24/09/2012 Newsnight


Will Plan Vince save the UK economy? Allegra Stratton unpicks the Liberal Democrats' strategy to differentiate themselves from their coalition partners. With Kirsty Wark.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 24/09/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



This programme contains some strong language. Tonight, planning a party


post coalition, how dot Lib Dems reconnect with voters while


insisting the coalition is the only show in town? At their party


conference today, Vince Cable became the highest profile figure


to suggest there could be a hung Parliament at the next election and


in his speech, he did his level best to demonstrate if he was


leader he could deal with both parties. I'll speak to one of the


architects of the coalition. Abu Hamza, Babar Ahmad and three


other terrorism suspects lose their battle not to be extradited to the


US. Why did it take so long? We'll speak to this human rights lawyer.


He's also Babar Ahmad brother in law.


It's still an apology up to a point from the Chief Whip. I'm very clear


about what I said and didn't say. I want to make it absolutely clear


that I did not use the words attributed to me. What does this


say about the Government's real attitude to the police?


Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this sun of


York. What will happen if the mortal remains of the -- if the


last Plantaganet king of England are in a car park? The yellow


marker marks the feet and the head near toast us. He's under the


contact service parking space? Good evening. What happens when you


have to look both ways at once? That's the dilemma for the Liberal


Democrats at their annual knees-up in Brighton. One minute they're


boasting about what they've achieved in coalition Government.


The next they're talking about a different economic model, almost a


Plan B, that they'd deliver if they had a Government of our own. Our


political editor Allegra Stratton is there watching them twist and


turn. Vince Cable gave his speech today. It was quite a good speech.


Many people rated it. The thing was what he demonstrated throughout it


was that throughout being in Government he's been able to


persuade the Tories and cajole them into some of his ideas, like the


bank. For many months he wanted it and now he's got them to sign off


on it. He was rude about the Labour Party throughout his speech. The


idea that Vince Cable is a shoe-in to go into Government with the


Labour Party, if there was a hung Parliament, is wrong. This was


today a speech where he was showing that he could do a deal with both


parties. This time last year, he described


battling the recession as a war. And he meant it. Now he's come to


stand for many things, V for Vince, V for victory and even for some of


his supporters, V For Vendetta. There's a lot riding on these two


shoulders or two fingers. There's great anxiety in the hall about


what to do about both the party's fortune and also the economy. For


many, Vince Cable is the man to turn both around. First, the


obligatory crowd pleaser, a suggestion that the Conservatives


were turned on by sacking people, an offence to the majority of


Tories who believe in greater deregulation. We've seen off the


head bangers, who want a hire and firaclure and seem to find the idea


of sacking people as some kind of aphrodisiac.


