28/08/2012 Newsnight


28/08/2012

What does the battle between Apple and Samsung portend for the touchscreen? The inventor of the mobile phone talks about the long-term implications of Apple's recent court victory.


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/08/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Beset on all sides by advice, which way is the Prime Minister going to

:00:12.:00:16.

turn on the economy? Tonight, the Deputy Prime Minister,

:00:16.:00:19.

Nick Clegg, calls for an emergency tax on the rich.

:00:19.:00:22.

While this morning, David Cameron was asked by a senior Tory to

:00:22.:00:26.

prove's a man not a mouse over a third runway at Heathrow.

:00:26.:00:30.

Still in a double-dip recession, we will ask whether all this shows the

:00:30.:00:34.

coalition is increasingly desperate to turn the economy, and its own

:00:34.:00:37.

fortunes around. If you knew for certain your child

:00:37.:00:42.

was to be born with a disability, would you, should you, still have a

:00:42.:00:47.

baby? It is sometimes said that because the Nancys embraced

:00:47.:00:52.

eugenics, that it must be wrong for us, at least to take the idea of

:00:52.:00:58.

improving human beings seriously. Now, it seems to me just rather

:00:58.:01:02.

silly to think that things are wrong because bad people do them.

:01:02.:01:07.

We will debate whether eugenics is making a covert come back. The

:01:07.:01:10.

patent wars of the high-tech giants, is there anything in it for the

:01:10.:01:16.

customer, or does it stifle the creativity it seeks to protect. The

:01:16.:01:24.

end of publishing, the Booker Prize-winning novelist, Howard

:01:24.:01:33.

Jacobson and his new novel Zoo Time, and is the reader disappearing.

:01:33.:01:36.

Good evening, the nation's politicians have returning from

:01:36.:01:39.

their summer holidays, mainly with one thought on their minds, what

:01:39.:01:43.

can be done to turn the economy around. The Deputy Prime Minister,

:01:43.:01:47.

Nick Clegg, has joined that debate tonight, in an interview with the

:01:47.:01:50.

Guardian, calling for an emergency wealth tax. And warning that

:01:50.:01:54.

prosperity and social cohesion are at risk, unless the richest make a

:01:54.:01:57.

bigger contribution, to what he calls a long economic war. It was

:01:57.:02:00.

the second bit of uncomfortable advice for the Prime Minister,

:02:00.:02:06.

after one Tory MP called for him to prove his political manhood, rather

:02:06.:02:11.

than mousehood, over the third runway at Heathrow Airport. What do

:02:11.:02:14.

we think Nick Clegg had in mind? Speaking to people tonight who know

:02:14.:02:17.

Nick Clegg's mind, they make it clear we will not get any more

:02:17.:02:21.

detail on what form this tax might be in the very near future. But,

:02:21.:02:26.

they are very clear, if the recent bad economic news means that those

:02:26.:02:30.

further down the economic pecking order are asked to make more of a

:02:30.:02:33.

sacrifice, for example, there are more cuts to come, then those at

:02:33.:02:37.

the very top should be asked to increase the burden on themselves.

:02:37.:02:41.

What form that takes, they are not clear yet on the exact detail. But

:02:41.:02:45.

it would be something like the mansion tax that was in their last

:02:45.:02:49.

manifest at the moment the mansion tax you can't shift your house in

:02:49.:02:53.

west London worth �2 million offshore, you can't pretend it

:02:53.:02:56.

doesn't exist or it is not there or it is a shed. Something like a

:02:56.:02:59.

mansion tax that is on wealth and not income. Now, speaking to

:02:59.:03:02.

Downing Street tonight, they make it very clear, this is not

:03:02.:03:06.

coalition policy S several times during a conversation it was

:03:07.:03:11.

pointed pointed out to me, that this is the head of the Liberal

:03:11.:03:13.

Democrats speaking ahead of the party conference. It won't be

:03:13.:03:16.

necessarily welcomed on Downing Street, coming on day when Mr

:03:16.:03:23.

Cameron was receiving advice on the expansion of Heathrow as well.

:03:23.:03:30.

It is an obvious metaphor, soaring planes leading to, it is argued,

:03:30.:03:33.

soaring growth, or some growth would be nice. Why Heathrow?

:03:33.:03:38.

Because supporters say it would be the quickest and cheapest way of

:03:38.:03:41.

expanding airport xasty. The reason airport capacity is important to

:03:41.:03:46.

all of us, is we are in a recession f we want to build our way out of

:03:46.:03:48.

economic problems wrecks need better links with economies around

:03:48.:03:53.

the world that are growing, Brazil, India, China and others. We can't

:03:53.:03:57.

do that sitting here. We need to fly out as business people making

:03:57.:04:02.

deals, and people flying in to make deals, and be more connected to

:04:02.:04:06.

those parts of the world. But, this is all bound up in politics, down

:04:06.:04:11.

there in west London, or what would be west London f this fpsn't a

:04:11.:04:15.

simulator, are millions of people whose lives are blighted from the

:04:15.:04:19.

noise from Heathrow. Many of the seats down there are marginal. Even

:04:19.:04:24.

the safe ones would probably turn marginal if the incumbent came out

:04:24.:04:28.

in favour of a third runway at Heathrow.

:04:28.:04:34.

Take one MP, for example, Justine Greening, the MP for Putney pro-

:04:34.:04:39.

claimed her opposition 0 to a third runway, from her election leaf --

:04:39.:04:44.

opposition to a third runway from her election leaflet, she even

:04:44.:04:50.

quotes David Cameron saying "no ifs no buts no third runway", as well

:04:50.:04:54.

as an MP, Justine Greening is the Transport Secretary, and not in any

:04:54.:04:59.

mood, clearly, to change her mind. Thepm has been clear cut that we

:04:59.:05:02.

have a coalition agreement not to have a third runway that we are

:05:02.:05:05.

planning to stick to. There is cross-party consensus, even the

:05:05.:05:08.

Labour Party have now accepted their push for a third runway was

:05:08.:05:13.

wrong, and they have dropped that. There will always be people who

:05:13.:05:17.

hold different views in any mind of political debate. There is a broad

:05:17.:05:20.

consensus now. Many think that promise is now out of date. Writing

:05:20.:05:25.

in the Telegraph, the chair of the Energy and Climate Change Select

:05:25.:05:29.

