31/05/2012 Newsnight

Congratulations, just Ofcom to go. Hours before he was told he would

decide the fate of BSkyB, the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt,

congratulated James Murdoch, as the multibillion pound bid moved

towards apparent completion. Would you agree, Mr Hunt, that is

conveying a some what positive view on where the process had reached.

Yes. Serious questions about the actions of Jeremy Hunt and George

Osborne. After personal text messages were revealed at the

Leveson Inquiry. We will hear from the deputy leader of the Labour

Party, Harriet Harman, and the Home Office Minister, Nick Herbert.

Another day, another climb-down by George Osborne on the budget.

those waiting with baited breath, for that favourite media catch

phrase, the U-turn, I have only one thing to say, you turn if you want

to. You wait for one u-turn and then three come along at once.

Today the charity tax followed the pasty tax and the caravan tax into

the dustbin. We will ask the Newsnight panel why George Osborne

got it wrong, and how damaged Jeremy Hunt is after today's

Leveson. There are more fears about the eurozone and the polls have

closed in Ireland, as people give their verdict on the EU fiscal

treaty. We are live in Dublin. And James Bond, a British hero who

punches above his wait. Steve Smith investigates his eternal appeal.

What does 007 tell us about Britishness, apart from the sex and

violence? Writers Anthony Horowitz and

Bidisha are here to discuss whether Bond is a barometer of Britishness

or good or otherwise. Good evening, the good news for

Jeremy Hunt today is he can keep his job as Culture Secretary. David

Cameron will not order an investigation into whether he

breached the Ministerial Code. The bad news for Mr Hunt is that the

opposition still want his head on plate. They claim he may have

breached the code, misled parliament and acted as a lobbyist

for the BSkyB. An interesting piece of news management, as the hunt --

hunt hunt saga unfolded so did the budget. This time the Chancellor

has done a U-turn on the charitable donations. At times the Leveson

Inquiry has appeared to be an inquiry in Jeremy Hunt, we heard

about the lobbyist used to do the job, the ministerial adviser who

was deluged with messages, and the permanent secretary in charge of

the department. Today we got to hear from Jeremy Hunt himself. To

understand this story, we have to go back to mid-November of 2010. At

this stage News Corp's bid for BSkyB wasn't going brilliantly well.

For one thing, the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, deciding on

the bid for the Government, was refusing to have any sort of

contact whatsoever with News Corporation. In desperation, the

company turned to the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt. Who they

knew was not only better disposed towards them, he was also only too

happy to talk. Before today's appearance at the Leveson Inquiry,

we already knew that James Murdoch and the Culture Secretary were due

to meet in mid-November 2010. But Mr Hunt had to call off the meeting.

One of James Murdoch's staff told the media bus that Hunt had

received strong legal advice not to meet them, any meeting could

jeopardise the entire process. Instead James Murdoch and Jeremy

Hunt spoke on the phone. The conversation was relayed to the

Prime Minister in a memo of the 19th of November. In it Mr Hunt

wrote that James Murdoch was furious over Vince Cable's handling

of the bid, and warned, that if they blocked it, the bit, and media

sector would suffer for years. meeting is inappropriate, and as is

suggested, why is a telephone call appropriate? I didn't see the

telephone call as a replacement for the meeting. My interpretation of

the advice was that I should not involve myself in a quasi-judicial

process that is being run by another Secretary of State, and

that was the purpose of the meeting that was requested by News Corp,

that is why it wasn't appropriate. What was discussed on the phone, Mr

Hunt? I just heard Mr Murdoch out, and basically heard what he had to

say about what was on his mind at that time.

What you heard on the phone is exactly the same thing that you

would have heard had there been a face-to-face meeting s that right?