With that done, onto V for vision, economic vision. We need a new


British business bank with a clean balance sheet and an ability to


expand lending rapidly to the manufacturers, exporters, the high


growth companies that power our economy. And I can announce to you


today that we will have one. This is no small thing. With �1 billion


up front capital it's not far off the investment banks capital who


have in the region of �5 billion. But it was familiar. This was


broadcast at the weekend. actually, it's that this morning I,


well I set up a community bank. What? You did what? You set up a


bank? I had a moment of weakness and they exploited it. Yeah we


didn't have much choice because it was all going to piss in a kettle


here. We had to get the Economist out of the way. What are you


talking about? We were having a preliminary meeting when Phil


started to crow. It was embarrassing. You bought a bank out


of social embarrassment? I sometimes buy the big issue out of


social embarrassment, I don't buy a -- buy a fucking bank. That the


thick of it beat the Business Secretary to announcing his own


policy is because Vince Cable has been talking about this bank for


some time now. The Chancellor and Vince Cable have been pushing what


is an activist and interventionist straty. Many inside Government say


there's a lot of Plan B in this Plan A. Nonetheless, some in the


party want Plan B, the actual thing. They hay vote in the afternoon. It


was rejected. In his speech Cable ridiculed Ed Balls call for a Plan


B. He might as well have been ridiculing some of his own audience.


Even so, see how thae plauz. Balls says, workers of the world


unite, we need a Plan B. We should, he says, not cut the deficit in six


years, but seven. Wow! The key paragraph is probably this one


coming up, his bank will help. But Cable knows other efforts may be


needed. Right now we're fighting recession and the need is for a


demand stimulus. The country must not get stuck in a downward


escalator where slow or no growth means bigger deficits, leading to


more cuts and even slower growth. That is the way to economic


disaster and political on livion. Note that mention of political


oblivion, the opinion polls suggest Cable is a political chezman


capable of bringing back long departed voters. Conservatives are


beginning to push that they think their friend Nick Clegg is a busted


frush and instead Vince Cable should become Deputy Prime Minister


at some point. Why? The argument goes if you have Vince Cable as


Deputy Prime Minister it's easier to see how you have a PM David


Cameron in the future and harder to see how Ed Miliband would run his


own Government. That is the Conservative plan V. When we ask


people how they would vote if Vince Cable were leader of the Liberal


Democrats rather than Nick Clegg, the votes go up from around three


million to around four million. Not back to the seven million there


were in 2010. But a useful lift. It looks to me as if the bulk of this


extra million come from people who voted Lib Dem last time, went back


to Labour because they didn't like the coalition and would consider


voting for another left of centre Lib Dem leader. Would it make a


second Prime Ministerial term for David Cameron more likely? All the


calculations of who will do a deal after the next election depends


critically on the numbers. Unless Labour and Conservatives are very


close together, if there's a hung Parliament, the Lib Dems will be


forced, as last time, to do a deal with the larger partyment Of course,


what dot Lib Dems hate more than anything else? It's being told by


other people who should be their leader. That was a future leader


speaking, wasn't it? Oh, he's excellent, yes. But I think he has


always enjoyed being in the, on the finance side. I think this


conference is going to help Nick Clegg build himself up again. It's


not us we're angry with him, it's the people on the doorstep, who say


oh, he increased the tuition fees. When he explain it's properly, they


are aggressive with you, but then they are ready to listen. We're


getting our members back. Business Secretary went where


others haven't gone so far. He predicted a hung Parliament at the


next election. I don't believe actually that the British people


will want to entrust their future to any one party next time. If


wapbtsz... There we have it from the mouth of Vince Cable, the


British electorate won't trust themselves to have one party. What


is he up to with this plan? If you ask small businesses what their


problem is at the moment, you hear a lot of the F Word. We heard the


Thick of it there. The F word for businesses is finance. They can't


get. It Vince Cable's department estimates between 90 and �180


billion worth of finance is missing from the system. What they'll do is


take �1 billion worth of taxpayers' money, with private sector money,


maybe �10 billion, it gets lent, as a one off to try and just plug a


bit this afternoon gap. How radical is this? Frankly some small


businesses can't take the 18 months. It's small. It's not exactly the


speediest move from A to B in terms of plans. But north Dakota has a


bigger state investment bank than �1 billion. It has $4 billion


investment bank. Germany 18 billion. It says taxpayers' money can be put


at risk to lend, albeit indirectly, straight to private businesses and


that lending can be state directed. The Government will choose sectors,


regions, maybe individual businesses that it thinks are a


good bet for the overall economic strategy. 13 years of the New


Labour third way never produced that. Whatever his detractors will


say tonight. Vince has put his name on the bank. The same was -- as


Boris his put his name on bikes. It's a real thing. The need to do


this was to do something completely different? Well, I mean, look, it's


a tacit admission that all the other things they have done, the


Project Merlin, the voluntary hitting the targets by banks,


haven't worked. Trying to get RBS as an investment bank, none of it


has resulted in lending to British businesses. They are crying out for


money. They need that capital to be able to do what Cable has


skphrainked, which is a demand-led recovery. Thanks very much.


Earlier I spoke to David Laws, the Schools Minister, who has cross-


Government responsibility for policy. I asked how the investment


bank to have an impact on the current economic situation if it


isn't going to start for 18 months. This is an extraordinary measure in


extraordinary times. It's the right thing to do. It comes on top of a


series of other pro-growth measures taken by the Government, including


the funding for lending scheme, which is under way, in which the


Bank of England is getting additional credit to the existing


financial institutions to help them to lend and keep the price of


credit down. This was one of six, seven, eight, nine, ten, pro-growth


initiatives being taken by the Government over the last few months.


