25/09/2012 Newsnight


With the cull of badgers about to begin, Newsnight speaks to protesters about their tactics to stop the killing. Farmers and wildlife experts join Emily Maitlis.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 25/09/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The battle of the badger cull turns nasty. Newsnight goes undercover in


the undergrowth. And learns how threats and intimidation towards


farmers could jeopardise the Government's plans. It was


harassment, they said you have fantastic garden, a fantastic-


looking farm, you must have a lovely lifestyle there. You enter


into the badger scheme, you will come up with some consequences.


Bill Oddie is against the cull, he is with us. We will ask if the


killing of these animals make scientific sense.


The budget for overseas aid will sore next year, the PM confirms his


commitment, but is he right. There are concerns that the aid budget is


growing so fast that the civil servants in here are having to do


the equivalent of shovelling money out the door to get it out fast


enough. The Liberal Democrats are telling us why we should vote for


them in the next election. Tomorrow Nick Clegg will try to rival the


speech made by Vince Cable, he will say there is no turning back on


deficit reduction, and tell the country he's still strong enough to


make the tough choices. How does your brain respond to information,


pictures, number, words? Welcome to the art of data visualisation.


Good evening. Will badgers be to David Cameron what hunted foxes


became to Tony Blair? A totemic, or toxic symbol of the curious


relationship the English have with their animals, and something that


does not welcome political interference. Since the badger cull


received its license, 100,000 people petitioned to stop it.


We look at the intimidation for farmers by protesters. Some say the


cull will have no significant effect against TB, but the


Government says it has to be tried. In the dead of night, disputed


territory in the latest clash between farmers and wildlife


campaigners. Using a night vision camera, we


were secretly shown one of the largest sets in Gloucestershire, a


pilot zone for the mass slaughter of badgers. This is one of the


first areas where the cull will begin, in the Seth behind me, bait


will be -- set behind me, bait will be laid to encourage badgers to


come out to eat, when they are in the habit of doing, that they will


be shot. Cattle farmers say the move will


limited endless spread of TB through their herds. But the plans


are provoking fury. Any day now, the silence of the Gloucestershire


night will be broken, as campaigners rampage around the area,


making as much noise as possible to scare the badgers away. They say


that if they see anyone with a shotgun, they will stand in the way


to stop the badgers getting hurt. Protestor and farmer, there is a


gulf in mutual understanding and sympathy. Both are certain they are


right. January has helped organised the Gloucestershire -- Jan has


helped organised the Gloucestershire cull, his own farm


lies out of the boundary. TB has laid siege to his dairy herd,


costing him, he estimates, half a million pounds. We have to do


something different now, to sit back and let farmers take the


strain. We know DEFRA's budget is coming under pressure, cutbacks are


likely, pressure will be ramped up again. There is a huge threat to


the cattle industry this the west of the country, if we doesn't do


something effective against the disease. This protestor co-


ordinates the group Stop The Cull. He's promising direct action, and


wants to remain anonymous, in case he's targeted. We will be using


megaphones to disrupt the cull directly, so if we see maxmen and


see badgers we will make -- marksmen we will make noise to


scare them off. He is one of three groups opposed to the cull?


largest group RSPCA, with Brian May, they are broadly politically


lobbying. We are a direct action group going in, and stop the cull


taking place. There is a much more extreme group, which I would guess


would be the Animal Liberation Front. What sort of tactics are


they threatening? The Animal Liberation Front have put out


communiques saying they will superglue the cashpoints of


Sainsbury's. If it stocks milk from cull areas? Yes. It isn't just


protests, but locals are facing economic consequences too, with a


possible consumer boycott. Areas like Tewkesbury rely on the tourist


trade, while some supermarkets are reassuring their customers they


went stock milk that comes from the cull areas. The protesters claim


that farmers in Gloucestershire are losing heart, and support for the


cull. With some even pulling out because of the pressure. That's why


they are not taking part in the cull? Yes, they initial low said


they would, now they are saying they won't. -- initially said they


would, now they are saying they won't. What has changed their mind?