Committee, Tim Yeo, says that he's changed his mind on the issue, and

:05:29.:05:35.

thepm should too. He writes -- PM should too. He writes that the

:05:35.:05:39.

Prime Minister should ask himself if he's a man or a mouse.

:05:39.:05:42.

January this year, greenhouse gas emissions from flying were brought

:05:42.:05:46.

within the EU cap for the first time. Never happened before. And

:05:46.:05:52.

the effect of that is that, however many runways we build, the total

:05:52.:05:55.

greenhouse gas emissions, across the whole of Europe, will not

:05:55.:05:59.

increase by a single kilogram. That very important environmental reason

:05:59.:06:03.

for opposing the third runway, has now been removed. Given that is the

:06:03.:06:07.

situation, we should respond to the business imperative, from the

:06:07.:06:11.

business imperative that clearly is we need more runway capacity at

:06:11.:06:15.

Heathrow. One of David Cameron's problems is he has already made

:06:15.:06:18.

some pretty startling changes of political direction already during

:06:18.:06:24.

his term as PM. Think of the pasty tax, charity tax, and fuel duty. So

:06:24.:06:29.

his MPs know, well, he's open to persuasion. And what's one more U-

:06:29.:06:33.

turn, they argue. As well as upsetting many of his MPs who have

:06:33.:06:37.

seats down there, he would also upset one of the huge political

:06:37.:06:41.

figures of our time, who has grown even bigger in recent months. So

:06:41.:06:46.

big, in fact, you could almost see them from up here. What you can't

:06:46.:06:54.

do is endlessly cram a court into a pintpot at Heathrow, put hundreds

:06:54.:06:57.

of thousands of more flights into London's western suburbs, making

:06:58.:07:02.

sure people in the city have much worse noise and traffic pollution

:07:02.:07:06.

in west London, when that solution, a third runway, won't even deliver

:07:06.:07:10.

what you want in the long-term. And that's why I hope they go for a

:07:10.:07:14.

bigger, bolder, better option. there are those Conservatives who

:07:14.:07:18.

think that, although it would be wrong to go for a third runway now,

:07:18.:07:24.

it shouldn't be ruled out forever. We have to respect the fact that we

:07:24.:07:28.

were elected with a mandate not to put a third runway in. And I would

:07:28.:07:33.

be disappointed to see us go back on that, even though I regard it as

:07:33.:07:37.

absolutely vital we still get the process under way to determine what

:07:37.:07:42.

we want. I think the two can sitcom for theably together. And let it be

:07:42.:07:47.

at the next general election that this issue, hopefully, will form

:07:47.:07:54.

part -- two can sit comfortably together, and let's hope at the

:07:54.:07:59.

next general election it will form part of the mandate. This could all

:07:59.:08:06.

get lift off tomorrow, in the Guardian, there is the Deputy Prime

:08:06.:08:14.

Minister giving his idea of a tax on wealth, might be as nice as

:08:14.:08:19.

sound as a low-flying jumbo. My guests are with me now. Emma

:08:19.:08:24.

Duncan is deputy editor of the economy economy, and joining the

:08:24.:08:27.

anti-Heathrow expansion campaign, but changed her mind, and Ann

:08:27.:08:32.

Pettifor is a fellow of the left- leaning economics foundation. We

:08:32.:08:36.

are joined by Lord Oakeshott, whoa might be able to tell us what Nick

:08:36.:08:40.

Clegg is up to. Is this a bit of cheering up the troops before the

:08:40.:08:43.

party conference, or is this serious business of squeezing the

:08:43.:08:48.

rich until the pips squeak? This is seriously pushing Lib Dem policy.

:08:48.:08:53.

It is well established, it is very popular. The mansion tax is the key.

:08:53.:08:58.

Because, as your int tro said, the key way you make sure the wealthy

:08:58.:09:02.

pay their fair share of tax is by taxing their houses, that is the

:09:02.:09:07.

one thing they can't move to mount Monoco. It is more than that. It is

:09:07.:09:13.

the emergency stealth tax? Nick is saying we will be pushing for the

:09:13.:09:18.

mansion tax, you can do that quickly. Let me just say, I'm

:09:18.:09:21.

delighted Nick has come back radicalised and refreshed from his

:09:21.:09:24.

holiday. There was a serious push inside Government, and outside, to

:09:24.:09:28.

get the mansion tax through in the budget. It made very good progress.

:09:28.:09:32.

So, indeed, some of the things that were done could help lead the way

:09:32.:09:38.

in, there was actually a tax of 15% in, there was actually a tax of 15%

:09:38.:09:41.

on people who keep their houses in companies. This is now the time, as

:09:41.:09:44.

the economy pain has to be shared more, through having a real push

:09:44.:09:50.

next year to get the mansion tax. If he wanted to do that he wouldn't

:09:50.:09:55.

have vote today reduce the top rate of tax to 45%, you are all over tax

:09:55.:10:00.

on the rich? We are not. It is very clear democrat policy, we were

:10:00.:10:04.

pushing very hard inside. Let me say. But not on income tax, that is

:10:04.:10:09.

something collected from the rich. Let me explain it, I'm not the

:10:09.:10:13.

greatest admirer of George Osborne, but he was open minded in the

:10:13.:10:16.

budget. But the problem was David Cameron. We will have a serious

:10:16.:10:21.

push and try to get that. In addition, obviously there are other

:10:21.:10:27.

things you can do to take longer, but we are delighted to hear Nick

:10:27.:10:33.

Clegg coming out strong on tax for Liberal Democrats. It is a bit of

:10:33.:10:36.

cheering? Nick has had a pretty hard year, we are happy to see him

:10:36.:10:41.

coming back and fighting for Lib Dem policies. I don't suppose you

:10:41.:10:45.

are quite as cheered up with the mansion tax return prospect?

:10:45.:10:51.

think this is pre-conference gestureing, in a way. This is not

:10:52.:10:54.

about something that is Government policy. This is Nick Clegg saying

:10:54.:11:04.
:11:04.:11:05.

let's try out a few ideas before party conference. It is not

:11:05.:11:09.