So then, we'll have another announcement, another bone being


thrown by Nick Clegg tomorrow. That will be �100 million extra for


nursery places. Where is the money coming from? It's coming from the


existing capital allocation that is granted by the Treasury to the


Department for Education. It hasn't been allocated yet. But it's


incredibly important for the delivery of the pledge we made as a


Government that Nick Clegg was very much involved in that we would


provide additional places so there could be a free 15 hours of nursery,


early years education for every two-year-old from the... So it's


not new money? It's just shifting money from another part of the


education budget. It's not a pledge of new money. It's not something


that Nick Clegg has managed to ring out of the Department of Education,


something new. It's just old money. It is money which Nick and others


have managed to negotiate with Michael Gove to allocate to


specifically to deliver the pledge to increase the number of places,


free places for two-year-olds, which is incredibly important for


making sure that we get a high quality of early years education,


particularly for those most disadvantaged young people.


who's loseing out, who's loseing �100 million in the Department of


Education. If it's not new money, somewhere else is suffering?


comes out of the overall capital allocation that the Department for


Education has. Some of that gets allocated at the beginning of the


year. Some of that throughout the year. This is an allocation which


Nick Clegg has agreed with Michael Gove will go specifically into


providing those places for two- year-olds, those 15 hours of free


early years education, which is such an important part of our


strategy to give the best possible opportunities for young people from


more disadvantaged backgrounds. Let's be clear on where we stand on


the Government spending plans, because at the 2011 Autumn


Statement, Danny Alexander agreed with George Osborne that they would


stick to the spending plans for 2015/16 and 16/17, but that's not


the case any more. But Nick Clegg said it was just 15/16. So you


diverge with the rest of the coalition on this? No, there are


separate issues. The first thing is that the Government is part of his


long-term planning, budget planning has to set out a level of total


public expenditure in order to meet the fiscal mandate which looks five


years ahead. That's exactly what the Chancellor did in the Autumn


Statement. In addition to that, the Government has to agree the


detailed departmental break down of that total figure for expenditure.


We have that so far for every year of this Parliament. I understand


now. That means then that the Chancellor agrees now with Nick


Clegg that actually, these spending plans for 2015/16 are the final


spending plans? It means that so far we've agreed the detailed


spending plans for each department and for the welfare budget right


through to the end of 2014/15. However, it's very clear that at


the very least we will have to have detailed departmental spending


plans and welfare plans for 2015/16, because the general election is


going to take place within that Danny Alexander was wrong? No, he


was right. What he said was we will have to have detailed plans. That


is a separate issue that in the Autumn Statement last year there


was a planning assumption set out for total managed expenditure going


into 2016/17. What we are now talking about is the extent to


which we have a detailed breakdown of those overall figures for


particular years. Nick Clegg said that it is wrong to have a further


welfare cut of �10 billion. What is acceptable to the Liberal


Democrats? �1 billion? �2 billion? What is not acceptable to us is


that we should go into a second stage of auster toy -- austerity to


reduce borrowing without there being a contribution from those


people on very high income. You will remember when the coalition


was formed, there was a contribution from taxation. And


more recently, Nick has become concerned that some of the debate


in the media and elsewhere has focused just on there being a


contribution to any further austerity from departmental


spending. �10 billion on welfare - a �10 billion cut in welfare is


unacceptable to the Liberal Democrats? There is no movement on


that? What's unacceptable for us is that the next stage of austerity


should simply consist of welfare cuts for people on low incomes


without people on high incomes making a decent contribution. That


is the case in the first round of fiscal austerity after 2010 and


that's got to be the case for any further austerity going ahead. That


is the view that most commonsense members of the public would have


that people on high incomes have to make a sensible contribution.


become - we get nearer the election, the coalition looks less and less


tenable because you cannot - you have to distance yourself otherwise


it becomes crazy, because you diverge on so many issues? I think


there is a great degree of unity in a lot of policy areas in the


coalition, particularly on the economic strategy. There is going


to be renewed focus in the autumn for us to agree a common programme


of policies that will take us through the last two-and-a-half


years of this Parliament. It is inevitably the case, though, that


as we get into the last three or six months running towards a


general election, the parties will be focused on delivering the agreed


programme and on setting out their competing visions of where they


should go. That's just obvious. Most of the Parliament will be able


to work co-operatively together. Of course, before the next general


election, there will be a focus on the future. Thank you very much.


