to share?

The thing was that the

idea of black holes came about from

spherically symmetrical model

studied in the area, and you know

they have a single point where

densities and everything are

infinite right at the centre. But

everything focuses to that point, is

also surprising. People argue that

-- my theory showed that even if it

was irregular, it would still become

singular, so that was the result. I

did a talk on this, it was in

London, and according to the film,

Stephen got Sparks coming out of his

head, but he was not actually there.

But it's not so far off because I

gave a repeat in Cambridge where he

was. I talked privately with George

Ellis about the techniques that I

was using, and he did something

similar but more general than George

Ellis. Very quickly, he even showed

how you could apply the result that

I have the cosmological situations.

He adopted it very quickly, and we

collaborated on a much more complete

result.

I have a question for you,

it is obviously not easy for two

geniuses to work together, but is

not a problem that Christian and I

have. But I can imagine you have two

people of the calibre of you and

Stephen Hawking can have a

competitive relationship. As a

person, what was he like to work

with?

You won't believe this, but

the collaboration in detail was done

almost entirely over the telephone.

We got along very well, I don't

think it was competitive in that

respect at all. The thing we did

later was mainly independent. We

proved an extension of what was

known before, and in week

communicated and found we did the

same thing. We wrote a paper

together which we got published in

the Royal Society.

Do you miss him?

That was a long time ago, and we

were friends for a long time. And we

parted our ways, we that we

separated, we just got different

views about things.

I wish we could

talk longer, but we are always out

of time. We will leave you with some

of Stephen Hawking's more memorable

moments. Goodbye.

Theoretical

physics is one of the few fields in

which being disabled is no handicap.

It is all in the mind.

I hope my example will give

encouragement and hope to others in

similar situations.

I hope my example will show

disability can be no barrier. One

can achieve anything if one is

determined enough.

Never give up.