Government policy. It is Lib Dem policy. We are working in a

:11:09.:11:12.

coalition. There was a serious push for it last year, and a bigger push

:11:12.:11:16.

this year, this is not a vague idea, this is in our policy, central, it

:11:16.:11:21.

is a very popular policy as well. What Conservatives need to learn is

:11:21.:11:27.

they should push popular policies like the mansion tax and the banks.

:11:27.:11:33.

It is not about popular decisions it is about governing. I think this

:11:33.:11:35.

is a discussion pre-conference season to get the debate going in

:11:35.:11:38.

the Liberal Democrats, it is not something the Government are

:11:38.:11:42.

proposing at the moment. It is not something that is part of policy.

:11:42.:11:46.

If Nick Clegg wants it to discuss it at his party conference, that is

:11:46.:11:49.

absolutely fine. Do you think the wealthy pay their fair share of tax

:11:49.:11:55.

in this country, Mrs Macleod? always for reducing. Do you think

:11:55.:11:59.

they pay the fair share or not? have done the right thing. Do you

:11:59.:12:05.

think they pay their stpair share or not? -- fair share or not?

:12:05.:12:09.

Simple question? I'm a Conservative and believe in low taxation. You do

:12:09.:12:15.

then. What do you think of this, and the reintroduction of this

:12:15.:12:18.

Heathrow runway, with people worried about lack of growth and

:12:18.:12:23.

cuts? The word "emergency" is always difficult, anything that

:12:23.:12:27.

creates uncertainty is bad for the economy. Personally, I'm not at all

:12:27.:12:33.

against property taxes, I think they are quite a good idea. Because

:12:33.:12:37.

you can't move property? That's it, and also income is a bad thing to

:12:37.:12:41.

tax, because you shouldn't really go around discouraging people from

:12:41.:12:45.

working. You don't see a conflict in Nick Clegg saying we will sign

:12:45.:12:53.

on to the 45p tax rate as opposed to 50p, but we should have a

:12:53.:12:57.

mansion tax? I don't want to see taxes that, as I think you were

:12:57.:13:00.

saying earlier, might squeeze the rich until the pips squeak, we need

:13:00.:13:05.

the rich, we need their money. Pettifor what do you make of it, do

:13:05.:13:08.

you think it is a good idea to squeeze the rich and it is fairer?

:13:08.:13:13.

It is much fairer to be taxing the rich, and especially their assets,

:13:13.:13:16.

which have grown massively, which have been inflated by the credit

:13:16.:13:20.

boom. They have not been taxed on it. The point is, this is a sign of

:13:20.:13:24.

desperation, because this coalition Government has increased taxes

:13:24.:13:29.

before. They believe that by squeezing the economy and

:13:29.:13:32.

increasing taxes and cutting spending, they will get growth,

:13:32.:13:35.

economic activity, they are not. It is having the reverse result.

:13:35.:13:39.

will come back in a second, I wanted to pursue the point about

:13:39.:13:44.

Heathrow, some people would say that is what is really driving the

:13:44.:13:48.

debate today. Heathrow Airport is important, but it is not as

:13:48.:13:52.

important for the "are you a man or a mouse comment", this is about

:13:52.:13:55.

real worries in your party about not being enough growth in the

:13:55.:14:00.

economy, and things not going well, and you may may have to introduce

:14:00.:14:05.

more harsh cuts? The Heathrow debate was about a few people

:14:05.:14:07.

speaking up about what their concerns are about growth in the

:14:07.:14:11.

economy. I think it is a fair point. The growth in the economy and jobs

:14:11.:14:17.

is a top priority for us right now. And should be, so, therefore, there

:14:17.:14:20.

is no issue with people exploring different options for what might be

:14:20.:14:24.

some of the solution to that. But for me, certainly, a third runway

:14:24.:14:29.

for me is absolutely no solution at all. You changed your mind on it,

:14:29.:14:32.

presumably you find it noisy and irritating, but why did you change

:14:32.:14:37.

your mind? Because I had to do some work looking at London's economy. I

:14:37.:14:40.

came to understand how absolutely crucial international connections

:14:40.:14:45.

are to London. London is the most international, great, global city

:14:45.:14:50.

that there is. New York, essentially, is serving America.

:14:50.:14:56.

London service the world. Companies need to be impecably connected with

:14:56.:15:00.

the rest of the world. The problem is, if you look at the figures on

:15:00.:15:04.

the connectivity of London to the big new, emerging markets, which

:15:04.:15:09.

are the places our businessmen are going to need to get to, and where

:15:09.:15:14.

we need investment from, other European countries are increasingly

:15:14.:15:19.

improving their connectivity. Holland and Germany. This is

:15:19.:15:23.

absolutely no economic case whatsoever for expanding Heathrow,

:15:23.:15:28.

in order to improve the economy. The fact of the matter is, if we

:15:28.:15:31.

want increased connectivity, I'm not against, that then the airlines

:15:31.:15:35.

will simply have to adapt their routes. If they are not going to do

:15:35.:15:39.

that, maybe Governments should regulate them. They may go

:15:39.:15:41.

elsewhere? The airlines could adapt their routes to make the

:15:41.:15:44.

connectivity. You don't need to expand the airport to make that

:15:44.:15:49.

happen. You need to change the airline routes. Can we have a bit

:15:49.:15:52.

of a reality check here. It is an interesting argument about Heathrow,

:15:52.:15:55.

and whether you should have a third runway. I don't think you should.

:15:55.:15:59.