He's cost the British taxpayer many millions in legal and detentions


costs, but Abu Hamza's appeal against extradition, and that of


four other terror suspects have been unanimously rejected by


Europe's Human Rights Judges. So, within a few weeks, the radical


cleric could be put on a plane to the United States to face multiple


charges. I'm joined by Peter Marshall. What these cases have in


common, all five, is that all the individuals applied to the European


Court to stop their extradition to the US because they said they


feared in these US top-security prisons they could be subjected to


torture or cruel and inhumane treatment. The European Court


turned down their request in April and today they turned down their


application to lodge an appeal. are they? Well, like Frank Sinatra,


Abu Hamza needs no introduction. I reported on his activities 11 years


ago when he took over the Finsbury Park Mosque. He revelled in his


bloodthirsty reputation. Eventually, in 2006, he was jailed for seven


years by a UK court for soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred.


That's different from anything that he's wanted for in America. How


extensive are these... That's in connection with his alleged


association with a kidnap of 16 Western tourists in Yemen. There


was a shoot-out at the end when the Yemeni authorities attempted to


rescue these tourists, but four were killed. The Americans want him


for trying to set up a training camp in the US. What about the


others? Most notable is Babar Ahmad, a student and computer expert who


has been in custody without trial since 2004. That is eight years.


The Americans say he was soliciting funds for terrorist activities on a


website he ran. He denies that and he's waged a long campaign with a


lot of support. If he is to be tried anywhere, his supporters say


it should be the UK. The others are Syed Talha Ahsan and two other men,


Adel Abdul Bary and Khaled Al Fawwaz, who were accused of being


aides to Osama Bin Laden. The Home Office have said that they could be


gone within days, certainly within weeks. Thank you.


In Birmingham is Fahad Ansari, a human rights lawyer and Babar


Ahmad's brother-in-law. From Washington, we're joined by David


Rivkin, a lawyer who worked in the Justice Department and as an


associate White House Counsel in the Reagan and Bush Senior


administrations. And here in London, the Conservative MP, Patrick Mercer,


the former chairman of the Commons Counter-Terrorism Sub-Committee.


Fahad Ansari, what is your reaction to tonight's decision? We are


obviously quite disappointed with Europe's decision. We are not very


surprised. It is really irrelevant for us. This matter should never


have even reached Strasbourg. If the British police had done their


job nine years ago, and submitted the material seized from Babar


Ahmad's home to the domestic prosecution authorities rather than


secretly sending it to their US counterparts, Babar Ahmad would


have been prosecuted in this country and if convicted, would


have been released by now. Nothing to do with Abu Hamza, it is Babar


Ahmad's case that you are pursuing? Absolutely. Obviously, my


involvement with these cases has been with Babar Ahmad's case as a


family member and a campaign member from the last seven or eight years.


This issue, he is a British citizen, he is someone who has worked and


lived in this country his entire life. He's someone who is accused


of a crime committed in this country. The crime was not


committed in America. It was not committed in Russia or Pakistan. He


should face trial in this country. We have never said that he should


escape trial. We have always called for him to face the serious


questions in a British court of law. That is the judicial process


running its long course, Patrick Mercer. Do you accept that it had


to take this length of time? disappointed that this has had to


take this length of time. These men are innocent until proved guilty.


We must not get away from that. What I do think is quite wrong is


that individuals should have had to spend this amount of time, not just


being deeply concerned about their future, not knowing whether they


are found guilty or innocent, but absorbing British taxpayers' money.


I wish it hadn't taken this long. I'm glad we seem to be approaching


a resolution. Do you make any quantitative difference between


alleged crimes committed here and abroad, as Fahad Ansari is saying?