It depends. The most action-packed day in the history of the bid was

the 21st December 2010. At midday the European Commission gave the

bid the green light on competition grounds. That meant the only

barrier now was in Britain, being overseen by Vince Cable. At 12.46,

Jeremy Hunt texted James Murdoch, he was sorry to miss the call, and

was on his mobile then. They arranged to talk at 4.00pm. At

12.57 Jeremy Hunt texted James Murdoch, he said great, and

congrats on Brussels, just Ofcom to go. Would you agree, Mr Hunt, that

is conveying a some what positive view on where the process had

reached? Yes. What happened next, well, we can only describe as a bit

of a bombshell. At 2.30pm, still on the 21st of December, the BBC broke

the story that Vince Cable had been secretly recorded saying he had

declared war on Rupert Murdoch over the bid. At 3.56pm, News Corp put

out a statement saying this raised serious questions about fairness

and due process. At 4.00pm, Jeremy Hunt and James Murdoch had their

prearranged phone call, discussing Mr Cable's comments. At 4.08 Jeremy

Hunt texted the Chancellor, saying he was seriously worried that they

would screw this up. There was a similar text to Andy Coulson at

4.10pm, David Cameron's Director of Communications. At 4.58 Jeremy Hunt

received a sex from George Osborne saying he hoped he liked their

solution. That solution is that Vince Cable lost his responsibility

for the bid that pass today Jeremy Hunt himself. One question is why

was the Chancellor involved in kpwhuen Kateing this decision to --

communicating this decision to Mr Hunt. And why didn't the Culture

Secretary see it fit to inform the department about his rather chummy

text relationship with James Murdoch. To put it bluntly, Dr

Cable had lost the role through the appearance of bias in one direction.

And doesn't it emerge from a fair reading of this text that you

shouldn't have acquired the role for the equal and opposite reason?

No, because, as I understand it, the point about a qies say judicial

role, is not that -- quasi-judicial role is not that you acquire a

responsibility for a quasi-judicial decision with your brain wiped

clean. The point about that role is you set aside any views that you

have, and you decide objectively on the basis of, in this case, media

plurality. And not on the policy considerations that have been my

preoccupation to that point. Hunt was then taken through the

deluge of correspondence that his former special adviser, Adam Smith,

had with News Corporation. It was, Mr Hunt agreed, both inappropriate

in tone and quantity. But, he insisted, he hadn't known anything

about it. Almost as soon as Jeremy Hunt had

finished his evidence, Downing Street let it be known that the

Prime Minister thought that he had acted with complete propriety

throughout this process. And that he wouldn't now be triggering any

investigation as to whether his minister had broken the Ministerial

Code. As you can imagine, not everyone thinks that this should be

the last word on the matter. Tonight, Labour has called the

Prime Minister's decision to keep Mr Hunt in his place disgraceful.

Our political editor is here. What's the point of the Ministerial

Code? It is pretty pointless, this evening. This is something that

David Cameron beefed up within a day of entering office. He wanted

the perception of ministerial impriority to be as important as

any actual wrongdoing, and also entered into the Ministerial Code

that special advisers should also be taken responsibility for by the

minister. That hasn't happened today. It is pretty pointless. The

man in charge of overseeing it, Alex Alan, has said before he wants,

if he feels he is being sidelined, he wants that to be something he

would walk over. They are all questions outstanding. Having been

very critical in that way. Also Hunt's testimony today also

slightly puts the onus back on other people in Government. You

have now had George Osborne brought into the fray, in terms of somebody

who was, without hearing from the Chancellor, his side of the story,

he's texting the Culture Secretary to say he thinks he would like the

solution to the Vince Cable problem. Which suggests he knows the Culture

Secretary has a particular view about something. I think we have

had a couple of developments today. I think Hunt did OK in front of

Leveson, equally other people have been brought into the story. What

do you make of the interesting coincidence that the budget, yet

another rollback on the budget today, with the third of the U-

turns this week, and the biggest one? If there were this many u-

turns in the flotilla on Sunday, there would be chaos in the Jubilee.

There has been three. Backbenchers have been told, when you complain

about some of the measures in the budget, you should just be quiet,

the cost of them, they all add up, �40 million here, �50 million there,

we are going ahead with them. Now there is U-turns, many Tory MPs

feel agrieved they have been backing things, and in tight votes

in the Commons, now the Government has decided this recess to U-turn

on. It is actually within parliament quite serious stuff.

Lots of people on holiday, lots of people preparing for the Jubilee.

Lots of people getting the burgers on and not actually thinking about

politic. Lots of people in parliament are thinking, actually

this budget is falling apart. While the deputy leader of the

Labour Party, Harriet Harman, has been pursuing Mr Hunt for his

alleged wrong doings, she's in Westminster. The Home Office

Minister, Nick Herbert, is also with us. Harriet Harman, first of

all, what evidence is there, if any, that after Mr Hunt got the job of

deciding about the BSkyB job, that he did anything wrong whatsoever?