It is completely irrelevant to the current economic crisis. Whatever

:15:59.:16:02.

we do at Heathrow, it is years and years away. This is where I agree

:16:03.:16:06.

with my coalition colleague. It is not irrelevant, it is not

:16:06.:16:10.

irrelevant. We are in a serious recession here, we are going

:16:10.:16:14.

backwards what we have to do is get the banks lending and get houses

:16:14.:16:18.

built. This is long-term. We have to encourage private sector

:16:18.:16:22.

investment in infrastructure, the Government has been saying it wants

:16:22.:16:27.

that, there is a whole lot of money that is sitting there, ready to

:16:27.:16:30.

build, another runway at Heathrow, which we need for our economy in

:16:30.:16:40.

the long-term, and that would do it. Please, please. When you have got

:16:40.:16:44.

quite a senior backbencher talking about a "man or a mouse moment", it

:16:44.:16:48.

suggests it is a policy issue, but masking something deeper in that,

:16:48.:16:52.

which is discontent with David Cameron's leadership. Is this some

:16:52.:16:56.

kind of Westland moment, people saying it is a policy moment, but

:16:56.:17:00.

it is something else, lack of leadership? I don't think it is

:17:00.:17:03.

lack of leadership. I think the Heathrow debate is something today

:17:03.:17:07.

everybody is speaking about. It has been about Heathrow, to a large

:17:07.:17:11.

extent. But largely also about jobs and the economy. It is also about

:17:11.:17:14.

leadership? I don't think so. I think David Cameron has shown

:17:14.:17:18.

really strong leadership, throughout the time in the

:17:18.:17:21.

coalition Government. And prior to that. When you are asked "man or

:17:21.:17:25.

mouse", that suggests a lack of it? That is one person, let's get it

:17:25.:17:29.

into perspective. One person made the comments and I think he was

:17:29.:17:32.

wrong. I think David Cameron has shown strong leadership in trying

:17:32.:17:35.

to take the country forward, putting new initiatives in place to

:17:35.:17:39.

turn the country around. He has said strongly with Nick Clegg, no

:17:39.:17:42.

third runway, and there will be no third runway. On that cross-party

:17:42.:17:46.

agreement we will leave it there. Now, the Olympic motto of higher,

:17:46.:17:54.

faster, stronger, has always had one obvious theme, better. The

:17:54.:17:57.

London Paralympics games are thought to be the best ever and

:17:57.:18:01.

feature the best athletes in the world. Former British table tennis

:18:02.:18:06.

champion reports, there is a new debate about an issue raised in

:18:06.:18:11.

London 100 years ago, what should the role of science be in improving

:18:11.:18:17.

human life. Should it include interfering with the process of

:18:17.:18:24.

evolution itself, the name of it is a dirty word "eugenics". Here is

:18:24.:18:29.

the report. Eugenics.

:18:29.:18:35.

It seeks to apply the known laws of hereditary. Taking control of the

:18:35.:18:41.

evolutionary process to improve the human condition. That is the

:18:41.:18:45.

rational of eugenics. It would have been better by far for them and for

:18:45.:18:50.

the rest of the community if they had never been born. But the most

:18:50.:18:56.

henous crimes of the 20th century, the Holocaust, the mass murder of

:18:56.:19:00.

the disabled, the enforced sterilisation of anyone considered

:19:00.:19:10.
:19:10.:19:17.

inferior. It all took place in the name of eugenics. But can we

:19:17.:19:21.

embrace the promise of eugenics without its totalitarian

:19:21.:19:27.

conotations. A modern, humane eugenics, driven not by coercion,

:19:27.:19:37.
:19:37.:19:41.

but by individual choice. The world is about to descend upon London for

:19:41.:19:48.

the Paralympic Games. More than 4,000 athletes will compete in 20

:19:48.:19:53.

different events. These British athletes are preparing for the goal

:19:53.:19:57.

ball competition. The games are a celebration, not merely of sport,

:19:57.:20:01.

but of the human spirit, a celebration of the greatest

:20:01.:20:11.
:20:11.:20:12.

disabled athletes on the planet. But 100 years ago, London welcomed

:20:12.:20:16.

a rather different gathering. Disability was at the top of the

:20:16.:20:22.

agenda, but with a very different twist. It was here, on the banks of

:20:22.:20:27.

the Thames, in the summer of 1912, that the first international

:20:27.:20:31.

eugenics conference took place. This was no fringe event, many of

:20:31.:20:36.

the world's leading politicians and scientists descended upon London to

:20:36.:20:40.

debate, amongst other things, a very simple issue. How to rid the

:20:40.:20:48.

world of physical and mental disability. The media coverage

:20:48.:20:52.

hinted at a brighter future, taking advances in our understanding of

:20:52.:20:57.

genetics and breeding, to enhance future well being, and reduce

:20:57.:21:05.

disease, and disability. Churchill attended the coverage, as did the

:21:05.:21:11.

former Prime Minister, Lord Balfour, notable advocates included Bernard

:21:11.:21:15.

Shaw, HG Wells, and John Maynard Keynes, a cricketor of the British

:21:15.:21:25.
:21:25.:21:28.

eugenics society. In many ways, eugenics united left and right.

:21:28.:21:34.

Professor James Moore of the Open University, is an expert on the

:21:34.:21:40.

history of eugenics and its consequences. The professional

:21:40.:21:46.

middle-classes were the interested, with a bee in their bonnets. The

:21:46.:21:52.

interest was future generations, the unborn. Eugenicists devoted

:21:52.:21:57.

themselves to future generations and those who ought not to be born.

:21:57.:22:01.

You are making a constituency of a voiceless unborn future was really

:22:01.:22:06.

quite easy to convince people, that some people would be an infliction

:22:06.:22:12.

on posterity. But from these seeds eugenics grew into something quite

:22:12.:22:17.

different. In the hands of the Nazis, it became a project, not for

:22:17.:22:27.
:22:27.:22:28.

improving lives, but for destroying them. The effect of the environment

:22:28.:22:33.

on human traits was virtually ignored, eugenics became a pretext

:22:34.:22:38.

for eliminating anyone considered intellectually, physically, or

:22:38.:22:45.

Asianly inferior. Consultants to this German exhibit, were many

:22:45.:22:50.

people who later were honoured by the Nazi, and who wrote the

:22:50.:22:54.

textbooks quoted by Adolf Hitler and the founders of German racial

:22:54.:22:59.

policy in the 1930s, no-one saw that coming then.

:22:59.:23:03.

But eugenics survived the end of the Second World War. Sweden

:23:03.:23:07.

performed more than 6 2,000 sterilisations of the mental low

:23:07.:23:15.

and physically disabled, right into the 1970s, and often, by force.

:23:15.:23:20.

Virginia sterilised 8,000, California 21,000, other programmes

:23:20.:23:26.

existed in Korea, Japan, Canada, and beyond. This is the covert

:23:26.:23:31.

history of 20th century disability, and it hasn't stopped yet. In the

:23:31.:23:36.

last two decades, there have been involuntary sterilisations amongst

:23:36.:23:43.

gypsies in Europe, and the native peoples of Peru. The legacy of

:23:43.:23:49.