I think that individuals should be tried in the country where the


crime is committed. David Rivkin, what is your view of tonight's


decision? Well, it's high time. My view is the reason it's taken so


many years is because these individuals and lawyers have


advanced all sorts of arguments for the British Criminal Justice System,


then for the European justice system. I don't understand they


should have been tried only in the United Kingdom. Under our


extradition treaty with Great Britain, if you commit a crime that


takes place using electronic means, using websites, using other


communications there is a variety of choices prosecutors have. I


don't know any principle that says you should only be tried in Britain,


or France, or Germany. The notion they would be tortured in the


United States is preposterous. The reason the arguments took so long


to resolve is because the lawyers pressed all the buttons. I don't


feel any sympathy for them. lawyers pressed all the buttons


that there were there to press? should they complain about how long


it's taken? It is a silly argument, don't you think? Fahad Ansari, can


you respond? For a representative of the Government of the United


States to argue that the United States doesn't torture is


preposterous. As regards to this specific case, we have due process.


The problem was, there was an abuse of that process nine years ago when


the evidence was not given to the DPP. In terms of prosecuting Babar


Ahmad and Syed Talha Ahsan in this country, the offence has taken


place in the United Kingdom. They are British citizens, they have not


stepped foot in the United States. So why should they be extradited to


the United States? The websites in question were accused of running


campaigns in Chechnya, so if that was the case, why haven't Russia


requested the extradition? And in Afghanistan. Again, there is a


British interest. 150,000 people signed a petition for Babar Ahmad


to be tried in this country. There is enormous public interest. The


DPP has that evidence for the first time in eight years. They have been


presented with the evidence and he is trustworthy and honest and


integrity enough to make a proper decision on this. David Rivkin, the


question that Babar Ahmad and others ask is whether or not these


men will get a fair trial in America? I would say of course


they'll get a fair trial. I don't know what evidence of torture the


gentleman is talking about. I can tell you even if you don't like


military justice systems in Guantanamo, they will be tried in


the civilian justice system. That is THE most due process-laden


system in the world. If I was a guilty person, I would rather be


tried in the United States than anywhere in the world. If he is


convicted, he will be serving his time in humane conditions without


any torture. This is all quite preposterous. One more thing. I


don't understand the notion that had he been prosecuted in the UK he


would somehow have not been eligible for extradition to the


United States. The American government made a showing to the


Criminal Justice System that they have committed a crime... That is


not true. You display your ignorance of the Treaty. That is


the problem with this treaty which campaigners have been... Let me


bring Patrick Mercer in on this. These are strained relations?


course it is. I believe that they will get a proper trial in America.


I'm convinced of that. Above everything else, no matter what the


lawyers say, if I talk to my constituents, 99 out of 100 - and I


have tried to do this - say, "Get these men out of this country, get


them back to the country whereas they will receive the proper


trial." Is this a victory for the European Courts? I think - I don't


think it is a victory at all. This has taken far too long for us to


come to this particular point. What I would say is I hope that in the


future that our Government looks towards its memoranda of


understanding that it has negotiated with the various


countries involved and invokes those properly and early? People


have the recourse of the European Court, that is their right?


course they do. The fact remains that I think the majority of the


people inside this country deeply resent the amount of time that


these individuals have stayed here and consumed their taxes. Now, at


last, we are getting the right result. I would second that. Fahad


Ansari, what is your next step? would request the Home Secretary to


undertake not to extradite Babar Ahmad and Syed Talha Ahsan until


the Director of Public Prosecutions has made a decision on whether


there is a case to answer for them being prosecuted in the UK. For the


first time, he has the evidence which was kept hidden from the


Crown Prosecution Service for eight years and he's a man of integrity.


I trust he will make the same decision that 150,000 people, more


people than in Theresa May's constituency have asked for. Thank


you. Like all scandals that threaten the careers of Cabinet


ministers, it is the length of time they are in the headlines and


questions that remain unanswered that often prove to be their


undoing. And so the Government's Chief Whip was up early this


morning to speak truth unto the nation that he didn't call Downing


Street police officers "plebs". His problem, however, remains that many,


including the police, still maintain that is not quite the


truth. 8.02am, a camera crew is summoned


to Whitehall on the promise that Andrew Mitchell, the Chief Whip,


was to break his silence. He arrived not in any grand


ministerial Jag, but in a hatchback, a pleb's car, were one ever to use


What exactly did you say to the police officers on Wednesday?


