28/11/2011 Newsnight


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/11/2011. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Remember when they told us a growing economy would lift us out


of trouble? Of course it would, but tomorrow we're expected to learn


that is definitely not what we have got. Instead we have lots of


predictions of, if not tomorrow, one of these days.


As the Chancellor prepares his autumn offensive, Paul Mason, the


man who takes the con out of economics, goes to find out why the


infamous engine of growth has stalled. What we are looking at is


a completely new problem, that is, how do you come back from a


situation where you have been going quite fast down the wrong road for


35 years. What ought the chancellor


Chancellor of the Exchequer to be doing.


Also tonight, we talk to the most powerful soldier in the world about


Afghanistan, Iran and whether the US military he commands can defeat


the Taliban. They will never be destroyed, that is another dock


trainal term that means they go away, the Taliban are part of the


fabric of that part of the world, and they have have to be dealt with.


In Egypt they are sealing the ballot boxes after their first free


elections, at least that is what they hope they are. What is the


reality? TRANSLATION: They say no matter we vote or not, the


parliament won't form the Government or control it, what use


is voting? Once upon a time, 1947, to be


precise, the Chancellor of the Exchequer resigned his post because


he told a journalist what was going ob in his budget. Politicians still,


quaintly, expect us to believe that statements about the national


economy are disclosed first, to parliament. It is complete rubbish.


Over the past few days there has been a steady stream of leaks of


things that will be announced in tomorrow's Autumn Statement. To


show how hard the Government is trying to save us all from penuiry.


Could it be that tomorrow the Chancellor will have to tell us


bleakly that the propbs pects are extremely grim. -- prospect are


extremely grim, even David Grossman, a mankind to animals has his doubts.


Not everyone can pull off this look, the Chancellor thinks it can send a


message, a message so simple even a four-year-old can understand.


Time to get busy # To get building and fixing


Nice and happy, that's great. Osbourne is so keen to be


photographed near holes in the ground recently, because he wants


to show the Government is not just about cutting but building.


Investing in Britain's economic future is the priority for this


Government. We are finding the resources in difficult times, to


build the roads and railways, here we are talking about an extension


of the tube line that could create 25,000 jobs on the site. We are


doing these things, because Britain has to get away from the quick-fix,


debt solutions, that got us into this mess. We have to weather the


current economic storm, but we have to lay the foundations for a


stronger economic future. Today the Chancellor was announcing a �30


billion infrastructure fund. �20 billion is supposed to come from,


as yet unnamed, private sources. �5 billion is Government money, but


won't be spent until after 2015, leaving �5 billion of Government


funding now. But it is to be paid for from savings elsewhere. We will


found out tomorrow whether the independent forecasters think any


of this will work. My fear is they will show growth down, unemployment


up, borrowing tens of billions higher, because George Osborne's


plan hasn't worked. He said cutting faster would be good for growth and


jobs, it has ended up in higher borrowing and failure. One reason


the Government may have been so keen to crack out so many growth


announcements, ahead of tomorrow's Autumn Statement. Last week it was


housing and youth jobs. Is because ministers know that if they held


everything back until tomorrow, well, it would probably all get


rather overshadowed by the updated forecasts coming from the office of


budget responsibility. Ministers are not expecting good news from


them. The OBR stom tomorrow, it is expected, will confirm what


everybody is expecting, is that George Osborne will not meet his


target by the end of the parliament for growth? David Cameron has said


it will be more difficult to deal with the problems this Government


inherited from Labour, because of the head winds we face from the


crisis of confidence in the eurozone. But I'm sure we will see


tomorrow the measures that are necessary to make sure we both bear


down on our debts, and ensure we have the investment in


infrastructure and future jobs, to make sure we can get out of the


hole we are in. There was a kind of dress rehearsal for bad news today,


in the shape of an updated OECD forecast. The headlines from this


are pretty sobering. Negative growth for the first two quarters


of next year. That is the technical definition of a recession, or in


this case, a double-dip recession. Growth next year says the OECD,


will be 0.5%, that is a huge downgrade from their previous


assessment of 1.8%. And, says the organisation, unemployment is


expected to hit 9.1% in the UK, by 2013. That means an extra 400,000


people will be out of work. Whilst Labour is understandably keen to


pin the blame on the Government. Nowhere, in fact, does the OECD say


it is Government policies that are at fault in the reduced growth


prospects. Actually it says being seen to be getting a grip of the


deficit has actually given Britain more room to cushion the slowdown.