London 1912, hoifr unintended, has been hor -- however unintended, has

:23:49.:23:53.

been horrific, not just the eugenics of Nazi Germany, but the

:23:53.:23:55.

programmes of sterilisation that have taken place throughout the

:23:55.:24:00.

world. Perhaps the most shocking thing of all, is that these kinds

:24:00.:24:07.

of programme continue to exist today. Many of the paralympians

:24:07.:24:13.

will be celebrating in London, and have the same disabilities as those

:24:13.:24:18.

whose rights have been violated. Does this mean we should write off

:24:18.:24:23.

eugenics in its totality. We stand at the dawn of a new era, where

:24:23.:24:27.

advances in genetic engineering, and embryo selection, could permit

:24:27.:24:30.

parents to take far more control of the genetic make up of their

:24:30.:24:34.

children. Should the prospect of designer babies be ignored, just

:24:34.:24:43.

because of its associations with Nazisms. It is sometimes said that

:24:43.:24:47.

because the Nazis embraced eugenics, that it must be wrong for us, at

:24:48.:24:52.

least, to take the idea of improving human beings seriously.

:24:52.:24:58.

Now, it seems to me just rather silly to think that things are

:24:59.:25:03.

wrong because bad people do them. So, if it is true, which I think it

:25:03.:25:07.

is doubtful, that the Nazis made the trains run on time, it doesn't

:25:07.:25:14.

mean it is wicked to try to have a punctual railway system. There are

:25:14.:25:18.

powerful, moral reasons to enhance human beings. And indeed human

:25:18.:25:23.

beings are inveterate self- improvers.

:25:23.:25:26.

This conception of eugenics has nothing to do with violating the

:25:26.:25:31.

rights of the disabled, it is about allowing parents to do the best for

:25:31.:25:36.

themselves, and their children. But critics see dangers. I think

:25:36.:25:40.

sometimes having a disability can make life harder, but it doesn't

:25:40.:25:45.

necessarily mean it is a bad thing. It just means that some things in

:25:45.:25:50.

life are more of a challenge. Sharky, a British paralympian, has

:25:51.:25:53.

a genetic condition that causes partial sightedness. I wouldn't

:25:53.:26:00.

want a designer baby. I think you then take on the responsibility of

:26:00.:26:03.

how that child is when it is born, if you have made that decision, it

:26:03.:26:07.

is on your head be it. When you start meddling with that and

:26:07.:26:14.

playing God within that situation, you are then responsible. We don't

:26:14.:26:19.

want nature to take its course. Nature is a killer. We could not

:26:19.:26:22.

practice medicine if we believed in letting nature take its course.

:26:22.:26:26.

Because one of the best definitions I know of medicine is the

:26:26.:26:36.
:26:36.:26:37.

comprehensive attempt to frustrate the course of nature. The debate

:26:37.:26:42.

over eugenics hinges on an even deeper question. Perhaps the

:26:42.:26:50.

deepest question of all. What gives value to human life? Life all ends

:26:50.:26:54.

the same way for everyone. We all finish this life at some point,

:26:54.:27:04.
:27:04.:27:08.

what did you do with it along the way? Eugenics has taken humanity

:27:08.:27:13.

down many dark roads and caused untold suffering. But could a new

:27:13.:27:20.

eugenics, enlightened by empathy, lefrpbed liberty, finally be about

:27:20.:27:28.

to fulfil its promise. We have our guests here, some of our guests

:27:28.:27:33.

views were in the film. We have a newspaper columnist who has written

:27:33.:27:37.

about the apartheid some people with disabilities face, and cares

:27:37.:27:45.

for his own daughter. And Kerry is a BBC presenter with the lower part

:27:45.:27:48.

of her right arm missing. What do you think of the moral argument

:27:48.:27:57.

that we have the duty to prevent disease and science has a moral

:27:57.:28:00.

responsibility to prevent disability? It is a human

:28:00.:28:04.

responsibility rather than a moral argument, all of us are responsible

:28:04.:28:07.

for the future of the human race, in one sense. If you go down the

:28:07.:28:11.

road and say we can create the perfect person, what you are doing

:28:11.:28:16.

is saying well, unless we match up to this, therefore everyone else is

:28:17.:28:23.

imperfect in some way. It's very foolish to think that we can create

:28:23.:28:27.

an almighty human, because we're human beings, as long as we have

:28:27.:28:32.

war we will have disabilities. People are coming back from

:28:32.:28:36.

Afghanistan maimed in some way or other. It is like saying are they

:28:36.:28:39.

also imperfect, the same way as people born with a disability.

:28:39.:28:43.

Actually, no, none of us are imperfect, we are different from

:28:43.:28:48.

what the suggested norm is. This has a human face, this isn't just

:28:48.:28:54.

an abstract issue. I don't dissent from anything Kerry has just said,

:28:54.:28:58.

of course, she's absolutely right. I have no interest in the idea of

:28:58.:29:02.

perfection, it is a serious question, as to whether we should

:29:02.:29:06.

try to improve the health of human kind, and to improve the health of

:29:06.:29:11.

our children, and if we can do that, at a very early stage, if we can

:29:11.:29:15.

make people more resistant to disease, longer living, healthier,

:29:15.:29:21.

I think that is something that a good person would try to do. I will

:29:21.:29:24.

come back to you Kerry, asking Ian about, that do you think there is

:29:24.:29:29.

something wrong with that vision, that because you can do it you

:29:29.:29:34.

should do it? It is an obscene vision we have seen before in

:29:34.:29:39.

history. On one degree we should give credit to Professor Harris

:29:39.:29:44.

because he's showing science is going faster than society can cope

:29:44.:29:50.

with. And we are seeing grotesque views coming before us. There is

:29:51.:29:55.

this view that disability is a medical issue, and there is a

:29:55.:29:58.

secondary status to disabled people and we should eliminate that. There

:29:58.:30:01.

is a perception that a disabled person has a worse quality of life

:30:01.:30:06.

and should be stopped from living, in every single way it is

:30:06.:30:11.

extraordinarily grotesquely so damning, and horribly superiorism

:30:11.:30:15.

over disabled people. I suspect every parent is watching what would

:30:15.:30:18.