wants first of all to reiterate the apology I made last week, after the


incident on Wednesday night in Downing Street. It had been the end


of a long and extremely frustrating day, not that that is any excuse at


all for what happened. I didn't show the police the amount of


respect I should have done. We should all respect the police. They


do an incredibly difficult job. I've apologised to the police. I've


apologised to the police officer involved on the gate and he's


accepted my apology. I hope very much that we can draw a line under


it there. It hadn't worked before the weekend. So limiting his


comments to camera to what he said in a written statement on Friday


was never going to work now. Mr Mitchell far from drawing a line


under this issue, simply seemed to underscore his failure to address


the key questions. Had he sworn at the police and had he called them


plebs? I'm very clear about what I said and what I didn't say. I want


to make it absolutely clear that I did not use the words that have


been attributed to me. With that he was gone, dais peering into the


Cabinet Office only yards from the scene of his original troubles. The


Sun meanwhile had its teeth in Mr Mitchell's rump and wasn't letting


go. Its leading political columnist said it was serious and simple, Mr


Mitchell had to take the police to law. If the police are indeed lying,


which is the only other alternative, which is a substantial lie if it's


correct, they have an officer in the diplomatic protection service


who has given evidence on her official log... Backed up by others


as well. Backed up by witnesss in the same service. Why would they do


that? Why concoct a story which would be extremely damaging and


then to leak it to the press? You're saying Mr Mitchell is


obliged either to sue or resign? think he has no choice. He has to


take them on. This cannot be allowed to stand. Home Secretary


found earlier this year how taking the police on, over pay and


pensions would lead to real difficulties. Trevor Kavanagh says


David Cameron is now to reap the whirlwind from Mitchellgate. One of


the problems that arises from this is that the Prime Minister has now


come out whole heartedly in support of the police in such a way, that


it weakens the operation, the policy that the Government's


pursuing of trying to reform the police. It gives the moral high


ground to the Police Federation, which is resisting by tooth and


nail everything that the Home Secretary is trying to do to reform


the Police Service. Mr Mitchell may be very clear about what he said.


Others aren't. His friends have been briefing he did swear at the


police officers, one policewoman and one policeman, but he didn't


call them plebs, the class word. The Sun today repeated what it said


they said he'd said. "Best you learn your (BLEEP)ing place. You


don't run this (BLEEP)ing Government. You're (BLEEP)ing


plebs." Sun which many see as the Conservative party of the plebian


wing say Mr Mitchell's comments wreck David Cameron's attempts to


rid the party of its image as posh boys and Bullingdon Club bullies.


Their coalition partners, who have to take their laughs where they


find them, were tickled pink by Vince Cable's efforts to rejoin the


class war at their party conference. Being told however that jokes about


social class are not good for the unity of the coalition. But as a


mere pleb, I couldn't resist it. LAUGHTER


APPLAUSE The Liberal Democrats Home Office


minister playing it straight said in his view Andrew Mitchell still


had a lot of explaining to do. can understand as well why people


feel we need to get to the bottom of it and explaining to the media


what was not said is not the same as explaining what was said. There


is a sense of all the loose ends not being tied up. There was some


relief for Mr Mitchell tonight with the Cabinet Secretary ruling he won


be investigated because the police officer had made no complaint. Mr


Mitchell is denying telling the officers from the Diplomatic


Protection Group "you haven't heard the last of this." He'll be hoping


it is the last of it. Extraordinary goings on in a car


park in Leicester could change history and resurrect the


reputation of a king, who's been marked by history as a grotesque


murderer. If the remains are those of Richard III it may start a chain


of events which would render Shakespeare's famous play and


history books suspect. He may not have killed his nephews after all.


Who knows. Much to discuss in a moment. First David grosman has


been watching as events unfold. If you don't know your Plantaganet


from a hole in the ground, you probably still know Richard III.


Now is the winter of our discontent... That's him, or is it?