In any case, it seems that because of poor growth, the coalition isn't


reducing the deficit as fast as it planned. The Government is going to


reduce the deficit, slower than actually you advocated, how can


that be the problem that is causing low growth? Because the Government


decided a year-and-a-half ago to cut very deeply public spending,


and to increase taxes. That is what has choked off growth over the last


year-and-a-half. In the last year the UK economy has grown by 0.5%,


lower than all the other countries in the G7, apart from Japan, we


know they have had a huge earthquake. The choices the


Government made over a year ago are what has resulted in borrowing


coming in higher than forecast. David Cameron was out doing his own


growth photo opportunity today, hoping, no doubt, for headlines


about being on the right track, or something like that. Tomorrow's


assessment by the Office for Budget Responsibility is likely, though,


to be problematic. What the Prime Minister is trying to do is to


convince people that given where he started from, no other set of


policies would have delivered a better result. Our economics editor,


Paul Mason, is here in the studio. Put this in context for us will


you? Tomorrow comes amid a shrew of really bad economic news. That OECD


prediction for the UK, of another recession, a second recession,


might be one of the worst predictions or the most pessimistic,


it is probably because they have had longer time and more data, they


have had a chance to see what is happening in the eurozone.


Mervyn King said there are signs in the eurozone. The rest of the


markets have been talking two weeks. It is there, anecdotally the end of


the mortgage market, you see mortgages pulled, cross-border


mortages and deals all times coming in 2007 that were the trigger in


2007 and the trigger for a big crunch. The Government and tomorrow


was all supposed to be about the long-term strategy, and now the


question is how long can you go on with the famous plan A, of course,


deficit reduction, about �111 billion, taken out of state pending,


was supposed to be bridgeed by loose monetary policy, until the


economy got there, to that he will dor rad dough of sustainable growth


based on manufacturing, the question now is will it ever get


there, and in what circumstances. And this is what the Chancellor has


to explain to people in parliament tomorrow. What exactly is the plan


if the eurozone goes belly up, and if continued, desire for parts of


the economy never makes it. With us is the former UK finance secretary,


Lord Myners, and the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party,


Michael Fallon. These initiatives that have been just leaking out


over the last few days, why is it taking 18 months to get around to


them? They haven't just been leaking out. Things like credit


easing was announced at the last party conference. The spending


stuff today? On infrastructure? roads and railways and the like?


is because we have stuck to plan A that we are able now to accelerate


some infrastructure spending. Why has it taken 18 months to get


around to it? We have now discovered that some departments


are underspending, and we are able to bring that spending forward and


move it into infrastructure and get the economy growing again. You must


be chuffed, aren't you? shouldn't say no things-to-things


that could be good for stimulating the economy. But the economy as a


consequence of this Government's policy last been pushed back


towards recession, and that is -- has been pushed back towards


recession. The Conservatives have misunderstood it, they have it


round the wrong way. They are arguing the deficit is damaging


growth, at the moment it is the absence of growth that is inflating


the deficit. Hang on a moment. Lord Myners should hang his head in


shame, he's one of the Treasury ministers that left us this deficit,


that we are now having to tackle. The EOCD today said growth is


slower because of the problems in the eurozone, that Paul has


identified. Of course growth is much slower, but they also said


that the fiscal plan we have got has bolstered credibility and needs


to continue, despite the worsening outlook. The plan A is there, and


we are sticking to the plan. At the same time doing what we can to


accelerate growth and help families through this. Michael, the fact is


the economy in the 12 months of the final quarter of 2009 grew at 2.6%.