I have done in your position, had I known, if I could have done

:30:18.:30:22.

something about it, would I have chosen another way? Is that

:30:22.:30:26.

something you thought about? There is presumption behind that, that a

:30:26.:30:31.

childlike mine has a worse than inferior way of life. For all her

:30:31.:30:34.

medical problems that bring her pain, she has a very happy life.

:30:34.:30:37.

The problems she has in the main are those put forward by society, a

:30:37.:30:43.

lot of people in society have the views that the professor has, that

:30:43.:30:48.

there is this apartheid that disabled people are exiled to the

:30:48.:30:53.

fringes of society. There is a fear of disabled people, there is an

:30:53.:30:56.

idea they are inferior and we don't want them in society. That is the

:30:56.:30:58.

presumption about the question you are asking and the views put

:30:58.:31:02.

forward by Professor Harris. think you don't know what my views

:31:02.:31:08.

R I do know you have advocated infantiside in the past, that is an

:31:08.:31:12.

interesting thing to advocate. have not advocated that, we are not

:31:12.:31:16.

talking about infantiside. You have been quoted in the past saying you

:31:16.:31:20.

have been in favour of infantiside. I may have been quoted in that way,

:31:20.:31:28.

that is not the subject. Certain low, look, think about, don't think

:31:28.:31:32.

about disability, but inhancement. There is a very thin line. I could

:31:32.:31:36.

be better in all sorts of ways than I am, I would like to be more

:31:36.:31:39.

intelligent and resistant to disease, I would like to have a

:31:39.:31:43.

better life expectancy than I do have. That doesn't mean that I'm

:31:43.:31:48.

unworthy to live now, that doesn't mean that I think people like me

:31:48.:31:52.

are inferior. Of course I don't think any of those things, I don't

:31:52.:31:57.

think your daughter is inferior or I am, but I do see a considerable

:31:57.:32:01.

point in trying to make people healthier, longer lived, so that

:32:01.:32:04.

they can have more productive lives and do more of the things that they

:32:04.:32:08.

would wish to do. Kerry, you have also got a child. Was it something

:32:08.:32:11.

that you thought about, is this going to be a problem for her as

:32:11.:32:16.

well as for you, is that something that even? Would my disability be a

:32:16.:32:20.

problem for her, I don't think about that, if it is, I don't care,

:32:21.:32:24.

she will have to get on with it. There are millions of things life

:32:25.:32:29.

with throw at you, having a mum with one hand is a tiny aspect. My

:32:29.:32:34.

daughter is mixed race, have I made her life harder by having a mixed

:32:34.:32:38.

race child? I don't know, all I can do is support her the best way I

:32:38.:32:41.

can, give her love and all the creativity and imagination I would

:32:41.:32:45.

give to any of my children and see what she does with it. Do you think

:32:45.:32:50.

with the advances in science that this debate is not just inevitable,

:32:50.:32:53.

but we will have more and more about it, and people will think

:32:53.:32:57.

more about it? I think it is sad and unfortunate. Probably you are

:32:57.:33:00.

right. I really hate the way that health and disabled is grouped all

:33:00.:33:04.

into the same thing. You know, we would all like to have a cure for

:33:04.:33:08.

cancer and AIDS, but that is a very different things to say someone who

:33:08.:33:12.

is living with an impairment, that isn't necessarily making their life

:33:12.:33:16.

harder, in a physical sense, perhaps in the sense of how society

:33:17.:33:21.

views them, it is making their life harder. But impairments aren't

:33:21.:33:24.

necessarily something that needs to be challenged or changed, they are

:33:24.:33:28.

something that needs to be worked out. Professor, do you think in

:33:28.:33:32.

that context it is morally wrong for some people to have children,

:33:32.:33:36.

if they know the child will have a particularly severe disability s is

:33:36.:33:41.

that the wrong moral choice for them? It may well be. I think it is

:33:41.:33:47.

something that people ...According To whose morals? If you are using

:33:47.:33:51.

IVF, for example, and you have six fertilised embryos awaiting

:33:51.:33:55.

implantation, the law will only be permit you to implant two of those.

:33:55.:34:00.

You know that half of them will be severely disabled and the other

:34:00.:34:04.

half will be presumed to be healthy. You can't implant them all, you

:34:04.:34:10.

have to make a choice. Would it be right for you to deliberately

:34:10.:34:15.

choose to implant the children who will have disabilities. That is the

:34:15.:34:18.

parents' prerogative. I agree with you about that. I agree absolutely.

:34:18.:34:23.

I'm a strong believer and have advocated all my career, in

:34:23.:34:27.

parental choice about reproduction. But the question is, how should

:34:28.:34:32.

they exercise that. Do you think it would be morally wrong for them to

:34:32.:34:36.

exercise it in favour of a child they knew would be born about

:34:36.:34:42.

disabilities? Yes. Given that the child doesn't exist, they can

:34:42.:34:45.

either create a life which will have difficulties or a life that

:34:45.:34:48.

will have fewer difficulty. I think again that is the same issue, here

:34:48.:34:52.

we are hearing someone who is advocating, essentially, that is it

:34:52.:34:55.

is morally wrong to give life to a child that is different to others.

:34:55.:34:57.

But the problems are not the problems of the disability, it is a

:34:58.:35:01.

problem with society that won't accept disability and is scared of

:35:01.:35:05.

disability, the reality is that a disabled person can have just as

:35:05.:35:08.

good a life and happier life, it is complete luck and circumstances and

:35:08.:35:12.

so many factors come into it. The idea, the arrogance that it is

:35:13.:35:16.

morally wrong to give life to a childlike that is extraordinary. I

:35:16.:35:19.

do agree it is an issue which society needs to handle. Society is

:35:19.:35:23.

running ahead in many ways, science is running ahead of what society

:35:23.:35:27.

can deal with and cope with at the moment. Thank you all very much.

:35:27.:35:32.

Now, the battle of the smartphones between Apple and Samsung reached a

:35:32.:35:35.

climax in a US court yesterday A knockout for Apple. What does it

:35:35.:35:41.

mean for one of the world's most lucrative markets and our choice as

:35:41.:35:45.

consumers. Joe Lynam has been called to the Genius Bar.

:35:46.:35:50.