He misled the House of Commons. Because he said after he had

responsibility for the BSkyB bid, that he was going to act fairly,

impartially, transparently, and as proof of his good faith on, that he

would publish all the exchanges between his department, and News

Corp. And he didn't do that. There was not a single text, e-mail, or

record of a phone call between his special adviser in News Corp,

although he admitted that his special adviser was a conduit for

information. The Ministerial Code says this is a resignation offence,

that if you mislead the House of Commons, you have to resign. What

David Cameron has done tonight, is effectively tear up the Ministerial

Code. I think that this is a very concerning moment about standards

in ministerial office. He's saying he's broken the code, but he will

just sweep it under the carpet. That is only one of the ways he has

broken the code. There is others as well. But he did refer the bid to

Ofcom, and the OFT. He said he strictly followed due process, the

parliamentary secretary was happy with the way he handled things.

Where would you put your finger on something he absolutely did wrong

in the consideration of the bid? Firstly, he should have never take

on the decision, because he was clearly biased in favour of it.

David Cameron was in a position to know his bias in favour of it,

because he had received the memo from Jeremy Hunt. Tell me a single.

The permanent secretary didn't know that. They were doing it behind the

back of him. Tell me the name of a single senior minister of any party

who doesn't have some kind of bias about Rupert Murdoch, everybody has

opinions about Rupert Murdoch? Because of that perception of bias,

it is not just having no bias, but perception of bias. He should have

referred it to the Competition Commission, instead did he just

enough to keep hold of the decision himself, and do the discussions

about the undertakings in lieu. He should never have taken on the

decision. Cameron and Osborne should never have made that

political decision to refer to Jeremy Hunt, a quasi-judicial

responsibility. And they kept their, one further point, David Cameron

took legal advice about whether it was appropriate to give this

responsibility to Jeremy Hunt. But they kept their officials and their

lawyers in the dark, they never got to see that memo, which showed just

how biased Jeremy Hunt was. The whole thing is, they are just

trying to sweep it under the carpet and say it is fine, it is not, the

House of Commons should be very concerned about this. Should George

Osborne appear before Leveson now? It is a matter for Lord Justice

Leveson to decide who he calls. It is evidence that George Osborne was

not engaged as Chancellor on this, he was engaged as political

strategist for the Prime Minister. Now the Prime Minister said that he

was not involved, this was all quasi-judicial. But it was a highly

political decision to give the responsibility for taking this

issue of the bid forward, to Jeremy Hunt. You know, if this bid had

gone through, and the opponents had done a judicial review. The courts

would have, without hesitation, struck it down, as being absolutely

flawed as a process, top to bottom. Let me bring in Nick Herbert here.

You have torn up the Ministerial Code, you have Jeremy Hunt

scheduling a James Murdoch meeting, told by the lawyers that the

meeting on the 15th of November 2010 was inappropriate. His

decision is to phone up James Murdoch to discuss it. That is

surely wrong? Firstly, we had not torn up the Ministerial Code, the

Prime Minister is clear there is no breach of the Ministerial Code.

hasn't investigated or got Sir Alex Allen to look at it? The Prime

Minister is clear these matters should be looked at the Leveson

Inquiry, which they are at length. The permanent secretary said he was

happy about the way the Culture Secretary had been handling the bid.

You have nothing to fear from Sir Alex Allen, it is all fine? Nobody

is able to show today that Jeremy Hunt did anything but act with

impartiality and integrity, once he had the quasi-judicial decision-

making. Ever decision he took it was acting against the interests of

the Murdochs. It was not what they wanted, that is the point to be

focused on. He is told by the lawyers it is inappropriate to meet

James Murdoch, the day afterwards he phones James Murdoch, that is

appropriate is it? He didn't meet James Murdoch. He didn't see him,

but he phoned him. That is fine, is it? He took the advice and did not

meet James Murdoch. Take a step back and look at the decisions

which Jeremy Hunt took in referring to the independent Ofcom, and the

OFT for independent advice. It is perfectly appropriate to phone

somebody you have been told not to meet? Going back repeatedly for the

independent advice. Taking that advice. Making sure the

undertakings which News Corp were going to have to give were

strengthened. The Murdochs didn't like the undertakings and didn't

get their way. That was surely the point, not the point of your report

or summaries given. On the day what Jeremy Hunt was able to show is he

acted with complete impartiality and ining at thety. To take lessons

from Harriet Harman -- and integrity. To take lessons from

Harriet Harman about that, when the spin doctors were doing appalling

things, did they resign. At 12.57 on the 21st of November 2010, he

sent a text of congratulations and saying just Ofcom to go, then a

text to George Osborne saying he was worried they were going to

screw it up. The impression is Jeremy Hunt was acting as a

lobbyist for the Murdochs? These were all things that happened

before Jeremy Hunt was given the responsibility for being in charge

of the bid. That was approved by the cabinet secretary, which knew

of the memo sent to the Prime Minister from Jeremy Hunt. Since

then nobody has been able to show that Jeremy Hunt acted with

anything other than complete impartiality. Except he didn't have

the same contact with the opponents, did he have the same contact?

Jeremy Hunt, as Culture Secretary, would have had contact with all

sorts of media owner, editors, pro- priorities. I'm sure the director-

general of the BBC is someone he was in contact with. Nobody was in

doubt that Jeremy Hunt had a view about the Murdochs, and the bid.

That wasn't the point. Once he was given responsibility, he acted in a

completely impartial manner. What today has showed, is that was the

case. His permanent secretary said that he had left himself a

vanishingly small amount of room to exercise any kind of political

discretion in this, because of the independent advice he had taken,

and in any case he didn't think the Culture Secretary wanted today do

that. George Osborne, a some what busy man, who could have been

attending to the economy, takes time out to say he hopes he liked

the solution, why is that? George Osborne is one of the most serious

figures in Government, this is a serious matter. That is not the

point. The point is Jeremy Hunt behaved completely properly in

exercising the judgments that he did, referring everything to these

independent bodies, and actually the Murdochs were increasingly

unhappy about it, saying what he was doing is tantermount to

wrecking the bid. They didn't get their way on this, and were never

going to get their way. You have shot your fox here, Mr Hunt will

stay, there is no breach of the Ministerial Code, and no reference

about it either? After he took responsibility for the bid, which

we think he should never have done. After he took responsibility, his

special adviser had constant contact with News Corporation. The

Ministerial Code says you have to take responsibility for your

special adviser. He didn't take responsibility, he just sacked him.

That is a breach of the Ministerial Code, to not take responsibility

for your special adviser. He stood in front of Leveson today and said

he had no idea that his special adviser was doing all these things

wrong. That is a breach, straight forward of the Ministerial Code.

straight forward breach of the Ministerial Code, if it looks bad

it is bad? They were clear there was no breach of the Ministerial

Code, did Gordon Brown take the same view about the behaviour of a

political adviser who acted appallingly under his regime, no he

didn't. It is a bogus point by the Labour Party, who have been unable

to land any blow today. They threw a lot of mud, prejudgeed Jeremy

Hunt's evidence, they called for him to go before he had the

opportunity to set out the case in the inquiry, and they haven't made

any of the mud stick today. Shortly before they prepared their

Jubilee festive bunting or whatever it is, we have assembled the

Newsnight political panel. Danny Finkelstein, Sally Morgan, and

Miranda Green. Do you think the Ministerial Code is shot? I don't

think they have tried to use it this time. I think it is clear, the

Ministerial Code has been broken. For two reasons, amongst others,

firstly, it talks about perception, whatever you say today about

specific details, there is an overall perception that they were

constantly in touch with News International. Secondly, the issue

about the special adviser. My understanding of the Ministerial

Code is that it is pretty crystal clear you take responsibility for

your special adviser. I feel very sorry for Adam Smith Smith, I don't

know him, he seems like a decent guy who worked closely with Jeremy

Hunt for six years. I find it pretty inreceivable that he would

do things -- inconceivable that he would go off on his own when they

have worked together for so long. The point earlier, is if Sir Alex

Allen felt like that, it was a hypothetical question, and if he

felt there was a reference he would quit? It doesn't seem a very robust

process, there is something very peculiar about the Prime Minister

sitting there. The whole political world has been glued to the

coverage, presumably in Number Ten they are watching closely, and then

at the end of it saying they are free of it and off the hook. Its

not a clean process from that point of view. There was a definite

feeling that Jeremy Hunt looked very shaky, in the morning, by the

lunchtime he had recovered, and by the afternoon the Tory Party were

celebrating, he's way scot free. He's not away scot free, because he

has been politically damaged seriously. He's not the next leader

of the Conservative Party. media would enjoy another inquiry

into itself and the Ministerial Code. They are really enjoying it.