Since then it hasn't grown at all. Over the last 12 months only


Portugal, Greece and Cyprus, have achieved lower rates of growth than


the UK. The problems started well before the eurocrisis, and it is


the policies of your Government, which are creating this absence of


growth. This is rewriting history, from somebody who served in the


Treasury at the time. Those countries may well abide


differently, we had a worse deficit from these countries, which you


yourself left us. The eurozone crisis didn't start this year. The


crisis started in Greece well back at the beginning of 2010. In fact,


under the last Labour Government. This has been a very, very slow


build up in the eurozone. Is that their fault too? No, it is building


up for a year-and-a-half, you can't just say the eurozone is going


wrong on our watch. This has been building up for a couple of years


in the eurozone. We have had to inherit the consequences of it.


What you are going to hear tomorrow, we will try to accelerate growth,


spending on infrastructure, and help for motorists and rail


commuters. We're hearing �5 billion on infrastructure in the course of


this parliament? That is going to bring in �20 billion of private


investment as well through getting the pension funds involved for the


first time in this country, getting them investing. Have you guarantee


from the pension funds of the Chinese and others? No, the point


is to bring in the British pension fund, it has not been done before.


You have done that before? We have signed a guarantee with the pension


funds to get the money in there. Guaranteed is it? The �5 billion


will lock in another �20 billion on top. Guaranteed? It is an agreement


to do it. You know it is not a guarantee in terms of fixed


commitments because there are projects and pricing of projects,


toll agreements payment agreements, there is an agreement in principle


to look favourably, there isn't a guarantee. You don't think it is a


good thing? It is a good thing. Suppose it is �5 billion over the


rest of the parliament? It is �30, �5 now, and �5 in the next and �20


of private. We are spending much more, but it is �5 billion to start


with. Spread over four years? an accelerated spinding. --


Spending. How many people are going to go out. The Government cut


spending by �50 billion earlier this year. How many people will go


out and spend money on extra mince pies or whatever it is, because


they have heard the A14 will be widened? If you use the A14 as a


business, you certainly need it widened f you want that road to


Norwich dualed, you will be cheering at the news today. There


are agreements not just for roads, but rail, and more school building.


Why are you shaking your head? is improving our infrastructure,


isn't that important. Improving infrastructure is something we


agree about, we have been arguing in favour of for over 12 months. As


Jeremy said, it took you a long time to finally realise you need to


do something about it, and reverse the massive cuts that you announced


in the last budget. You reduced Government capital expenditure by


�50 billion. This �5 billion that you will spend over the remainder


of the parliament, is less than the cuts you have already introduced in


the current year. Which is similar to the cuts you would have had to


make? Jeremy, we have had lots of good news leaked over the last


three or four days, tomorrow we will get the hard news about how


grim the economic outlook is. Sounds if you are relishing it?


at all. Very much I am in despair the Government is doing nothing


about it. You think we are going to have a recession? Yes, the major


parts of the country is already in the recession. It is the south-east


that is buoyant. The remainder of the country has been in recession


for at least three months, probably six. You were already planning to


cut capital expenditure, that was in Alistair Darling's budget, but


the fact is we are spending over 50% of GDP, only the second time


since the war have we done that. You are in charge now That is why


we have to bring spending under control. It is only because it is


under control we are able to bring forward some good spending on the


infrastructure and to help motorists and rail users. Continue


this outside. Beneath everything else the rot undermining our


economy is all about our collective and individual habit of living on


tick. In turn, that is about the fact in the last several decades we


have allowed and encourage things we used to make here to be


manufactured abroad. David Cameron promised he would rebalance the


economy, so that more of our income came again from making things. So,


economics editor, how is he doing? We don't know. Hopefully the OBR


tomorrow, their projections will tell us. We know what their plan


was. The plan was in years time, that whole -- hole in growth, left


by reducing state spending, would be completely replaced by exports.


Britain has been a net importer for the last decade, really going into


exPortland. We would also be a much more heavily focused manufacturing


and business investment economy. The whole shape of the economy was


supposed to change. I have decided to go to the North West, which is


still our biggest manufacturing base and see what they are already


doing, what you could do, and what it would take to really change the


shape of that economy, so that ultimately you flip the UK towards


where the coalition wants it to be. The old drivers of growth are over.


The economy has to reBelfast. -- reBelfast.


Reindustrialised, boost growth, but it is easier said than done. The


north-east is the biggest manufacturing sector in England,


scattered with industries that have failed. But running through the


middle of it, a giant clue about how to kick start industrial growth.


The Bridgwater canal, built by an Earl, 250 years ago, when there was


nothing else here. When he built this canal, Bridgwater unleashed a


complex process of industrialisation. Here, where a


brook runs underneath it, he built an early cotton mill, I'm standing


on the ruins of it. Even in the 20th century it made sense to build


a newer, bigger factory where the skills and expertise already


existed. How would you do that now? What is


the equivalent of the canal today? What is the new cotton.


Fraf even if is a single layer -- graphene is a single layer of


graphite, it is more productive than copper, thermal properties


that exceed any other material we know about. At Manchester


University, they won a nobody bell prize for their work on graphene.


In this job the lab is doing is to commercialise it. The Government


has thrown �50 million of it. Following the noble prize interest


we got lots of interest through the press. It wasn't until the


Government made the announcement that we saucerous interest for


established companies to work for us. Companies then said this stuff


here, now we know the British Government likes it, we like it


too? It is a compelling case, and you know, having that message from


central Government was very persuasive in their mind for co--


locating here with us, and sharing the responsibility. So graphene


proves two things. One, Brits are still very good at geeky science,


two, picking winners, Government- backing for individual companies,


technologies and sectors is back. The problem is, everybody else in


the world is doing it. Graphene alone won't turn around the North


West's economy, or Britain's, any time soon.


The decline of manufacturing has left its mark. Here in the North


West, and in much of the country outside London, low paid jobs, low


GDP per head, fractured communities. Some think eventhough we want to


leave this old model behind, it is going to be hard.


Britain has a serious structural problem. The structural problems


put simply, is we have retreated from tradable goods and


manufacturing, and lost 4.5 million jobs. Good jobs in manufacturing.


And piled up a huge trade deficit that sucks demand out of the


economy. This school of economists, based


here at Manchester University, wants Government to move towards


highly-targeted support for individual economic sectors.


short answer is there isn't one technically correct quick-fix. I


think instead you have to think of the long, slow slog of building the


sectors, which have been run down in the last 30 years, and building


the networks and clusters of activity, instead of worshiping


generic enterprise and individual firms as successive Governments


have. This is what it looks like when it


works. Eden Biodesign, in Liverpool, started with �50,000 ten years ago,


now it is a multimillion pound business, with a work force of 125.


They research and make biomedicines, they have seen Government


initiatives come and go. Most recently Government funding for


their biotech cluster group has gone. Where there are good strong


clusters, it is focusing, and supporting and consistency of


funding rather than a slug of capital, a banner headline and then


a disapassion of that activity. Con-- dispassion of that activity.


Consistency is very important. that happened in the past? Clearly,


there was Government funding that enabled the cluster to grow in the


south west. The Koreans would throw huge amounts of money at it? Yes,


we don't. Eden represents another British problem, access to capital,


they were recently acquired by US drug giant, Watson, but the venture


capital to grow the firm also came from America. British investors at


the time, recoiled from the word "manufacturing". The longer you


talk to the bosses who could deliver the rebalancing the


Government wants, the more you realise nothing they want is rocket


science, they want more consistency, tax breaks to compete with other


countries, less short-termism. It seems to me, it is people, at


Manchester University they are trying to be a world centre of


advanced research, and applied science. But, brain power can go


anywhere in the world it wants to. And the problem in Britain is,


incredibly, given the unemployment rate, we are actually short of the


skills we need. We have actually got a massive skills shortage at


the moment. We are probably short of about 200 engineers across the


company, across the UK. Probably 100 of those in the North West.


Morris, on the banks of the machine -- Morson, they design nuclear


reactors and other things, they stress test them virtually, right


down to the individual screw. The company is successful and growing,


they want Government to do what other countries do, put tax-payers'


money into high-skilled training. We see a lot of graduates every day,


working in taxies, and shops, they have engineering degrees. And yet


we have skills shortages. We have several partners in Europe and


Germany, France and Spain. I see quite a different approach from


their Governments. In terms of supporting graduate raining, and


actual funding of training. So the Governments will pay to bridge that


gap between college and the work place? Yes. Whether it is on skills,


investment or research, rebalancing Britain all comes down to whether


the state can find a new role. It is worth rembering, this, the


first-ever piece of industrial infrastructure, was built, by act


of parliament, and never made a profit.


When it comes to reindustrialising Britain, a lot will depend on what


happens in the rest of the world. Because, when they built this,


Britain was the dominant power. We could do what we liked. By the time


they built the factory behind me, in the Edwardian period, it was


already a world of cut-throat competition between states. As this


crisis drags on, it is again. 200 years ago the canals of


Lancashire pointed British manufactured goods, like a guided


weapon into the world economy. Today, again, there is huge


investment going in, to the mercy and to the ship canal -- Mersey and


the ship canal. The canals date back to the Industrial Revolution,


we are taking the old assets and modernising them and making them


applicable to the modern economy. We are aim to go spend �500 million


over the next few years, creating a new river terminal in the river


Mersey, and creating mu -- new buildings down the canal banks.


Itly allow us to be more efficient into the northern half of the


country. It creates thousands of new jobs, that will kick start the


economy. But the fact remains, if things stay the way they are,


Liverpool's Newport facilities will see more imports an exports. The


true measure of success will be to reverse the flow of trade. That is


not just an idle dream. Virtually the whole of the Government's


growth and budget plans rest on reindustrialising Britain.


What to look for now is if anybody in politics has a practical clue of


how it will be achieved. Britain isn't, of course, the only


country to have a hole where it ought to have a budget. Pre-


eminently there is the world's one remaining superpower. The military,


which enables America to stride the world like a kollos SAS, faces huge


cuts in its budget, which, if extended, the US Defence Secretary


said could turn the country into a paper tiger. Could this be the


beginning of the end of an unprecedented global dominance. I


will be talking to the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the


most powerful military man in the world. First we have this. It is an


unenviable job, tackling wars, while a country takes an axe to its


military budget. Since September, General Martin Dempsey, has had the


top US forces job. A globe-trotting mission, thwarting enemies, and


trying not to let down friends. But his prese dessor, rather unhelpful


-- predecessor, rather unhelpfully said, America's budget deficit is


America's biggest threat, that hardly helps the new man protect


his money. Whether or not he was right, the problem with the


formation from the defence department's point of view, the


only thing the defence department can do to address that threat is to


cut its own budget. That happened and now General Dempsey is saying


we can't afford to cut it any further, without imposing other


national security problems on ourselves. We are now cutting into


bone, and muscle. We are having to make tough choices about America's


role in the world. The Pentagon spends $700 billion


per year, and is already facing $400 billion in cuts over the next


eight years. The federal budget crisis means the team sent to run


the military this summer is now being threatened with the same


again, or even more, prompting the Defence Secretary to raise the


specter of a hollow military. a ship without sailors, it is a


brigade without bullets, it is an air wing without enough trained


pilots. It is a paper tiger. press has started in August of


10...This New threat to the Pentagon arises because of the


gridlock in Congress over the budget deficit. Many Republicans


say the military must be sparred, and Democrats, that they must share


the pain. But the point is, that the consensus that funded President


Bush's wars has gone, and threats to defence spending are now part of


the negotiating process. We have a good chance of actually getting the


big package, the big definite reduction in 2012, for two or three


reasons. First, the knives that I mentioned that were over our heads,


the Bush tax cuts expire in 2013, sequestation goes into effect then.


As we get closer and closer the pressure on both parties to come


together in the middle, provided we don't remove one of those knives,


like taking defence off the table, is going to be stronger and


stronger. So, if the bugetry pressures are


intense, what about their consequences in the wider world. In


Iraq, the imminent final US withdrawal has been blamed, in part,


by some critics, on a desire to trade security for money. Meanwhile,


in Afghanistan and Pakistan, plans to accelerate the drawdown there


have increased tensions with local politicians, who were playing to


anti-American public opinion. When there is a mistake, on the


scale of Saturday's bombing of a Pakistani border post, killing 24


of their soldiers, the damage to US interests is even greater.


Not only I, the whole nation condemns it. Whatever has happened,


we don't and never expected it would happen. While Pakistan has


cut NATO supplies, and co-operation, before, and then quietly reversed


the decision, some in the Pentagon are coming to the conclusion that


they and President Karzai's gofpl, want to make America's --


Government, want to make America's exit as undignified as possible.


The US remains the world's most mill tearly powerful nation by a --


militarily powerful nation by a long way. It is thought that a


country like Iran might underestimate America's weakness or


unwillingness to intervene. Hallmark of the last 20 years the


US military capacity to inject a sizeable UK force anywhere in the


globe. If we implement the cuts being contemplated, that capacity


would be put in jeopardy. That has a profound effect on American grand


strategy. We wouldn't be able to afford the grand strategy that we


have had for the last two decades. The US remains the world's most


militarily powerful nation by a long Martin. The financial crash


and cuts provide dangers, that Iran might underestimate America's


weakness or unwillingness to intervene. The top serviceman took


time at a flux, the scale of cuts that will emerge from congressional


budget arrangements isn't clear. The salient thing is the post-9/11


consensus about funding the military is over, and America's


politicians are no longer in step. I spoke to General Martin Dempsey,


chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, down at the Ministry of


Defence here in London, earlier this evening.


What has it been like to take over the military at a time when it is


in decline? I'm not in decline. We are not in decline. You know.


big was the army when you joined it? Yeah. It is a lot smaller now


than it was? You know the incline or decline is not a function of


size but capability. I would suggest to you that over the last


ten years we have learned a lot. We have adapted our formations. We


tend to faced a verse rees that don't mass against us but decentral


-- adversaries that don't mass against us but decentralise, we


have had to adapt. When it is said the security of your country is in


peril because of budget cuts, they are wrong? They are correct. But


they have also said the initial budget cut of $450 billion plus,


they have used the phrase "hard but managable", even before I became


chairman they said that. I agree with that characterisation.


Anything more will not be managable? It will be harder and


reach the point of becoming unmanagable. Could you fight two


wars simultaneously? We can, we will never be a military that can


only do one thing at a time. Despite the fact that your army


will be smaller than it has been since 1940, the Navy will be the


smallest it has been since 1914. You are reading the language of


sequestation. I'm reading the language of Leon Panetta? He's


using that language and finding the job over the next five years.


we talk about Pakistan, how long could the mission in Afghanistan


continue if the Pakistanies shut the supply routes through their


country? The Pakistani decision, made, first let me say, since you


brought up Pakistan. I really would like to explain that this is just a


tragedy for all of us. In particular a tragedy for the 4


Pakistani soldiers their families. My -- 24 Pakistani soldiers and


their families. My immediate reaction was to pick up the phone


for their phone, a man I have known for 24 years. This will make it


difficult, we will find a way to sustain our effort in Afghanistan,


even if the Pakistanis make the unfortunate decision of closing the


locks. This sort of action, in which you say, two dozen Pakistani


soldiers lost Tony Blair lives. Is that the consequence of ignorance


or ineptness? Well, I chuckle because that is a pretty stark


choice. It is, it is one or the other? I wouldn't say so. Ineptness


and incompetence. Irregular nor rapbs? You could see incompetence,


they would be synonymous. You have been to Afghanistan and walked the


hills. You know that although we have become extraordinary as a


military, as being precise and accomplishes, and get the outcome


we seek. This is still warfare, it breeds fog and friction and


complexity. I don't know what happened in the hills of the


province on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will


find out. Looking at the broader picture in Afghanistan, do you


think it was a tactical mistake to put 2014 as a finish date?


increased the risk. But there is a school of report that if you put a


timeline in place your enemies wait it out. My personal military


judgment is there have been times in my career where a milestone has


pulled me along. Done correctly, that is what we are trying to do,


is the milestone has that effect. It pulls us along, focuses our


energise and transition, and deliver the outcome we promised as


an alliance at Lisbon. The Taliban won't be defeated by 2014? I think


they can be defeated. Militarily the word "defeat" means you render


incapable the enemy of impoetsing itself. We would say over--


imposing itself. We would say overthrowing the Government of


Pakistan would be that. They will never be destroyed, which means


they will never go away. The Taliban are part of the fabric of


that part of the world and will have to be dealt with. They will


still be there in 2014? Sure, those that are he can consielable, could


be reconciled, those not, could be the enemies of the Afghan state,


they will be in support of the Afghans to do that. Can we ask


briefly about Iran, if Iran were to have deployable nuclear weapons,


how serious a matter would that be? We have said we wouldn't allow Iran


to be a nuclear power. If you were tasked to destroy nuclear


capability that Iran might possess or be on the brink of po tesing,


could you do that? I won't speak -- Possessing, could you do that?


won't speak about our capability. Our policy is economics and


diplomacy. We have conscious low stated we won't take military


options off the table either. Implicit in that is the belief you


could do it if you had to? As we are asked what options we can


provide to our authorities, we, of course, lay those out, both in


terms of their capability and the risk associated with them. I'm not


prepared to talk about that publicly.


General,thank you. A very large number of Egyptians


tund out today at the start of elections there. -- turned out


today at the start of elections there. It is a fiendishly


complicated system that would baffle voters in our system. They


turned out in lines a mile long. Amid the queues and hopefulness and


inked fingers, much remains unresolved, and much of whether the


military will ever give up power. Revolutions don't always move fast.


Today at this women-only polling station in south Cairo, as at


others across Egypt, they shuffled towards democracy. A two-hour wait


to vote here. Most found it thrilling. I feel so excited about


it, it is my first time to go for elections. For the first time we


have to choose someone who will represent our choice in the


parliaments, and I think that is very important. Before that we


didn't have any choice for anything. I'm shocked that we can do, and


think like that. I didn't expect it. Not in a thousand years.


I didn't expect to go an election in my lifetime. Some people say


these elections will make no difference? OK. It won't make any


difference. But it changed me. It changed me.


I can feel it, down deep in me. Me I am changed.


Last week these elections were overshadowed by the violence on


Tahrir Square. And worries about the continuing role of the army in


politics. But now the days Day has come, it is the sheer exhileration


of voting that counts most for many Egyptians, they Israel yois as the


future of their country is decide - - realise that as the future of


their country is decided there is plenty to play for. 150 candidates


in this multimember constituency to be elected according to a


bewilderingly complex system. It has been made deliberately complex,


by Egypt's ruling generals, who won't want voters to give a clear


answer, and intend, many believe, to stay in charge, despite this


year's revolution. TRANSLATION: It is great to have


elections. But they say no matter what weather we vote or not, the


parliament won't form the Government, or control it. The


Military Council said that. So what use is voting? We don't want a


parliament like in Mubarak's time. But hire, away from Tahrir Square,


the -- here, away from Tahrir Square, the military has its


defenders too? TRANSLATION: We need the army to control the situation,


who else can run Egypt but the army. If they can hand over power to the


civilian Government in a peaceful way, the army will go back to the


barracks. Even this stalwart of the square, standing as an independent


on the revolutionary credentials, is happy for the vote to go ahead.


While the army is still in power. Isn't that a bit of a climb-down?


We need to put pressure on the Military Council from parliament


and the electorate at the same time. We have to pursue all and every


option. Auk med has a problem, in a -- Ahmed has a problem, in a


country where a third of candidate's are illiterate, each


candidate has a symbol, a camera, a bank, but Ahmed's logo has been


messed up on the ballot paper. People think mine is a bus not a


microbus. It says "one of the people from Tahrir Square". Funnily


enough when I met him at the start of his campaign, he was also having


problems. Ernest revolutionaries like him are power on the square


but not the street. I had some of my banners here, you can see it was


taiched to the banners, it was ripped off. -- attached to the


banners, it was ripped off. I posted 20 seven metre banners


yesterday, only five remain. They were shredded by another contestant


or another competitor shreds them. But this time they have completely


disappeared, it is very strange. It didn't take 24 hours. The police


weren't very interested. Ahmed was already at a disadvantage. With not


much more than �10,000 to spend on his whole campaign.


This is another candidate with plenty of cash has been going down


the back constituency lanes. This is an oil tycoon that used to


belong to Mubarak's banned party. Consequently, his symbol is the


tank. To revolutionaries he's a dangerous remnant of the old regime.


He has done a lot to help poor people like these, even in


revolutionary times they can't live by principle alone. TRANSLATION: Be


I want someone who help us where they k I want someone to mend


things and provide food. I would vote for this.


TRANSLATION: There are no sewers in this area, eventhough we have been


living here for 14 years. A contractor came to put them in, he


took the money and left. Nobody does anything about it now.


Before I leave this constituency, I wanted to meet a young man called


Ali, whom I last saw in January. At the funeral of a friend of his.


Shot by police in the revolution. The dead of the 17-year-old and


main others helped bring Egypt to today's historic elections. What


did it bring his own family, or the struggling neighbourhood.


TRANSLATION: Since the revolution, nothing has changed. There has been


no compensation for the martyrs, we are hoping after the elections they


will do something about it. Everything is the same as before,


except for one thing, unemployment has got even worse.


These people want subjectings now citizens, -- once subjects now


citizens, know the first few months of the parliament they are electing


will be dominated with rouse over the constitutions, the army versus


civilians, civilians versus the secular.


It won't bring more daily bread, that is what most thought they were


That's all tonight. The death was announced today of the film


director, Ken Russell, the one-time enfrant terrible was 84. We folk --


enfant terrible, was 84, we spoke to Martin Scorsese today. Having


seen Women In Love and The Devils, and the production design is strong


stuff. He wasn't afraid of anything. He said what he had to say and did


it. But, what I really felt really should be seen again, particularly


in America, are the black and white films he made at the BBC.


Omnibus, Dealius? Yes and Sabalius and the other one on Isodora Duncan.


They were amazing and revelations. Who are we to disagree with Martin


Scorsese. I want you to write down a new opening to our our people, I


don't like that title, call it Song Of Summer. I want you to imagine we


are sitting on the cliffs in the heather looking out over the sea.


The sustained chord in the high strings suggests the clear sky and


the stillness and calmness of the scene. Now then, seven four in a


bar, four plus three, divided strings, chord of D major, A, D, F


sharp, the lowest note the A strings on the violass.


-- violas. Heavy rain and squally winds


driving across the country. Amber driving across the country. Amber


warning from the Met Office. It dries up in the morning, across


Northern Ireland. Wet weather sweeping into England and Wales, it


doesn't reach the eastern side of England until late in the day.


Heavy rain arriving on to the Pennines by 3.00pm. Largely dry.


Windy, the strongest winds with the rain. They will be heavy and


squally too. The winds dying down eventually across the south west of


England and Wales. As the more persistent rain clears it may turn


wintry in Snowdonia. A wet start in Northern Ireland, but clearing


later on in the morning, sunshine in the afternoon, but showers. It


doesn't half feel qolder and colder in Scotland as well -- colder and


colder in Scotland as well. It will be a very wet morning across


Scotland and Northern Ireland. We will see showers gathering here


again on Wednesday. Further south, the band of rain sweeping eastwards


during Tuesday, squally rain, heavy rain, potentially damaging and


Download Subtitles