Within hours of their landmark court patent victory last Friday,

:35:50.:36:00.
:36:00.:36:04.

Apple's boss, Tim Cook, said the That is a different yd view to

:36:04.:36:08.

originality held by Steve Jobs back in 1995. Picasso had a saying, he

:36:08.:36:14.

said good artists copy, great artists steal. We have always been

:36:14.:36:19.

shameless about stealing great ideas. Speed forward to last year,

:36:19.:36:24.

and the saintly Mr Jobs declared thermonuclear war on other firms

:36:24.:36:28.

who he felt had copied Apple technology. Now Apple appears to

:36:28.:36:36.

have won a decisive battle in that war. A California jury, rather than

:36:36.:36:42.

a patent expert panel, found Samsung had infringed several

:36:42.:36:49.

patents and fined them $1 billion. Although the judge did a great job

:36:49.:36:55.

of controlling the litigants, isn't an expert on patent law. Although

:36:55.:37:00.

some experts might be on the jury, they are not experts, without a

:37:00.:37:03.

significant technical background. There are always strategic issues

:37:04.:37:07.

in looking where and who to sue. What are they squabbling about.

:37:07.:37:11.

Many of the days we use every day in our smartphones, for example,

:37:11.:37:15.

there is this pinch effect where you make pictures bigger or smaller,

:37:15.:37:20.

then there is the elastic band effect, where you go to the top or

:37:20.:37:26.

bottom of the page, it bounces back. Apple says it invented both those

:37:26.:37:31.

technologies and Samsung nicked it and put it into their phones. Can

:37:31.:37:36.

you patent a rectangular shape with a rounded edge? The District Court

:37:36.:37:41.

in California said you could. Apart from Apple who are the winners and

:37:41.:37:44.

losers from the judgment. Samsung is beige loser, we will know if it

:37:44.:37:50.

will have to remove some of its flagship phones and tablets from US

:37:50.:37:55.

shelves. The markets have wiped $12 billion off the company value since

:37:55.:37:59.

the judgment. Samsung are set to appeal, but it might seriously

:37:59.:38:03.

damage it. The real problem for them is how to deal with the

:38:03.:38:06.

logistical fall-out. If appeals fail and they have to withdraw

:38:06.:38:11.

products from the market place. That is a massive logistic kalhood

:38:11.:38:16.

ache, pulling millions of hand sets out of the market. It is unlikely

:38:16.:38:21.

it will happen, but it could happen, they could be forced to pull back

:38:21.:38:25.

handsets already sold. That becomes an incredibly expensive and

:38:25.:38:35.

difficult process. Going after hardware makers like Samsung, Apple

:38:35.:38:40.

side stepped the battle with Google, which owns the software android. If

:38:40.:38:47.

Apple had gone after Google, they could pick on a faux that could

:38:47.:38:54.

bite back. They own MoT role la, and with it key patents d -- MoT at

:38:54.:38:57.

that role la, and with it key patents.

:38:58.:39:03.

What does the inventor of the first mobile phone make of all this?

:39:03.:39:06.

Marty Cooper used to work for moat role la, and made the very first

:39:06.:39:15.

call from a cellphone back in 1973, ironically to his then arch rivals,

:39:15.:39:19.

AT&T. It is not Apple's fault it is the system itself. The patent

:39:19.:39:25.

system was intended to provide a monopoly to make sure we would get

:39:25.:39:29.

more innovation. Some how or other the system has become distorted

:39:29.:39:37.

over a period of time. It is inhibiting us getting new

:39:37.:39:42.

technology. We are still in the toy stage, most people in the world

:39:42.:39:47.

still use phones for talking, and for texting. We have been doing

:39:47.:39:54.

that for many years. The rest of the things we are just starting.

:39:54.:39:57.

Some commentators are already warning consumers that this ruling

:39:57.:40:01.

will create an Apple tax on all of them. As rivals will now have to

:40:01.:40:06.

pay Apple to use its technology. Pushing up the price for many tech

:40:06.:40:09.

products. Innovation may have been rewarded by the court, but

:40:09.:40:14.

consumers may end up paying, once again, for that. They may secretly

:40:14.:40:19.

be banking on Samsung's appeal. In a moment the ping-pong table. First

:40:19.:40:22.

the death of the novel is a story almost as old as the life of the

:40:23.:40:27.

novel. But what of the death of publishing? Or the end of the book?

:40:27.:40:31.

Over the past few years the music industry has been in turmoil,

:40:31.:40:35.

sometimes free or pirateed downloads sur planting CDs, which

:40:35.:40:39.

you have to go out and buy. Could it happen to the book? Howard

:40:39.:40:44.

Jacobson's new novel Zoo Time turns in part about the idea that maybe

:40:44.:40:49.

reading itself is finished. One of the old jokes of literature is more

:40:49.:40:53.

people write poetry than actually read it. So is the same also

:40:53.:40:57.

possible about a generation which tweets and blogs, but may be

:40:57.:41:00.

indifferent to the professional writers, who keep us entertained

:41:00.:41:05.

and informed, and here is the shock, might actually know something.

:41:05.:41:09.

Howard Jacobson's central character in his new novel Zoo Time, is a

:41:09.:41:14.

writer called Guy Ableman, who reflects, on what he calls, the

:41:14.:41:24.
:41:24.:41:40.

The Finkler Question. Jacobson himself won the Booker Prize in

:41:40.:41:44.

2010 at a point in his career where he was highly regarded, but how

:41:44.:41:48.

well did he sell. Does it take a big prize to turn things around. Or,

:41:49.:41:55.

as one of his characters put it, should he blag and twit, or as some

:41:55.:42:02.

might say, blog and tweet. How much trouble is publishing in now?

:42:02.:42:07.

Independent book shops are closing, and libraries are closing, and

:42:08.:42:12.

publishers are all worrying and wondering how to deal with the

:42:12.:42:16.

phenomenon of the electronic book and so on. My worry is, it is not

:42:16.:42:20.

my worry, this is a novel and it is full of fun, I hope, it is full of

:42:20.:42:24.

exhileration, and it is the story of a man in love with two enwomen,

:42:24.:42:31.

his wife and his mother, that is the meat -- two women, his wife and

:42:31.:42:37.

his her mother. It is full of meat. It is full of agents and literary

:42:37.:42:42.

people in despair of the novel? He's a failed novelist. He isn't me.