For the public it is like an inquiry into the carpet industry,

with all the journalists being carpet manufacturers, we are

riveted by this. You are seriously telling us you don't think the

Leveson Inquiry is any more serious than an inquiry into the carpet

industry. Journalists -- Journalists think it is very

important because we work there. Milly Dowler's parents probably

think it is important? The inquiry into the practices of the med was

very important. I work for -- media was very important. I work for a

newspaper owned by news interle that, and can see close up the

devastating consequences for people. On all the newspaper that was very

important. This part of the inquiry, I have to saying, has gone on and

on, and an inquiry into smaller and smaller details, and the public has

lost a lot of interest in this element. Why is George Osborne the

go-to guy for Jeremy Hunt about this, he immediately texted George

Osborne? Everyone knows that George Osborne is very involved in the

political decisions of the Government. He a good friend of

James Murdoch? He has been a friend of James Murdoch, I don't know if

that is relevant. He was involved when Vince Cable was forced to

resign, because of his inappropriate comments on the bid.

The Government had a big crisis, the solution was to give Jeremy

Hunt that part of the job. That was obviously George Osborne knowing

about that, and texted on it. I think an awful lot is being hyped

on to a very small thing. Incidently, the Government has a

lot of big problems, of which Leveson n my view, is overrated by

the media as one of them. I think that is both right and wrong. There

are bigger problems, but the constant drip, drip, drip from

Leveson is extremely damaging. I think it does matter profoundly,

what we are talking about here is integrity. That is very important

in politics at the moment. You were writing this week, Danny, about the

complete loss of faith in the whole of politics, by the mass of the

population. This is part of it, surely. If we get this impression

that everyone in the political world, and the media and lobbying

world, we are all exiting each other and it is all terribly ipbtd

mit, it is all terribly -- intimate, it is a party that the public is

excluded from. That is a damaging truth. That is exactly where I am.

I personally find it really bizarre to think of cabinet ministers

spending their time texting, it is a really weird to go about

Government. Was it like that in your day, were you sitting on

sofas? We were, but people knew what the meetings are about. There

is a serious point here, is a lot of communication within Government

is happening without anybody, no civil servants knowing. No records

being taken, and nobody knowing what is going on. At the same time,

we have a Government where, frankly, I mean I couldn't define for you

what the Government is about at the moment. One of the reasons this is

so big is because actually, apart from austerity, nobody knows what

the Government is there for. you surprised by the role of the

Chancellor, or think he's a very important person? What is the role

of the Chancellor. You have a text, I'm genuinely interested, you have

a text of three words. Maybe it was four. What is the role of the

Chancellor. Come on, the role of the clal, it is obvious, he --

Chancellor, it's obvious, he's the key political strategist, they were

more concerned about the handling of this more than anything else.

The cabinet minister had resigned, naturally speaking the Prime

Minister's closest political ally. He had resigned? Of course you are

right. Cable had to have that responsibility removed, quite right,

the Prime Minister's closest political ally was texting the

Culture Secretary, who will be involved. Saying you like the

solution? What's wrong with that? There is absolutely nothing wrong

with that? What is wrong with that, I don't understand. I'm asking you,

there's absolutely nothing? Then I can't give an answer, I don't

understand what you are talking about. We're on the same page.

think he needs to go back and do the running of the economy. That is

a serious problem, when we're seeing U-turn after U stuorn and

general chaos, that George Osborne -- U-turn and general chaos, that

George Osborne is spending more time on tactical day-to-day

decisions rather than running Government. It was a major issue in

the Government, clearly the Prime Minister will consult major

political allies. Although, incidently, of course the economy

is the critical issue and very serious mistakes have been made

about the budget, ages later. I don't think a one-sentence text was

really responsible. It is the manner in which everyone is

conducting themselves. I think there was a very strong contrast

between today and yesterday. Watching Jeremy Hunt and watching

Vince Cable giving evidence. Vince Cable showed there is a different

way to run your office, and run your operation, and absolutely,

Cable came across a cropper as the Telegraph exposed his private views

about the Murdoch empire. And he was rightly, removed from it, as he

said. But, in a sense there is a grown-up way of doing it, he made

sure the whole office respected the rules which clearly Jeremy Hunt did

not do. We will have to leave it there.

The people of Ireland in a referendum a few years ago very

famously torpedoed one European deal, and the referendum was run

again in order to get a different answer. Today Irish people have

again been voting for a euro referendum, in crushing austerity.

It is a treaty that sets the rules and the polls have just closed.

Have you any sense to which way the votes will go? I have been speaking

to senior politicians on the yes and no side. They both think the

turnout will be quite low, possibly sub-50%. Which means more than half

of the Irish populus decided they wouldn't vote. It is a question of

whether the low turnout would be good for the no vote, or for the

yes vote, because that is the status quo. One thing for certain

is the Sinn Fein party, relatively small in the Irish parliament, may

have marshalled the working-class vote to come in behind the no side,

while the yes side has the majority of the political parties, including

the Government and some of the opposition parties. They would be

expected bring in the yes side. They have been talking about a vote

for question could mean that Ireland could get access of the

bail out funds of the ESM, the bail out package in Europe. It is a

fatalistic option of voting yes you will get the status quo, and a

second bail out if needed. On the big picture, all eyes are not just

on Ireland, but Spain. A lot of money has been leaving the country?

66 billion euro, that is the sum the bank of Spain said left deposit

accounts in March. One suspects that number will rise substantially

throughout April and May. Given the fact that the euro crisis has

hardly abated since March, it took a dip in March. There is talk of a

lot of money leaving Greek and Spanish bank accounts. There is a

story eminating, and doing the rounds, it is only a rumour, that

the Greek Government might put a cap on sums any more than 50,000

euros to be withdrawn or transferred. I haven't been able to

confirm that, that would be a capital control, that would be very

much towards the road of a Grexit. On the eve of the Queen's Diamond

Jubilee, we have been reflected all this week on Britain through the

writings of three British authors, tonight Ian Fleming's James Bond,

created in the tough austerity years of the 1950s, still very

popular, 60 years later. What does the enduring Bond myth tell us

about ourselves and post-war Britain.

The name is Bond. James Bond. name is bond. James Bond. My name

is bond, James Bond. He's lean, he's mean, he's due a

telegram from the Queen. Well, nearly.

Not Daniel Craig himself, you understand, who remains as light

and sprightly as ever. On location in Istanbul for the forth coming

James Bond movie. No, I'm talking about dear old 007, he made his boy

in print back in 1953, the year of the Queen's coronation.

This year is the 50th anniversary of the first Bond film, Dr No.

Whatever the fortunes of dear old Blighty, of the Foreign Office, and

our true spies, at least there is one Brit who always keeps his end

up, 007. The great James Bond franchise is a kind of parallel

diplomatic service. Bringing James, or his doppelgangers, to places

like Istanbul, recording his exploits, and then relaying them to

millions of fans around the world. In fact, in his own gruff, brutal,

can-do way, the James Bond of the movies and of the books, represents

a kind of soft power. Wielding the soft power behind the scenes on the

Bond set, is a producer who has overseen a dozen of the films now,

going right back to Ki-Moon in 1979. Who -- Moonraker in 1979. Who could

be more British than James Bond, is that still a flavour of the movies,

or has it become so international that some of that is lost, do you

think? The fact that he is British is an important part of the

character, and an important part of the attraction, from around the

world. He's a different kind of hero, a different class of hero

than you normally get. Michael G Wilson has also given

himself Hitchcock-style cameos in many of the films. See how often

you can spot him in these clips. Some people might say James Bond is

a bit an ark nisic now, do you get that at all, that the idea of a

British man going out and saving the world, or putting wrongs right

is a bit outdated? Whenever the United States seems to get involved

in something, the British are right there to support them. And we have,

informally, spoken to various people who are part of the British

SAS, and SBS, and they are still very active in the world doing

things that James Bond kind of things in the world. It isn't as

far fetched as you might think. We don't do historical things, we

do films that are in the present time. So, yes, Bond changes,

culture changes, as time goes on. Country, England, gun? Shot. Agent?

Provokeure. I think the James Bond narrative, first in books and now

in fifpls, have functioned as a -- films, have functioned as a

barometer of Britain's changing place in the world. In the 1950s,

when Fleming was writing the book, it was soon after the world war,

Britain could still see itself as a great power and as a nation with

great leadership. Increasingly they have adopted a more critical aspect

towards. That we will have a character who makes a comment to

the effect of being a minor power, a nation in decline, what are you

doing here. Hong Kong is our turf now Bond. Don't worry, I'm not here

to take it back. But we Brits remain extraordinarily fond of Bond.

His publishers, Vintage, reissuing Ian Fleming's original novels, say

more than two thirds of us has seen a Bond film. Their focus groups

said that Bond was an old fast,ed British hero, ingrained in British

culture. That old spy, what is his secret?

In search of answers, I'm attending a covert rendezvous in St James

London. This is where Fleming himself is said to have overseen

the mixing of the original, shaken not stirred, Vodka Martiney, which

blame Bond's significant -- Manchester United teen knee, which

became Bond's signature tiple. When the books first came out, what

do you think about them that so appealed to people, that caught the

imagination? You have to remember the first book appeared in 1953,

rationing was still going on then. London was a city of bomb sites, we

had won the war, but it probably didn't look like that. It was

Fleming's fulfilment, but it became the readers of Bond, a collective

wish fulfilment. He was cool, capable, and something of a dandy.

He chose his clothes well. How do we think of him now, is it a

nostalgic exercise? The period aspect of bond, in a way, is a

strength, it seems to me. It is far more educative in a funny sort of

way, or interesting, to imagine this man, on a mission, in the

field. As, I assume it sort of happens nowadays. It does seem like

a bygone age. He would probably be working in a call centre,

monitoring all the phone calls? GCHQ, not so exciting. And Bond's

successors have had the humiliating experience of making the evening

news around the world with their flop. Such as this abortive

incursion by British Special Forces into Libya, before the fall of

Gadaffi. Can it be true, that the salville row Secret Service of --

Saville Row Secret Service of James Bond is now a bit, well, pants.

strongest thing we had in Britain around the world, is we were not

America. If you look at the handling of the mandate, you had

this sense that Britain did get out but tried to be fair with both

sides. Since 9/11, the image of the British, because we have been

working on the battlefield together, is that there is not a playing card

worth of difference between the British secret agents and the

American secret agents. At least we Brits can make-believe we are the

top dogs in the Bond movies, says the rock star who wrote a song for

one of them. What is brilliant about the movies, is he had feel

lix, the American CIA counterpart, a -- Felix, the American CID

counterpart that was second to him. It was amazing that sold to

American audiences. Strangely, it seems as though Bond's world, and

the one the rest of us live in, are converging. I think the more recent

films, particularly the Daniel Craig films, reflect a sense of

uncertainty, both about Britain's place in the world, but about who

the enemy really is. We are no longer dealing with the ideolgical

servant in the cold wa, we have the shadowy cartels, significantly in

Casino Royal, and Quantum of Solace, we have had internal treachery

within the Secret Service. That is not something we have addressed

before in the Bond films. In the Cold War we were hoping never to

come to blows. It was about recruiting long-term agents and

gradually learning what the Russians were planning. Now we live

in a world where a drone can deliver a missile, and wipe out our

enemies, without any judicial process. A terrorist is identified,

he becomes a legitimate target. We are approaching the Bond world,

where the enemies are the black hats, and it is legitimate we can

kill them. Some men are going to kill us, they are going to kill

them first. Bond is oddly relevant, even after all these years. That is

good news for those of us who have ever fancied stepping into his hand

made brogues. Whether I would like to be James Bond is a waste of time

imagining. We call would a bit? we are honest we are far too

cowardly and risk adverse, to be James Bond. But later, at the BBC

Gun Club...How was that, I have to get the suit back to Radio 3, can

we knock...yeah, thanks. The novelist and screenwriter,

Anthony Horowitz's own hero, Alex Ryder, as a young Bond, and Bidisha,

a writer and broadcaster, and not so enthusiastic. You hate Bond?

hate vintage bond, I like the Daniel Craig remake. But the Bond

myth created in the immediate post- war period, it reeks of rancid,

vintage, gentleman's Cologne, and I keep imagining the old Bonds, one

can never quite remember, dressed in a polyessther tuxedo, with a

full 70s chest wig underneath. The smug -- -- the smugness, he said

the right thing at the right time. It was delivered with a smirk,

knowing he would some how kill you, beat you or some how win. Even if

you were a lesbian you would fall for him eventually. If you didn't

fancy him you were mentally unstable. Is this a bit of

Britishness at the time as well? definitely think there was a sense

of imperial confidence there. That the smooth Brit has come in, he

will make it all OK, because he knows it all. And what you see now

is that it is much more equivocal, but that sense of arrogance sticks

in the throat. What a strong reaction to such a great hero. You

have to go back in time, it wasn't arrogance. In 1953, two years

before I was born, I remember later in the 60s, that Britain was an

austere place. Foreign travel was rarified, sex, as you know, sexual

intercourse wasn't invented until 1963, out of this comes a hero that

provides us with a bit of hope. Somebody who can hark back to the

great years in the war. Special operations executive, naval

intelligence, where Fleming had his training. In 1962, in the Olympics,

we won one medal, we were loser, we needed someone to pin our hopes to.

A mythical figure, to be larger than the world he found himself.

Outside the snobbery and the spies, he is the bionic her ro. You don't

last 50 years and sell -- hero. You don't last 50 years and sell 100

million copies of books, must be doing something right. He must be?

He is doing something very clever, which saeing our fantasies and

desires, I -- which is answering our fantasies and desire. In an age

of austerity I understand that. What is Bond providing? This is

vintage Bond, it is a world where the guy has the perfect suit, the

glamorous job, the perfect women, he's on the inside. He has all the

gadgets, he's going from plane to train to automobile. There are no

gadgets in the books. What you are doing here is confusing some of the

wins-making films based on the book -- wince-making films based on the

book, including the Roger Moore ones. We are talking here about a

literary undertaking, and the books with their wonderful scriptive

passage, the huge set pieces, are unforgettable. Is it good for

Britain's image abroad, something to be proud of. First of all it

sells 100 million copies, but should we be proud of it, does

something touch on us? The films are American, not British. I'm

delighted by their success. We can be proud of Bond in reflecting

aspects of our character, in days torting mirror, positive aspects.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service, in the Jubilee year,'s a monarchist,

and patriot. Also the sense of the Americans, feel lix Lighter, on the

same side, but in the shadow of Bond, since 1945, that is a

surprise? You can definitely do a racial or nationalistic critque. I

have a problem with the novels. I accept you have probably read them

all and I haven't, you are an expert on this. What Vintage Bond

was famous for was the attitude to other countries, the zenophobia,

the orientalism. Who is the bad guy? That is the angry foreigner.

He must be quelled, because se volatile and disruptive. You have a

point, often it is the unpleasant Jew, there is a lot of hantity

semitism in the books, the famous thing about with violence. This is

not why we admire the books. have they endured? Very few

characters have managed the cross generational success. Sherlock

homes is the other one. Why? Because he's more, he's such a

clever construct, the byronic hero. He is a construct, but they work

because they keep on reinventing them. The Bond now is much more

equivocal, self-doubting, rough and ready, and politically displaced T

has lost some of the arrogance, the sexism and the racism that I hated.

That is all from Newsnight, back with more good cheer tomorrow. Good

It will be a warm night tonight in the south. But unusually cold

across the north of Scotland. That is where we have the best of the

early sunshine, many places will brighten up tomorrow. With a little

bit of sunshine. On the whole there will be a lot of cloud around. Very

few places will see any rain. For northern England it looks dry for

the most parts. The best of the sunshine may be around coastal area.

Any early rain around the Wash will fade away. Brighter bries in East

Anglia. The warm weather South Wales. It will feel humid here,

especially when the sunshine comes out. One or two showers in the

afternoon. Through the north and the Midlands, it will feel cooler

and fresher, fine and dry. A lot of dry weather to come across Northern

Ireland, it may start off a bit grey, sunshine breaking through. He

specially in Antrim and Down, and sunny spells across Scotland. A

chilly feel, I suspect. A bit of a breeze in northern Scotland, taking

the edge off the temperatures. We are struggling into Saturday as

well. Sunshine in Belfast, a cooler day, Friday and Saturday than today.

Temperatures in the south not changing a great deal. The warmest

across southern parts of England and Wales, turning a bit cooler,