At the bottom of a hole in the ground in a Council car park in


Leicester, wre told there have been located the bones of the last


Plantaganet king. This particular performance of Richard III closes


soon. They start filling in the hole tomorrow. But what this ark


logical dig has really uncovered is how deep feelings still run about


this long dead monarch. There are people in Britain, indeed all round


the world who are spectacularly furious that their hero should be


portrayed as a tyrant. There's a lot of information about Richard


III before the Tudor writers to get to him. What you can see is


perversely, you see a man who was loyal, brave, pius and just. It's


completely the opposite of Shakespeare's portrayal. This


wasn't just you came along, dug the car park and found bones and you


thought, well that could be Richard III? Not quite. The lead


archaeologist on the dig is Richard Buckley from the University of


Leicester. He said the first clue was the position of the body in the


part of an extra investigated friary which corps responds with


contemporary reports. But there was more compelling evidence.


second thing is the signs on the skeletal remains themselves,


particularly the spinal abnormality, trauma to the skull and then the


remains of this projectile point between two vertebrae. It was an


unusual burial in that clearly somebody had died a violent death


and it was if the choir of a church. And there the spinal abnormality. I


thought that was all Shakespeare's imagination. Well, this is, this


abnormality doesn't necessarily mean that he was a hunch back as


Shakespeare says. It's an abnormality that lots of people


have. It may mean one shoulder was higher than the other. That got


exaggerated in the telling. He did ride into battle and so forth. It


didn't affect his mobility at all. Do you feel a sort of, an affinity


with him here. Do you find an emotional connection with Richard


III as a character or is he just a person from history? I'm beginning


to, funnily enough. As an orkologist we dig barials all the


time. Usually they're unnamed people. We know nothing about them.


To find a burial of a potentially named individual and somebody who


has died a violent death, yes, it's a moving experience.


# Heifer had a hump and my arm was all right #


There have been attempts to rehabilitate Richard, like on


horrible histories, the children's programme.


# Tudor propaganda, it's all absurd # Time to tell the truth about King


Richard III # It was Shakespeare who took


Richard's reputation, but should recare? After all in return he gave


us a great work of literature. Shakespeare did him an odd favour,


didn't they, because Edward IV and Henry VII don't rank very high and


in the middle is Richard III who is a major figure, for all the wrong


reasons. So Shakespeare's done him a sort of strange service. Between


infamy and being forgotten... you choose infamy? I suppose you


might, 500 years later. If you then get, if everyone then gets told


that you weren't so bad after all. It might all work out very nicely


for him. He gets the glamour and he gets a decent biography. And maybe


a good funeral. Maybe. So what should happen to him now do you


think? There's going to be much debate between interested parties


as to his final resting place. State funeral do you think?


knows. I wouldn't like to say. Might be nice. We've had the


Jubilee and the Olympics, Richard III's state funeral could be the


next big thing. We in Leicester would like to see him stay here.


The people in York say he should come to York. People in London say


oh, Westminster Abbey. Why Leicester? I suppose he died in


Leicestershire at Bosworth. That is true. He's been buried here for 527


years and nobody's shown any interest until now in looking for


him and removing him. So finders keepers? Yeah, probably.


# Now my tale is told, you won't hear a bad word


# About a special ruler, King Richard III.


I'm a nice guy. Here to help us decide whether it


was good King Richard or crook back dig, are Dan Jones and Annette


Carson author of Richard III the maligned king. Whether or not these


are the bones of King Richard it won't make much difference to you


because you think he's a good guy? Not being an historian I don't go


in for judgments about people. I'm more interested in buy graphical


material. I'm interested in people who make the best of a bad job.


believe... They get dealt a bad hand and they get on with it.


believe he was maligned. However you, tell me about what you think


about this dig in the first place and whether or not it's going to be


conclusive evidence? I think one of the impressive things is that they


found the spot. This was research which located the choir of the


church of the grey friars and found a body which may or may not be


Richard. If it is Richard and there's going to be the DNA


decision, it doesn't actually alter anything in history about whether


or not he did away with the Princes. That still is completely uncertain.


Absolutely. If we found a skeleton the DNA tests prove is Richard III,


then we've found a skeleton that DNA proves is he. It doesn't alter


anything else we know of his career. Unless there is permission given in


Westminster Abbey to dig up the Princes and see if there's a DNA


connection with Richard, am I right? Yes, but it's a long shot as


to whether that's likely to happen. I don't think anyone's agitating


for it. What we're interested in now is the fact that Richard has


become something of a cause celebre. The media are terrifically stirred


up about it. People in England now are watching the television and


thinking, oh, maybe I'll find out more about this guy. From that


point of view, it can only be a good thing that he's become


somebody that people are interested in right now. If you want to solve


a mystery, that's really a whole different ball game. We're not


detectives. But what would be exciting for you as an outcome from


this? It would be exciting to know that we'd located the bones of


Richard III. There's no doubt about that. Aside from that I don't know


what more we're going to tell about Richard other than what we know


already. We're not going to tell whether or not it was he who killed


the Princes or Henry Tudor. Absolutely not. It's not going to


alter one crime from his reign from which everything else followed.


was saying if you looked at pre- Tudor sources there's less


propaganda. There's a different view of King Richard. What we know


about Richard before he became king and while he was king, he was a


loyal aristocrat and a capable soldier. If this were his soldier,


all the injuries, head wounds and arrow in the back, would be


consistent with Tudor historians that he was a brave soldier on the


battlefield. It is enormously fascinating, isn't it? People are


gripped by this, because you don't find a monarch very often, do you?


You don't. People are gripped by Richard III any way. The reign


lasted two years. The gap between the black propaganda which emanated


from Tudor historians, early in Henry VII reign and he was turned


into a Plantaganet iago by Shakespeare. It seemed he was quite


a competent king, although only for two years. And this deformed


monster is so huge people are fascinated. Extol os is is not the


Shakespearean humpback. It is not a hunch back, that has another name.


Scoliosis is an S bend in the spine which makes one shoulder higher


than the other and depending on the severity. When all the work is done


on the body, then the big decision will have to be made about where to


have the funeral and what kind of funeral to have. What's your view?


It's out of our hands. At the moment, we have a plan and now


suddenly a load of other people have leapt in. What's your plan?


The plan has always been, according to good ark logical prob tis, if


you exhume body when you reinter it, you place it in the nearest, the


place that's nearest to where you exhumed it from. You go for


Leicester? Yes. Would you go for York or Westminster Abbey? I think


you have to stick with best practice and go with Leicester. I


think the city of Leicester will be delighted. They have put a lot of


work in it. They have closed a Council car park all summer.


he's a monarch, shouldn't he be interred in Westminster Abbey?


don't know. I think there would be something cartoonish for the bones


of a medieval king. We haven't heard from the Queen. Westminster


Abbey is actually a bit Tudor inclined you know. It's not the


place I would have chosen. wouldn't be happy there then. Thank


you both very much. And the front you both very much. And the front


pages. The Sun go all out: Now cop pleb row minister claims outburst


came after long and frustrating day, presumably this included his


gruelling lunch time Serb at UK's poshest curry house. The Daily


Telegraph, police log reveals details of the pleb rant and there


the picture of Megan, mother's plea to run away. The Guardian - torture


traumatised scar, the children caught up in Syria's war. And on


their bottom page, Abu Hamza to be extradited to the US.


That's all from Newsnight tonight. Sleep well, unlike as Richard III


says the son's of Edward sleep in Abraham's boz om. Jeremy will be


Hello. We seem to have roared straight into Autumn. Rain and


gales continuing overnight and for Tuesday as well across northern


England, Northern Ireland and across many parts of Wales too.


Across Scotland the initial rain easing away across southern areas


but the winds continue through the afternoon. As will the rain in


North West England. Very different across the south-east. East Anglia,


south-east England one or two showers but sunshine coming through.


Temperatures 15 or 16 degrees. Persistent rain starts to swing


back in to south-west England as the afternoon wears on. It turns


increasingly wet across the rest of Wales too. Across North Wales it


rains more much of the day. That could cause further problems.


Northern Ireland, brisk northerly winds blowing the rain away. It


make it's feel chilly, 12 or 13 degrees at best. Northern Scotland


hang onto the rain and strongest winds. Still some rain around


certainly and fairly low temperatures through Tuesday.


Notice a bit less in the way of rain, once we get through to


Wednesday and a better chance of one or two sunny intervals breaking


through, certainly the case further south. Don't rule out heavy showers


across southern parts of England during Wednesday. There could be


Download Subtitles