:42:42.:42:46.

I have won the Man Booker Prize, I started this before I won the prize,

:42:46.:42:51.

but still, he is a failure. His sense of what is going wrong might

:42:51.:42:54.

be slightly more gloomy than my sense of what is going wrong. I

:42:54.:42:58.

write this as someone who has an inordinate love of the novel. I

:42:58.:43:02.

believe the novel is more important than anything else. So when I see

:43:02.:43:07.

the novel being ill-read, it bothers me, I don't want to go to a

:43:08.:43:12.

reading group, and have people saying to me, as my hero Guy

:43:12.:43:16.

Ableman does, I can't sympathise with your hero, I can't identify

:43:16.:43:22.

with your hero, it is irrelevant. But, if it is the novel being ill-

:43:22.:43:27.

read, there are obviously some great novels being written,

:43:28.:43:36.

including Fifty Shades of Grey? Huge human for, yeah! But to go

:43:36.:43:43.

back to the kind of novel I love, it seems to me a shame when all the

:43:43.:43:51.

things that the novel exists to do, which is to dilute ideology, to

:43:51.:43:55.

refute a political position, the value of the novel exists precisely

:43:55.:43:59.

because it won't allow you to occupy any of those positions. But

:43:59.:44:03.

we are reading novels now as though, if the novel is not politically, as

:44:03.:44:07.

we believe it should be, it is a failed novel. If a novel doesn't

:44:07.:44:13.

say the sorts of things we think it should do. If a offends against

:44:13.:44:17.

gender or race politic, there is something wrong with it. The glory

:44:17.:44:23.

of the novel is it offends. have a lady who gives a degree of

:44:23.:44:28.

hand relief to a tiger in a zoo, which may offend some people, a lot

:44:28.:44:31.

of readers might find it funny? hope they would, but if such a

:44:31.:44:37.

thing happens in life, I'm assured by people who work in a zoo,

:44:37.:44:43.

because I research my novels very carefully, you must write these

:44:43.:44:48.

things. The glory of the novel is it will offend and upset and will

:44:48.:44:51.

allow no political ideology or opinion settle anywhere. If we

:44:51.:44:55.

don't like the characters it doesn't matter. That is what I

:44:55.:44:58.

started this conversation, is it our fault as readers if we don't

:44:58.:45:01.

get it, or identify with the character of something, are we

:45:01.:45:09.

doing something wrong? I -- any reader who thinks he or she doesn't

:45:09.:45:14.

want to go on with a novel because they don't identify with the

:45:14.:45:21.

characters, then yes, there is something wrong with that the

:45:21.:45:26.

reader. I hate the unput downable, put it down. I don't want it on my

:45:26.:45:33.

book, put it down, get angry with it, open the window. You can't

:45:33.:45:36.

breathe with the great books, the relationship you want people to

:45:36.:45:42.

have with the great books can't be defined by nice attitudes, an

:45:42.:45:46.

unwillingness to be upset by anything. The novel can do so much

:45:46.:45:50.

for us, the novel teaches us what it is like not to be ourselves, to

:45:50.:45:54.

read only from our own individual, the selfishness of our own

:45:54.:45:58.

individual position, it is so miss what the novel is for. Sounds to me

:45:58.:46:01.

as if the novel is still alive. What is also happening is there is

:46:01.:46:05.

winners and losers, and some win the Booker Prize, and you have done

:46:05.:46:09.

much better, I suppose, in temples of sales because of it, or there is

:46:09.:46:13.

-- in terms of sales, because of it. Or there is things like Fifty

:46:13.:46:19.

Shades of Grey, which do well, but it is not about whether it is a

:46:19.:46:23.

good literature? My novel will not win the Man Booker Prize, and may

:46:23.:46:28.

never do it, what of him. I see winning it as an extraordinary

:46:28.:46:31.

stroke of good fortune, I had the perfect panel. What happens if you

:46:31.:46:35.

don't. What happens if you are not read by people sympathetic to what

:46:35.:46:38.

you are doing. We will leave it there. A quick read of the front

:46:38.:46:48.
:46:48.:47:06.

That's all from Newsnight tonight. At a time when despite the weather

:47:06.:47:10.

we are inspired by the Olympic spirit and putting sport into our

:47:10.:47:14.

lives, we notice our Booker Prize winning author, was a keen ping-

:47:14.:47:21.

pong player, and having on the same programme, Matthew Side, former

:47:21.:47:24.

number one, it was too good an opportunity to miss.

:47:24.:47:34.
:47:34.:48:13.

Hurricane Isaac approaches Louisiana, we have our own weather

:48:13.:48:17.

system coming to the UK. Not on the same scale but making an impact.

:48:17.:48:21.

Rain in the day ahead, following on with heavy showers, this is how it

:48:21.:48:25.

looks like in the afternoon. Torrential downpours in northern

:48:25.:48:29.

England, had heavy in the Midlands. The rain clearing away at this

:48:29.:48:32.

stage. Sunshine will follow. The showers in south-west England and

:48:32.:48:36.

Wales packing quite a punch, hail and thunder is possible. But it is

:48:36.:48:39.

not going to be a constant rain at this stage. There will be spells of

:48:39.:48:43.

sunshine inbetween the heavy downpours. Some of us may just

:48:43.:48:47.

escape them and stay dry. The wind is lighter in Northern Ireland and

:48:47.:48:50.

south-west Scotland. Slow-moving torrential downpours are possible.

:48:50.:48:55.

Hail and thunder, you could get local flooding and possible

:48:55.:49:00.

disruption. More persistent rain for the outer hebties in Shetland.

:49:00.:49:05.

A lot of showers around, following the persistent rain tomorrow. As

:49:05.:49:08.

for Thursday, still some showers around across central and eastern

:49:08.:49:12.

parts of the UK. Particularly in the afternoon in eastern England.

:49:12.:49:16.

It starts to dry up further west, particularly across Scotland and

:49:16.:49:19.

What does the battle between Apple and Samsung portend for the touchscreen? Newsnight talks to the inventor of the mobile phone about long-term implications of Apple's recent court victory over Samsung for infringing intellectual property. Presented by Gavin Esler.


Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS