28/05/2012 Newsnight


Tony Blair goes to Leveson. The massacres in Syria. Heathrow and Boris. Tom Hiddleston, Simon Schama and Mark Rylance on Shakespeare. With Jeremy Paxman.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/05/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



He might have been Prime Minister, but he didn't feel bold enough to


take on the press. The people may send you to Downing Street, he says,


but the press are something else. You fall out with them, and you


watch out, because it is literally relentless and unremitting, once


that happens. This Government seemed cowed by an old fast,ed


press campaign too. Tonight a u- turn on both the pasty tax and the


caravan tax. The worst atrocity yet in Syria,


what realistically can the rest of the world do.


And later on. We happy few, we Band of Brothers. What does Shakespeare


teach us about the art and devilry of political leadership. Fresh from


Henry V, Tom Hiddleston discusses with Mark Rylance, and Simon Schama.


Is the Government creeping back towards a third runway at Heathrow.


Boris Jonsson prefers a plan not involving his own back -- Sir


Gordon Borrie Jonsson prefers a plan not involving his own back


yard. It is good because it is off the map, because there are fewer


votes to lose. There are fewer human beings.


Two months ago it was an essential part of sorting out the tax system,


tonight, the plan for imposing VAT on Cornish pasties has been


abandoned. Game, set and match to a campaign in the press.


We learned a lot more about the power of the press and how it looks


in Downing Street, when Tony Blair took the stand at the Leveson


Inquiry today. We learned too that whoever is paying for Tony Blair's


large security detail and the administration of the inquiry, for


example, you and me, isn't get especially good value for money. We


learned why the former Prime Minister decided not to confront


the press, but he said to try to manage it.


He is The Godfather of Gloom, not just to one of Rupert Murdoch's


children, but for many, The Godfather of Gloom of modern


political media management. Half a decade out of power, and can he


still draw a crowd. Today Mr Blair was at the heart of the story once


again. I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be


the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He said as a


political leader, witnessing the savagry of the press, he faced a


choice, take on the power of the media, or attempt, some how, to


harness it. It is not that, as it were, I was afraid of taking them


on, in that sense, but I knew that if I did, you have to be very, very


clear about this, and that was the debate I had with Alastair, and


others within Government all the way through. If you take this on,


do not think for a single moment you are not in a long, protracted


battle that will shove everything else to one side whilst it is going


on. Instead Mr Blair tried to get close, famously travelling to


address a News Corporation meeting in Australia, in 1995.


I wouldn't have been going, of course, not all the way around the


world. I remember I had to go after one Prime Minister's Questions, and


return for the next, if it hadn't been a very deliberate and


strategic decision that I would go and try to persuade them. I had a


minimum and maximum objective. The minimum objective was to stop them


tearing us to piece, and the maximum objective, was to open the


way to support. But, Mr Blair insisted, there was no deal with


urd -- Rupert Murdoch's -- Rupert Murdoch or anyone else? I wouldn't


have gone if I hadn't had a strong interest in us legislating on the


media, absolutely, but im plied deal of media interest, absolutely


not. I don't think we will miss you. During his decade in power, Mr


Blair said he saw countless examples of the press trying to rip


someone apart. Not least, he said, what amounted to a vendetta against


his wife. Who, he revealed, has used lawyers to challenge stories


about her on 30 separate occasions. Powerful people within these


positions will say, right, we are going after that person, what


happens is, they will go after you. As I say, it is full on, full


frontal, day in, day out. That is not journalism. In my view. That is


an abuse of power, actually. those tuning into Mr Blair


expecting to hear revelation, well, it was something of a


disappointment. We learned very little that hasn't already come out


in numerous inquiries, and countless biographies and


autobiographies of the Blair era. And part Lewis because he was in


office, and partly because of his technophobe character. Mr Blair


never had a mobile phone or e-mail while in Downing Street. So he


didn't have to explain any of the chummy messages that other


witnesses have been confronted with. This was n many ways, a classic


Blair event. Whilst he looked very, very relaxed, others got very, very


excited. He held up the Iraq Bank for �20 billion. A protestor some


how found his way through the judges' door into the court....JP


Morgan, after he left office, the man is a war criminal. Mr Blair


deed nationwide the man's accusations, and the inquiry


promised another inquiry as to how he got in. Mr Blair was famously on


kissing terms with News International, today we learned


that Rupert Murdoch and he had three telephone conversations in


the days before the Iraq War. So what's the solution? Well, Mr Blair


says the press are so soufrl, because when they turn it is not --


so powerful, because when they turn it is not just their opinion and


leader columns that get poisonous, but also their news coverage. He


said they should be given a duty to separate the two. Three problems,


according to critics, who decides where that line s who polices it,


and what is the sanction for those who cross it.


As he left pl, Blair knew he hadn't been tripped up or ripped --'s left,


Mr Blair knew he hadn't been tripped up or ripped up by the


inquiry, although he had got to say his side of things. But someone did


get to throw an egg at him. Tessa Jowell and Stephen Glover,


who has devoted a fair number of column inches to criticising the


former Prime Minister. A man with land slight majorities in Downing


Street, and the power to send troops to war and all the rest of


it, complains about the press? don't think he complains about it,


he was setting out throughout the whole of today and his evidence, a


very clear strategic judgment, that you would reek havoc by trying to


intervene and regulate the -- wreak havoc by trying to intervene and


regulate the press. Instead you would try to manage the press, and


get as much coverage for things as possible, but never live in hope.


That was a reasonable ambition? reasonable ambition to get on with


the press. The trouble was he thought getting on with the press


meant sucking up to Rupert Murdoch. And getting so close to Rupert


Murdoch, that within the eight days before we went to war in Iraq they


spoke many times on the telephone. Is there any modern country where


that would happen. He spoke to other editors at that very


sensitive time. Not to the same extent three days the Iraq War.


Telegraph, and the Mirror, in order that their readers could also


understand why this momentous decision had been taken.


anything like to the same extent. I mean, there were very few cabinet


ministers who spoke with Blair three times in the days before we


went to war. This was a relationship very much much closer


than any other editoral proprietor. You conceded when you were


appointed, Culture Secretary, you said you went to see the Prime


Minister, and said is there any deal with Murdoch to give him what


he wants on media regulation? wouldn't say I conceded, I wanted


to establish exactly what the brief was that I was taking on. Why did


you find it necessary to go and ask the Prime Minister whether such a


deal had been done? Because I needed to be clear that I had, as a


new Secretary of State, complete free rein to decide. Why should


you? In exactly the same as the other issue I sought assurance on,


if I was to sort out the position with Wembley Stadium, then the


Football Association wouldn't come and see the Prime Minister behind


my back. You had spae civic anxiety about Rupert Murdoch? -- a specific


anxiety about Rupert Murdoch? You must have done otherwise you


wouldn't have asked? I had a specific question about Rupert


Murdoch, which was a prerequisite to my doing the job properly.


you also ask him if there was a deal done with the Guardian, the


Independent, the mirror ob anybody else? I asked him -- Or anybody


else? I asked him specifically about Rupert Murdoch. The fact was


that the Prime Minister did not see him, and the legislation I took


through parliament, and concluded in 2003, gave Rupert Murdoch


virtually nothing that he had lobbied, or News International had


lobbied. You can make a face like that. I only wanted to know why you


wanted the assurance, or felt you needed to have the assurance?


wanted the assurance, in order that I knew the terms on which I was


going to negotiate, not just with News International, but all the


other media companies that I saw oifr that time. You didn't ask --


Over that time. You didn't ask any of the others, as you agreed today.


Mr Blair saw the Mail has being a real enemy of his, he said today,


he said he had an analysis done while in Downing Street of 100


stories printed in the Mail, and all 100 were hostile to him? That


may be, I don't know. The Mail was the only paper which new Labour


couldn't win over. They tried to win it over in the late 1990s, they


petitioned the propriety and the editor, and they didn't get very --


proi proprietor, and the -- proprietor, and they tried the


editor but they didn't win them all over. There was the time between


the 1996 election and the 2001 election where the whole press was


Blairite. Isn't the point conceded by Tony Blair, that there isn't any


distinction between fact and comment in the Mail? The Mail is


surely free to run comment articles, critical of Tony Blair, I have


written a few in my time. He's saying there is no distinction?


He's wrong about. That he didn't give any examples, he gave one


example. He said there were 100 stories and all hostile? I don't


know if 100 stories were, 100 pieces, articles, he didn't give


specific examples about how comment had crept into news. He kept going


on about it, but he didn't give any examples. An old fast,ed tabloid


campaign seems to have done for the budget, its plans to intro-- --


introduce a called pasty tax, and changes to the caravan tax. It was


thought this announcement was made while ministers were on holiday to


reduce embarrassment, according to the opposition. Pasty tax is dead?


And the caravan tax. This story is both frivolous and serious, because


talking about caravans and pasties isn't what any of us went into


political journalism to do. It is serious for a number of reasons,


this is a Government worried about its perceptions being out-of-touch,


and the damage on these two and a series of things has already been


done. It is also a serious thing because it looks like a Government


that doesn't know its own mind. A few weeks ago they were talking


about steadfast surety that they wouldn't backtrack on these, even


though there was opposition from the get-go. There is the squeeze in


how much life costs, when you can find �100 million to row back on


caravan and pasty tax, but you can't find money on things like


fuel duty, people will wonder about priorities. But it is the


consequence, is it not, of a newspaper campaign? It is the


consequence, but also of a series of MPs in the west of England who


are feeling this isn't something they want to go back to ahead of


the Jubilee weekend. I don't know if it is necessarily about


newspapers, but they amplify, don't they. We would have liked to talk


to a Treasury Minister, but no-one was available. But Stephen Glover


this looks like the media exercising power and


responsibility? It is comical, pasties and caravans, people say,


but it is what it signifies? think the media spointing out a


stupid an -- is pointing out a stupid anomally in the budget, and


90% of the British public is probably on the media's side, they


are reflecting what people think. The idea that the media will click


its hands and the Government will change its mind, it is wrong,


people are asking every day for the Government to stop doing what they


are doing. This was clearly a cock- up, and the Government have


sensibly stepped down. There is a massive area that is controversial


in the budget, that is the 50p rate of tax going, that remains, but


tweaks around the edges. What do you make of it? It is just a


shambles. I mean I absolutely agree with the analysis. But I would like


very quickly to touch on Stephen's point about newspaper campaigns, I


think newspapers are entirely free, and should run campaigns. I think


we, Stephen's paper ran a pretty ghastly campaign against the


licensing act, against gambling legislation, they didn't win on


either accounts. They won a campaign on Stephen Lawrence?


did, not all campaigns are won, and some campaigns, actually, have more


integrity than others. You don't dispute their right to do it?


don't dispute their right to do it. For one moment. It is perfectly


true that newspapers don't always win their campaigns, I must say the


Mail of completely right about gambling. Why new Labour fell in


love with gambling, God only knows. New Labour never fell in love with


gambling, it was in order to make the public safer at a time when


many more people were gambling. Shall we talk about this another


time. I think we better do that. Thank you very much.


You can believe the United Nations or you can believe President Bashar


Al-Assad's propaganda machine. The former UN Secretary-General, Kofi


Annan, is trying publicly at least, to keep an open mind on who


murdered over 100 people, nearly half of them children, in the


Syrian town of Houla on Friday. The Russians, who have been Al-


Assad's main international protector shifted ground slightly


today, admitting that the regime was, at least, partially


responsible for the killings. Our diplomatic editor is here. Are


we any closer to finding out what happened in Houla? There have been


more details, and they are pretty shocking, really. In the initial


hours after the attack, we can look at a map over the region. It is an


I can't remember to the North West of Homs, a place where there had


been known to be a great deal of fighting and suffering already. Up


there in Houla, in the hours initially afterwards, a lot of


focus on state artillery, and after Friday payers and demonstrations


there was artillery fired into howl LA soon it progressed to a town


south of it Taldou an extended family clan, more than 60 of those


killed were killed at close range by gunmen, with shots to the head.


That is becoming clearer in the last couple of days from survivors'


accounts. TRANSLATION: I swear to God, they


killed my husband, they killed 12 members of my household. This baby


is my niece, they killed her mother and her sister. The thugs made us


come down stairs, they started their carnage, I lost four


daughters and other family members. The attackers were dressed in


military fatigue, and came in a white car, they stormed our homes


and started a shooting spree. baby did survive, but not the rest


of her family, of course. What's become clear from rebel accounts,


resistance accounts, is these people were unofficial


paramilitaries, murder squads, death squads, if you choose to call


them that. The Syrian Government denied, that blaming it on called


terrorists, US, and everybody else seems to accept that. These


international phrases have been carefully worded, in, for example,


the UN's statement over the weekend. The resistance seems to see this as


a moment of truth where they can began vanise public opinion. This


shocking image, a dead child, placed on the bonnet of one of the


UN vehicles as they went into Houla at the weekend. It is a horrible


incident. What has been the diplomatic response? Because of


what happened, there was this urgent UN presidential statement,


the Security Council presidential statement at the weekend. Now, some


people feel this is part of a pattern of Russia and China, who


had blocked serious action in the UN last year, coming closer to


being on side. The Russians point out that they, for example, have


agreed to the deployment of those monitor, they have signed up to the


two presidential statements recently condemning Syria. In that


spirit, William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary went to Moscow


today, to try to get more out of the Russians and see if there was


room to push this whole agenda forward of more robust action.


Instead he found Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, still


apparently apportioning blame equally in Moscow today.


TRANSLATION: We are dealing with a situation in which both sides


participated in the killings of innocent civilian, including


several small children and women. This district is controlled by the


armed militants, at the same time it is encirleled by Government


forces. -- -- encirleled by Government forces. Where does it


leave international mediation? of the reports seem to indicate


escalation. The fact that money and weapons do seem to be getting


through from Qatar, to the Free Syrian Army, the rebel forces, the


fact that there is a complete diplomatic past Tiel, there was


strong language at the weekend, but the Russians are still determined


to hold on to a transition arrangement they want to call the


shots upon. We must never forget in this the US presidential cycle


seems to be determining a US attitude not to lead a strong


international response to this, particularly if it might involve US


troops. Bashar Al-Assad is the sort of bloody tyrant who might have


been drawn by Shakespeare, Macbeth, Richard II II or tight Andronicus,


we are reflected this week in Britain through the writings of


three British authors, no better space to start with spaix peer --


Shakespeare, on the question of leadership. What does he have to


tell us about it, and do we care about it any longer. Two of our


leading actors and a foremost historian will try to answer those


"Be not afraid of greatness, some are born great, some achieve


greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them". "Uneasy lies the


head that wears the crown ". "Men of few words are the best men".


"The smallest worm will turn, being trodden on".


When we are not out on the street, calling for our leaders to depart


the stage at the first available opportunity, we are indulging in


other colourful traditions of our island story, like celebrating the


anniversary of a popular sovereign, coming to the throne.


Who would be a leader, at the mercy of our whims and appetites.


By being seldom seen, I could not stir, but like a comet, I was


wondered at. Sir Richard Eyre has been directing


Henry IV, as part of a Jubilee season of Shakespeare plays for the


BBC. All Shakespeare has become proverbial, it is there, thank God,


as part of the DNA of British life. Sketch writers, voters, we often


see politicians in Shakespearian terms, do you think they do


themselves? I think most of them aspire, and it is not a very close


reading of the play, to hen vee V. We few, -- Henry V. We few, we


happy few, we Band of Brothers. is the exemplary piece of political


rhetoric, they all see themselves, at party conference, standing up


and rousing the troops in that way. We are Conservatives, we will speak


of pride, of honour, of valour in battle, and yes, of glory.


The voice of the real people, with real needs, is louder than all the


boos. Education, education, and education. As with Henry V, it is


quite cynical, and it doesn't solve the problem of how to govern. How


to govern is the constant preoccupation, in play after play,


after play, after play, of Shakespeare's, it is how do you


manage a society that has internal dissent.


Shakespeare is brilliantly perceptive about the virus of power.


The laughable in British politics, it is always in the House of


Commons you see aggressive opposition. That is absolutely


endemic. If we listened to the muttering idiot sitting opposite


me... I'm taking the Shakespeare Way, which goes from Stratford to


London. And passes through Chipping Norton. It has been one of the most


important centres of power in the country, home to David Cameron and


his influential friends. The whole Chipping Norton set thing is so


interesting, it is something that would have been unremarkable 50 or


100 years ago, when Harold Macmillan was swaning around


clubland or something. Nobody thought anything of it. Now we live


in this populist, individualistic, democratic age, where people almost


slightly resent the idea that everybody at the top knows one


another, there is this pat tricks world that ordinary people are shut


out of. The idea of leadership has become quite suspect. We live in a


completely different intellectual world from the one that Shakespeare,


or even someone like Gladstone inhabited. We live in an age of


universal literacy s mass education, and so on, where your opinion is as


good as the next man's, you won't be talked down to and led, that


kind of eno sir makes it hard for somebody to -- -- that kind of


ethos makes it hard for somebody to stand up and say I will lead and


guide you. The Shakespeare Way runs from Chipping Norton to Oxford,


David Cameron travelled in the opposite direction. But in common


with many frontline politicians, he likes to play down his prestigious


education, preferring to advertise his taste for a humble snack, which


was around in Shakespeare's time. In search of further clues about


Shakespeare and leadership, I have come to the historic city of Oxford,


to a hallowed spot, forever associated with the Bard. An


absolutely steeped place in his offerings, it is just above the


bookmakers. Believe it or not, this was once a


hotel room, and the swan of Avon himself once stayed here, scuffed


and partially hidden behind a sliding panel, these walls are


thought to be largely unchanged since his time. Shakespeare bedded


down here with the common man and woman. He understood their desires


couldn't always been indulged by a good leader.


Leadership is sometimes about uncompromising, and other times it


is about a dialogue. I'm very struck in the case of David Cameron,


that he has this extraordinary valuation of friendship, that he


will standby his friends, whatever happens. But an essential part of


leadership, has to be being a good butcher. Henry V is a good butcher.


If it comes to it, he chooses the right course for his country, even


if it that means betraying, destroying, his friends.


This is London. And so is this. the Second World War, another


leader, who understood the rallying power of Shakespeare's prose,


commissioned this famous version of Henry V, from Laurence Olivier.


Once more unto the breach. Prime Minister Churchill wanted to


inspire the troops serving on D-Day, the film was even dedicated to them.


Charge, cry God for Harry, England and St George.


Motivation when it works is like an adrenaline shot, it pumps people up,


so that at the end, when he says "cry God, for Harry, England and St


George". They are saying, let's go. Olivier's son, Richard, uses the


same ringing oratory to teach management skills to business


leaders. Many leaders, in our experience, on day 90 of the


campaign, given Henry's situation, do not say, "Once more unto the


breach", they come in with a detailed report of the performance


indicators of the first three months of the siege.


Human beings need purpose and leaders who tell a good story, hold


that for us. There does seem to be a contempt for leaders, can


Shakespeare help us out of it? biased, I think Shakespeare can


guide us through pretty much anything, if you find the right


play and look at it in the right way. There is that absolute sense,


in people, that we want better leaders. Unfortunately, I would


probably also say we tend to get the leadership we deserve. What are


we not doing, what are we not developing in our leaders, what


permission are we giving them to be greedy, or rapacious, who is


rewarding them? The good news for today's politicians is that they


rarely have to settle their differences as they did in


Shakespeare's plays, and the worst they have to fear is a clash of


personalities. Rile royal rile, as well as


starring in the smash hit, Jerusalem, has played more


Shakespearian characters than most of us have had hot dinners, he's


here with fellow actor, Tom Hiddleston, who has just finished


shooting a new production of Henry V, and Simon Schama, historian,


whose latest series, Shakespeare and Us, broadcasts next week. What


does Shakespeare teach us about leadership? They are all human


beings, and he so loves opposites, that even in a character like


Richard II I, he gives him a remarkable speech of conscience,


Macbeth has a large speech of conscience, Henry V is a very


responsible leader, but there are two plays before where he's most


irresponsible, doing the equivalent n my mind, of taking ecstacy, and


going out every nightclubing. He shows is humanity. I wonder if we


expect our leaders to be perfect in all fields. A leader in another


area, like Dogg ery, in Much Ado About Nothing, a village constable,


so was the plot, he finds, through ineptitude, the evil going on. Is


it right, I have been thinking, is it right to expect our leaders to


be very strong in every area. If Martin Luther King had been alive


now, under the scrutiny of the press now, and we learned about his


infidelties and misbehaviour, would he have ever got to the capital and


made the speech. Would we have been better off to have known everything


about him and rejected him. This question of the humanity, that the


person is not only the office but they are a human being, is


something, as Mark remarks, is something that has been, until very


recently, is something very hard for people to deal with? It was an


issue for the Elizabethan, because the Queen, Elizabeth I, very


unusually, in the Tilbury speech, for example, her entire authority


was predicated, not on her remoteness, but actually the


illusion, at least, that she was one of everybody else. So already


that dilemma of how do you actually be familiar, and yet Auguste, and


the two, those two -- aug ust, and those two role models, endlessly


grinding against each other, goes through Shakespeare all the time.


He lived in both world, he's an actor, he roughs it a bit where he


lives, but he also plays abefore the court. You have played the most


inspirational of the lot, Henry V? The thing is it dramatises the


tussle between the responsibility of public office, and the private,


almost torment, of personal accountability, are very aware. One


of my favourite lines from the play, is on the eve of ago again court,


Henry V, disguised under the cloak of one of his captains, gets into a


debate with a soldier with kingship and responsibility, and this


character Williams is casting various aspersions about, it will


be a black matter when all the arplgs and legs chopped off in


battle said they would died in such a place, it is a black matter for


the king who led them to it. Henry's response is every subject's


duty is the king's, but every subject's soul is his own.


How do you think, you have just played it now, for this BBC series.


Did you think about how the mood of the times made it a different sort


of person you were portraying, to, for example, Olivier there in 1944?


Yes, I did. I was in no way going to match or compete with Olivier's


portrayal, I think. I think because, and I have discussed this a lot, I


think in our society, we don't trust rhetoric in the same way. We


are all used to seeing. This is interesting, Dominic Sandbrook, in


the piece there, talking about society now, we are not willing to


indulge a belief in the magical properties of leaders, in the way


that perhaps some leaders Oregan rations were, or we think they


were? -- or generations were, or we think they were? The thing about


Henry V, that distinguishes him from contemporary leaders, that the


men and women in the highest positions of power, were also the


men and women physically leading their armies to battle. Henry V is


able to give the speech, and thump on the horse and ride into battle -


- jump on the horse and ride into battle himself. I live in America


all the time, and whether or not Obama's rhetoric, who is a master,


is an asset or liability, it was a grey asset in 2008, we don't know,


he has the ability to produce rhetorical rabbits from the hat.


Rhetoric does change power, Churchill's rhetoric changed what


the cabinet said it would do. It is in Shakespeare's own time, that


regular kids in village grammar schools were taught rhetoric, books,


The Garden of Eloquence. You could be a lower person from a lower


middle-class background, and suppose you could not get through


school unless you spoke. This is why my dad, when I was nine, forced


me to do a speech, standing on chair in my mother's lounge, as we


called it. I never did that, did you? No. That is why you are actors,


and I'm not. Do you think it is hard to be a leader, we live in a


very, very different time, where people are much more inclined to


make their own judgments about more or less everything, everything


become a more difficult people to lead? I always think, Jeremy, when


I was a young man I used to drive too fast sometimes, people would


tell me slow down, and I wouldn't. One day I was driving too fast in


Kent, and someone in the back, a young woman said, look, I had an


accident six months ago, would you please slow down, because it is


frightening me. And I slowed down. Because she spoke from experience.


And so many, like that wonderful quote, and that wonderful scene,


that these leaders were able to go amongst the people, and get


experience. Not like Diana and Fergie, going out to have a party,


but you think of the Duke in Measure For Measure, so many, Ross


land, and all these Princesses, are able to go into a situation in


disguise and find out about it truthfully, and they learn from


that. Or live wildly as Henry V do, part of his experiences mean that


now we couldn't elect him. understands who he is leading.


Because of the rough experiences he goes through. The fact is s I don't


want to harp on the Virgin Queen, why not, she's the only one who has


done it. She did go on progress, and she did this in great carriages,


trundling along, surrounded by courtiers, but she had the common


touch. When there was a little geezer in Warwick, at that progress,


who couldn't barely get the words out of greeting to the between. She


said come hiter, whatever his name was, she absolutely, whatever it


was about her, that has never happened since in that way. She was


taught by a tutor, who taught her rhetoric, it was a hard thing to


pull off. When I came into the profession, I had a real aversion


to actors who sang Shakespeare, I think it goes hand-in-hand with the


kind of rhetoric people do believe, in the case of someone like George


Bush, who can't even put a sentence together, the man can't be pulling


the wool over our ears, because he can hardly speak. That is a form of


reverse rhetoric, that convinced a lot of people that he was honest.


But eloquence, the meaning in the dictionary so to speak in way that


affects the mind and moves the emotion, with force, fluency and


appropriateness. "appropriateness" is the remarkable and hard thing


that it is hard for politicians, speakers, not just politicians, but


leaders of corporations, the manager in your shop to learn,


unless you learn it through experience. Do you, as people very


familiar with the text, when you hear politicians speaking, there


was a clip of Michael Portillo there, there were a couple of other


things. Do you detect the resonances of Shakespeare in the


way our political leaders behave? Richard rightly said there, that


often Henry V is quoted with a rather lazy reading of the play.


The play itself is an incredibly brutal, shocking, violent piece of


work. Examining the nature of warfare through the eyes of one man


as he experiences it. The Cripins Day speech on the morning of ago


again court comes out of despair, he's on the brink, he has nothing


left, the men are dying of starvation and dysentery, they are


going to lose. It is an amazing piece of pragmatic genius, turning


weaknesses into strength, we are out numbered, we happy few. And a


second stroke of begin yu, to say "He who is with me will be my


brother", the illusion you are democratically promoted by sharing


your wounds with the king, that is total, political genius. Do you


think the modern equivalent of that, is the demotic, that our


politicians effect now? Alas it is. It is partly because Shakespeare


had so many lives, he was a fantastic listener in the pub. It


wasn't like an Eatonian chomping on a pasty for the sake of effect.


Steadty of, we have one. I hold my hands up. He lived that Russian he


had a voice for the gutter in a way -- he lived that, he had a voice


for the gutter in a way, when deployed in the play it had


credibility. I was only making faces. Making faces for fun? I'm an


actor. I thought you wanted to speak. You wanted to say something.


Only that Shakespeare had enormous empathy, compassion and wisdom,


about not just the man of the gutter, but every man. That is why


he's so extraordinary, he's able to think and feel himself into the


hearts and minds of an entire people, so kings and queens are


represented, seemingly truthfully, as are men of the gutter, Falstaff,


and Mistress Quickly. On tomorrow's programme we will consider what


Charles Dickens has to tell us about modern day Britain with the


help of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. What


one of Shakespeare's least happy political role models, Macbeth,


calls vaulting ambition is a prerequisite of power. The last


time I asked Boris Johnson if he wanted David Cameron's old job, he


was all cripes andia radio, and he was warning off any moves towards


another runway. But the Government seems to be tiptoeing back to the


idea. He has been speaking to our political editor.


It is a building made to be seen from the sky. But this site, the


one from the air, is the one the current mayor believes too many


people see. London's airport set up is all wrong, Boris Johnson thinks,


too much traffic comes in over the city T he tells Newsnight he would


move things east. If you land at Heathrow, you have to come in,


because the wind is coming this way, you land like this. So you approach,


your approach over west London there are two great walls, and they


approach like that, and go in like that, there is an approach like


that. There is a north and south stack. The map in the basement of


City Hall proves rather useful. Where would a third runway go?


would go, basically through here. Instead he wants a new Heathrow,


double its size, in Kent. It is very nice that your idea is


completely off the map. There is no votes to lose. There are fewer


human beings. His idea, he believes, would see


fewer people move home. But it is expensive. Look, I'm open to all


solutions, I don't think you can avoid having, there has to be a


fight now, and they have got to grasp the nettle. If we had a bit


of get-up-and-go in this country we would be done in six years. That is


how long it took in Singapore and Hong Kong. You just need...Doesn't


The Prime Minister have get-up-and- go? Of course he does, of course he


does. The Government is consulting on new airport capacity in the


south-east, the problem for it, is it is ham strung by its own


pronouncements in this area. They have ruled out in the coalition


Government the expansion of a third runway at Heathrow. They have also


ruled out more runways at Stanstead and GATT which, they are left


looking at the -- Gatwick, they are left looking at a an idea that was


seen as fantastical, Boris Island. It needs a stop-gap solution,


looking at ideas once completely off the able. There is now a risk


that the Government will tip toe behind the back -- -- the electric


fence of the third runway. You can see ministers are testing the water,


to mix my metaphors. Water and electricity not good? When they get


to that electrified fence, they will have a most powerful shock. It


is not deliverable, now, or in the future, the third runway is, as


they say in Brussels, kadook, it is dead, over, move on. Is that your


message to George Osborne? It is. But the coalition Government rules


out another runway at Stanstead and Gatwick, you have ruled out a third


runway, what is the solution? Though you have excluded some


options there which I don't think are necessarily excluded. They are


excluded in the coalition agreement? There are other options


as well. Don't forget the -- forget the coalition has moved some way in


the last couple of years. They began with the policy of no more


runways anywhere ever in the south- east. That was not economically


sustainable. This place used to be covered with docks and cranes and


whatever, that all collapsed because capacity died. There was


not enough capacity for the docks to accommodate the new containers


that came. It all moved out to other ports, Felixstowe, Rotterdam,


that kind of thing, London lost out. OK, we get it t what's his plan?


London, the UK, would have a 24- hour hub airport. This is the key


point, that would allow us to communicate with the big growth


cities of the Far East, particularly, of Latin America.


What your idea is this huge expansion of capacity, more than


actually we need? I don't think. Familiar with these arguments?


understand that point, but there again, don't forget we're only now


upgrading the sewers that Basil Jet put in, he had the foresight to


make them twice as big as he thought was going to be necessary.


If you went up to the capacity that four runways would allow you, that


would take you over the carbon emissions line that you are so keen


to stay in? I'm not sure that is the case. I think you can have


another 80 million passenger movements, without getting over our


commitments under Kyoto. Grand plans may be, but they are not


speedy plans? In reality you are looking at something like ten to 15


years. That is with the planning laws as they stand, and the


Government being a bit lackadaisical? I think that is with


a certain amount of electroconvulsive shock therapy to


the whole system. Without shock therapy, what does he think the


Government will do? Let me explain what is happening, they are trying


to long-grass it. The strategy is this is too difficult, it is


difficult because they have to appease their environmentalists,


ideolgical wing, some in the Tory Party, some in the Liberal


Democrats, they want to keep every ball in the air until past 2015,


that is the strategy, as I understand it. That is my hunch,


OK? We find out whether the grass is long or short fairly soon. The


Government publishes its airport strategy in the summer.


That's it for now, I could tell you some more of what's in store


tomorrow, actually I couldn't, any way, it would spoil the surprise.


Here's what happened when the light projector artist of urban screen


were let loose on the Sydney Opera House. Good night.


# In the velvet darkness # Of the blackest night


# Burning bright # There's a guiding star


# No matter what or who # Who you are


# There's a light # Over at the breaking star


Good evening, the heat and humidity set off a few thunderstorms today,


they are easing away across East Anglia. Most into the morning will


be dry. More cloud across central eastern Scotland and the eastern


coast of England. Some bright and sunny spells, ease lated showers


burning through the day. Temperatures in the North West with


sunny spells, down the eastern coastal counties, a good deal


cooler, with the cloud coming and going all day. An isolated shower


with a rumble of thunder. Most staying dry, fairly bright with


sunshine, the vast majority of England and Wales. On the coast of


Devon and Cornwall, around good parts of Wales. A risk of some


misty sea fog, coming in on shore every now and then. Coming and


going throughout the afternoon. Northern Ireland, dry and bright,


Tony Blair goes to Leveson. The massacres in Syria. Heathrow and Boris. Tom Hiddleston, Simon Schama and Mark Rylance on Shakespeare. With Jeremy Paxman.

Download Subtitles