It is the amount of publicity it is getting and the amount of public


outcry. We talk today one of those farm,


she told us there was another reason for they are change of heart,


a threatening phone call. It was harassment, they said you have a


fantastic garden and farm, you must have a lovely lifestyle there,


enter in the badger scheme you will come up with some consequences. I'm


subsequently thinking about it all whether or not to go ahead, because


this is rather frightening. Stop The Cull says it doesn't support


such tactics? We condemn the harassment and damage to property.


Scientists agree killing most of the badgers in the pilot areas will


have an impact on cattle TB. If the full programme goes ahead, as many


as 100,000 badgers will be culled. Reducing cattle TB by 16%. The


argument between farmers and campaigners is whether that


reduction justifies the slaughter. I think the emotion and sentiment


about the badger is probably most of the problem. I think when, it is


very difficult, as a disease, to tell people all of the problems


with it, and how the badger is central in maintaining the


reservoir in it. Until we deal with it in a significant way, as yet


that may be vaccines and that is not ready for use, we have to look


at other ways of getting on top of the disease.


Vaccination, promoted as cure, not kill, is being tried over the


boarder in Wales. It's labour- intensive, with each badger being


trapped and injected. An oral vaccine will be more cost effective,


but is still in development. Another approach, the vaccination


of cattle, is banned by the EU. With no technical fix, the conflict


is moving towards difficult terrain, to be played out in darkness and in


anger. The badger minister, David Heath,


has gone underground, we are now joined from Leicester by the bird


watcher and broadcaster, Bill Oddie, who has campaigned against the cull,


and by Peter Kendall, President of the National Farmers' Union, David


Bowles from the RSPCA, and the Government aide Daniel Kawczynski.


Thank you for joining us. If I start with you, Bill Oddie, if


people are pulling out of these pilots, through intimidation, as


you heard in the piece, is that a good thing? I think I would


probably say it's the right result for the wrong reason. Because the


thing that bothers me most, I think, it never seems to get a mention, is


that we have, as conservationists, had an ever-improving relationship


with farmers for a considerable time now. That was very important,


because the British countryside and farmland in particular was losing


its wildlife. Not just badgers, losing wildlife all down the way.


And it's going to be very sad if we're now being set up against one


another. Because believe me, there are plenty of farmers, not just in


the cull areas, who have chosen not to go in with the cull. And it


would be very detrimental to British countryside and wildlife in


general. I certainly don't condone any kind of guerrilla violent


tactics. Although, I have to say, the practicality of carrying out


this cull is another big problem. I have watched enough badgers and


filmed enough badgers to know you only have to crack a twig and Mr


Badger is down in his set and he ain't coming out for several hours.


How on earth marksmen are going to wander round in pitch darkness and


shoot badgers, I simply don't know. There is bound to be confrontation.


Let me pick up, first of all with you David Bowles, the RSPCA, you


have heard Bill Oddie saying he condemns guerrilla violence tactics,


this is the way it is going to happen, people will be intimidated


out of participateing? We agree with Bill, we condemn violence on


all sides. There has been, what we are trying to do is to highlight


the fact that actually badger culling is not going to achieve


what we all want to achieve, which is a reduction in bovine TB in the


cattle herd. What we have seen is the Government saying to farmers,


if you go down this route your problems will be solved. They are


not, as you said in the piece, we could see reductions as little as


3% in the cull areas, and around about 16% as an average. That is


diney in terms of the fact you are wiping out 7 -- tiny in terms it of


the fact you are wiping out 70% of an animal. The reason for the


judicial review and the way the Government presented its figures,


it shows over the average nine years of the I -- scientific


reduction unit, if you go to those areas there is a 30% reduction, if


you go to Ireland, where they are doing a cull of badgers, there is


already over a 30% reduction. This isn't just one solution, we know we


have to work on cattle movements and vaccination as well. But,


reluctantly, and this is a big reluctant, because of exactly what


Bill said about the relationship with the countryside and everybody


who loves the countryside. Reluctantly we have to start and


wind back the reservoir of disease in badgers. Bill Oddie, I'm going


to let you come back. You said this was a friction between the farmers


and the conservationists, surely you want to wipe out that disease?


Of course, and conhave vaigsists have for years and years and years


-- conservationists have for years and years and years T has been


going on for many years. Proof in my hand of a publication from many


years ago from the Wildlife Trust, it is telling the members what the


problem is, and sympathiseing entirely with farmers and saying,


basically, we are trying to achieve the same thing. My argument,


frankly, if you want to put one set of people up against another set of


people, let's put the farmers aside, it is the conservationists against


this, flipping Government, who are showing a considerable ignorance


and arrogance in everything to do with the countryside and


agriculture. For the purposes of this debate you are the "flipping"


Government, you can respond? What Bill Oddie hasn't talked about is


the suffering of the badgers themselves, they suffer an


appalling death because of bovine tuberculosis. You are culling the


badgers so they feel better? limited cull of badgers, in hot


spot areas, in order to try to tackle this rampent disease, which


is blown out of all proportion against England. It is a bit


cynical to say the badge letters be feeling better, why not stand up


and say it is about industry and protecting those people who need


your support? Representing a rural constituency like slowsbury, I have


sat on many occasion -- Shrewsbury, I have sat on many occasions with


farmers in their kitchens and seen grown men cry when all of their


herds have been slaughtered. The devastation it causes to families,


to smie Shropshire farm -- my Shropshire farmers and my dairy


farmers, I would suggest it that Bill Oddie spend time with my


constituents and farmers, and see the devastation they are going


through because of the lack of action from the Labour


administration for many years? Is it not a political thing that you


want to be seen to be doing something, and that is what your


Government is about, we have done something. We have a duty and


responsibility, Sir, to ensure that there is, that England does


continue to have a dairy industry. And unless we take these steps,


thousands of dairy farmers will go out of business. That is not true.


Let's talk about the dairy question for a second, there is now a


campaign that others have signed to try to get supermarkets to register


the equivalent of dolphin-friendly tuna, for example, millk from


places badgers have not been culled. Is that workable and would you


support it, should people be buying milk that hasn't come from those


farms? To start off with you said the Number Ten petition had 100,000


signatures, one of the fastest- growing petitions in over two weeks,


it is still going up. It shows the depth of frustration and anger from


the public. We have known from the two Government consultations that


the majority of the public do not want to see culling. That is


specifically about the culling, would you like people to boycott


milk that didn't come from badger- friendly farms? We want people to


be given the choice, whether to buy milk from a badger cull area or not.


It is a simple consumer choice issue, it is not a boycott. At the


moment they don't have that choice. Modern dairy issues are incredibly


complicated, sometimes supermarkets buy an aggregated supply, and


sometimes from a few producers. You know the problems the dairy


industry is having in the UK at the moment, to try to bankrupt and put


people out of business and stop people being involved and trying to


save an industry. That is what I worry about this debate. In 1998


there were 9,000 cattle slaughtered, last year there were 32,000 cattle


slaughtered because of TB, this is an explosion of disease, we must do


something about it. To try to drive people out of business to stop them


tackling the reservoir of disease I think is an incredibly


irresponsible line to take. What we don't know, if we get the licenses


in both these areas happening, the Government has then said they will


go to ten additional culls each year, where do we stop, do we wipe


out 70% of the badgers in the south west of England, all over England.


This is a protected species. The ironic thing is, just across the


border from Daniel's constituency s the Welsh Government, looking at


the same science and statistics have decided to go down a humane


vaccination route, rather than a cull route. The most important


thing to remember here is the Government has had a consultation


on this. The scientists. The Government got rid of all its


vaccination trials when it came into power, it didn't want to spend


the money on it? Over 50% of the Government said they -- public said


they didn't want the cull, the Government ignored them.


Government line on this, to have a limited cull of badgers has the


backing of the High Court. The scam badgers' Trust took us to court and


the court ruled in our favour. What all of us have to remember is the


High Court has assessed, and taken a huge amount of time to look


through all the evidence and they backed us.


If this turns into the equivalent of the fox-hunting ban for Tony


Blair, which he then said he regreted, would it be worth it?


very pleased that my neighbour, Owen Patterson, the new DEFRA


secretary, he is committed to this, I, and other rural MPs, who have a


duty and responsibility to our dairy farmer, will insist the


Government fulfils this obligation in this matter. Let me ask you


about the practicalities of this now, do you think they will be able


to stop this going ahead? Who was that question to you -- Who was


that question to? To you, Bill weeks ago and said I'm afraid this


was going to turn nasty. It didn't powers to say that. It is perfectly


obvious that it was. It will. It is police will be the next people who


guarantee the safety of people in an area where there are people with


guns, at night, in the dark, and other people wandering around


trying to interrupt them. on this, is more than the amount


It is not, the message Bill should be tweeting and the RSPB, is this


should not turn nasty, all of the organisations campaigning against


the cull should put out a really big signal that lady shouldn't meal


will turn nasty, I would like to see all the campaigners for


wildlife to say it shouldn't turn nasty, we should put a message out


saying this sort of behaviour is beyond the pale. We don't want to


there are people who also feel intimidated and scared to speak out,


actually against the cull, because they feel that they are intimidated.


Thank you very much all of you. It may have been clever once, but


does it still make political sense be going up by a third next year,


when every other budget is going the Conservative decontamination


project, might now look too much like a political gamble, when, say


many in the party, there is plenty of suffering close to home. Tonight


at the UN, David Cameron will restate his commitment to overseas


aid, despite hints that his development secretary has questions


of her own, she will be by his side. For all the high-volume campaigning


of Live Aid, the commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP is actually far


older, it goes way back to the UN in 1970. The United Nations


sponsored arrangement in 1970, it had no rhyme or reason, most


countries now don't bother about it at all. We are giving now, in this


country, more aid than any other country in the world with the


exception of the United States, which, of course, is immensely


richer than we are. Progress towards this goal has not


been very impressive. Only Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden and the


Netherlands manage it, according to the OECD, with Belgium not far


behind, and then comes Britain on 0.6%. We are committed to hitting


the target by 2013. The Prime Minister arrived in New York today,


his first stop was to meet a group of young entrepeneurs, but tomorrow


he will address the General Assembly of the UN, and tell them


that the 0.7% commitment is more important than ever, and he will


reaffirm Britain's commitment to it. This is where David Cameron's


pledge gets made into reality, the Department for International


Development in London. But there is, though, scepticism within Mr


Cameron's own party, that this huge increase in Britain's aid budget


will be well spent. Peter Bone is a Conservative MP, who almost


singlehandedly attempts to get the 0.7% enshrined in British law.


are talking from going from �7 billion a year to �12 billion in


aid. In other words you could have �5 billion of tax cuts to get the


economy going, without affecting any level of overseas aid, just


keep it at the same level we have inherited. When we came to power we


said overseas aid was poorly spent f we spent it better rather than


increasing it, we are hooked on the 0.7%. The rise in the international


development budget is spectacular, when set alongside other


unfortunate Government departments. It has a rise of 34% over the next


few years, the NHS is just about keeping pace with inflation. Wheen


mile defence, education, the Home Office, communities and local


Government, almost every other Government department is taking a


big hit. Some influential Conservatives think this sends an


important message about the Government's priorities. There are


a number of things that David Cameron did to try to show that the


Conservative Party was different from the Conservative Party of old.


And things like committing to the poorest people of the world, things


like maintaining the NHS budget. Things like gay marriage, are


absolute signs that he is still the modernising Tory that he presented


himself to the electorate before the election. As Britain's aid


budget has increased, critics say all we are doing is spending more


money on more marginal and questionable project. Indeed the


Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons has concluded that


the Department of Development doesn't have the capacity to spend


all this extra money on its own projects, instead it is having to


funnel it through outside organisations with lower levels of


accountability, it is doing this, say MPs, not because this is a


smarter way of spending public money, no, they are doing it, they


say, because it is easier. The way the projects are described is


extremely vague, for example, �3020 million has gone to improve the


Kenyan Government's accountability to its citizens. �94 million is


going to improve the quality of life and opportunity for 2.4


million in the Kolkata Metropolitan area. If you are worrying that all


this is adding to our national debt, you might not like to know that


�1,-- �1.4 million is to improve the economic debt of the Government


of Jamaica. The House of Lords has admitted that British aid is often


counter-productive, with much of it lost to corruption and middle men.


It is a bonanza of consultants, it is these who are employed at large


costs by the department to help them do their job. It is the


consultants who are the main beneficiaries of the aid programme,


rather than the poor people in the poor countries one would like to


see benefiting from economic growth and economic development.


Some Conservatives had hoped that the appointment of Jeremy


Greenstock as the new development secretary, and -- Justine Greening,


in the reshuffle as new Development Secretary, would help with the


downgrading of aid, she is with the Prime Minister in New York, and we


are told, fully signed up to the target.


Our guests are with us. Ian Birrell, former adviser to David Cameron,


now contributing editor of the Daily Mail is with me too. Adrian,


when you look at the figures and see the jump in real terms, when


every other department is getting cut, it is unjustifiable, isn't it?


I don't think it is, firstly because it is affordable, the


figure you didn't hear there, and which the British public rarely


hears, that actually this costs just over a penny on each pound of


Government revenue, Government spending. A penny on the pound, 99p


goes elsewhere. Just a penny going towards the outcomes we are seeing


from British aid. You are still talking about a jump from �7


billion to �12 billion. These are substantialal sums of money at a


time when things are not affordable? Taking away that aid


budget, if you took it all away, you would barely make a dent in the


trillion-pound debt that we have in the UK today. But the difference


that aid is making is much more specific, actually, than your


report showed there. For the investment that Britain will make


in the next few years, the increase you just talked about, 16 million


children will go to school, who don't currently go to cool. 80 mill


-- school. 80 million will be vaccinated against life-threatening


diseases, 77 million will get access to things like bank accounts,


and things that help them work their way out of poverty. What kind


of place would we be if we said no to that? The other way of putting


the figure is it is �300 a household spent on aid. It is very


outdated policy, nothing to do with modernisation, it is anachronism


based on ideas around years ago. Educating children? The watchdog


said �1 billion was spent theoretically on educating children


in three African countries, and there was no improvement in


literacy or numeracy, it is about achieving targets and not about on


the ground. That is the biggest problem, I wouldn't object if the


aid was doing something to help. But it is not. I would have no


problem if it was going to help, it is corrosive, it is corroding the


connection between Governments and people. It is fuelling conflict. A


lot of the aid money, two-thirds of aid workers say the projects don't


work. This is in this huge great booming industry, where consultants


are getting rich. Let's not forget, for all the talk we hear about


education and health, actually �1.3 billion goes to the EU and improves


food labelling in Iceland and cleans up the EU. The whole thing


ising a fast thing, D of IFD don't know what to do with the money and


are shovelling out of it and lots of people get rich on the back of


it. No money that goes to Iceland does that, it does to accession


into the EU. That is the misunderstanding. It comes out of


the aid budget. It doesn't. It goes on food labelling. Address the


question of consultants which is a major one, �500 million last year,


paid to consultants, many of those sums of money go straight into the


pockets of the bosses who run them? I think it is absolutely right that


Justine Greening take as close look at it and goes through it line by


line and see where the money goes. It worries you? Absolutely. These


are big challenges, we need experts wrecks need people who have dealt


with these problems before to bring it to bear. Some of those will be


consultants. Of course she should go through and see is there money


to be spent here better spent in other ways. It is very convenient


just to say it will do more harm than good. It is very nice if it we


can turn around and say, let's keep all the money, there must be better


solutions than that? Take the former head. DIFD in Rwanda saying


it is the least effective public service there. You would like the


pledge to be dropped? It is meaningless and the target


ridiculous. It attacks welfare dependency at home and encourages


it at home, it says that it distorts targets, and it is based


on figures from the 1940s, when the UN looked at the figures six years


ago and said the target should be 0.44%. Does it matter to you if it


is just about a political strategy of decontamination, does it make


any difference to how you see this? In a sense it doesn't matter. It is


the policy. I don't believe it is just about that. I understand the


argument that is being put across there. It is the policy, it was the


policy of all three major parties at the last election, and so,


what's happening now is simply the enactment of democracy, in fact,


actually when you go out and talk to people. 77% of people oppose it.


Not really. A year ago when people were asked in a fair way, not given


the recession do you think we can afford the aid budget. Lots of


people supported Live Aid? Most recent surveys show support is


falling. It is veryiesy for an organisation founded like One, who


is founded by rock stars not paying their full whack in tax, shown up


for that. To advocate that people struggling in this country should


pay out a lot of money on projected that don't work, and shown time and


time again that they don't work, and not wanted by ordinary people.


If the same amount of money was paid, not in the way it is now, but


to disasters and emergencies, you wouldn't have a problem? There are


issues, there is so much money, when you have a disaster you have


1,000 aid groups turning up and chaos on the ground, and the cost


of housing and food soaring. And many of those saying there is a


huge problem with aid groups because there is so much aid money


sloshing around. Those campaigning every day on the issues snow it is


an investment we can afford, it is cheaper than people believe, and it


is making a bigger difference than people believe and we should


continue with it. Are current Lib Dem tactics working, Nick Clegg


will set out how he intends to attract voters in his loader's


speech tomorrow. Documents leaked today claim there is no real


evidence their current strategy is working. Our political editor is in


Brighton now. Take us through the documents, what happened? While we


have been on air the Lib Dem leader and his wife walked past us, he has


been practising his speech all night. He takes the speech


incredibly seriously. Some documents came out today, they told


people what they knew here already, that it is very difficult to see


what message is working, particularly well for the Lib Dems,


in either the south or the north of England. But back to that speech.


That speech is why he made that apology last week, to much mirth


and muttering from people. He wanted to clear the decks, so


tomorrow he would be listened to with a message that they think can


last the next two weeks and put them in a better place than the


documents do suggest. The trouble is, lots of people here, activists


and MPs, wonder about the strategy. The strategy is to carve out a new


role for them in the centre of British politics. In the speech


tomorrow he will talk about British politics being about three parties,


not two, and they will being a small third party. With that he has


messages on the deficit. At the start of the week we had soft


language for his party, who were worried about the economy and


deficit reduction. Today and tomorrow we will start to see them


hardening up again as they send their delegates on their way.


Saying we will have to find lots of cuts, just like the Conservatives


will. So there is that message, there is also something to make


them happier. There will be a policy on education and language


around the environment. What he's trying to do is position them on


the centre. Many MPs and activists are not sure that necessarily works.


It may work in 15-20 years time, that is a generational struggle,


that doesn't necessarily get them through the next general election.


One more thing, people are quoting David Lloyd George, he said if


you're going to jump across a chasam, it is best to do it in one


step. Thank you very much. The magic of television being what


it is, you might, indeed, recognise the next backdrop, the one you have


just seen for our guest, the Lib Dem Home Office Minister, Jeremy


Browne, who is, as we speak, swapping a quickstep with Allegra


to speak with us now, about those issues she has been raising. We


will go to him now. Let's start, first of all, Jeremy Browne, with


this issue of the leaked document, showing "very little valid evidence


that tactics work". I don't know about the leaked development, I


don't think that is central to the big choices the party is facing.


Nick Clegg will lay out the big choices tomorrow in his speech. As


Allegra just said, there are two essential messages that hang


together, one is a Deputy Prime Minister message, and the other is


a Liberal Democrat party leader message. The Deputy Prime Minister


message is the country needs to make the transition from austerity


to prosperity. That will require some difficult decisions of us all.


The Liberal Democrat leader message is the party needs to make the


journey from opposition to Government, protest to power. That


will require some tough decisions as well. Those two journeys are


interlinked and the suck he is of the Liberal Democrats and the


success of the country depends on them both working out what. I want


to go back to these reports, that came from. Don't worry about the


trivia, worry about the big central message. That's the big central


message. Is it trivial. I have just told you what the big...I Have just


told you what the strategy is, I have just told you what the


strategy is. Because something is leaked doesn't make it inherently


interesting. That is for me a side show. The party leader, the Deputy


Prime Minister of the country, is talking about what we need to do as


a country to ensure Britain's future prosperity and quality of


life and standard of living, and about how the Liberal Democrats can


make the journey from being a party of opposition for 75 years, to one


of the three governing options in this country for the next


generation those are really crucial messages right through and beyond


2015. As you said before. If your tactics are working and your


strategy is getting through to people. Why, on a central issue,


like universal welfare, very rich mentioners receiving benefits and


Winter Fuel Allowances and all the rest of it, why do we have that one


policy, one day, five different views from all the Lib Dem


ministers at the conference here. Different views from David Laws,


Vince Cable, Nick Clegg, and Mr Foster, you can't even centrally


agree on something like that? Government has made the policy


completely plea -- completely clear. There is a question for the future


if it is a good use of reforce relatively poor people in work to


have their taxes used to give a lot of money to people like Alan Sugar


and Peter Stringfellow. I would have thought, intelligent people,


watching this programme, would be interested in intelligent debate at


a party conference about whether poor people in work should


subsidise the lifestyle of Alan Sugar, that isn't an issue for the


Autumn Statement or budget. There is a big message here, when the


Government says we are all in it together, that is true. Maybe


people think it is a Conservative slogan or they don't like the


slogan. The central truth of it remains, which is we are borrowing


as a country a billion pounds every three days. That is not sustainable.


If we are not make the journey from austerity to shared prosperity, we,


as a country, will have to face up to difficult but hard truths. And


he as a leader of a party right in the centre ground of politics will


be able to talk about that some. -- tomorrow.


Was the apology of Nick Clegg a success. I know you are hoping for


number 40 in the UK charts with a turn around of it. Was it a


constructive use of the message? There is a serious point here. We


are half way through the parliament, the question for the party is


whether we spend ages analysing decisions made in 2010 or go on for


2015. There are two groups of people, knows who won't give Nick


Clegg a hearing whatever he says. Those people will say they don't


like him or agree with what he's saying. There are other people out


there, those less likely to phone into talk shows and express their


views in vosive rus terms, they understand that Nick Clegg hadn't


been in Government and the party hadn't been in for many generations


and accept that it is a place to make mistakes in politics, and


accept that he made the mistake, and are willing to accept the


things he has done and give him a fair hearing tomorrow. As minister


for state for crime reduction, do you think when a police officer is


sworn at by a member of public, do you think that person should be


arrested? That is an artful way of asking yesterday another Andrew


Mitchell question, which has been a theme of the media through the


conference. I think the Prime Minister got it right when he said


that what Andrew Mitchell was reported as saying was wrong and


inappropriate, that's the point of view put by the Prime Minister, all


the people watching will agree with that. Does he have to say more to


explain himself, or has he done enough, according to you? I think


people watching the programme will agree that if what he is report to


have said is what he said, or anything approximating to that is


what he said, and of course, Andrew Mitchell denies that he said what


the police officer claimed he said. Well, that whole way of talking to


a person like a police officer is clearly an inappropriate way, let


alone a Government minister. I think for people to behave


generally, it is not a question of the law but a question of good


planners. Are you an image person or a word person, do you remember


voices from the radio or faces from the television, if you had had to


learn something off by heart, how would you do it. The science or art


of data visualisation, is the growing philosophy of how best to


project the material on to our brains when information is


screaming at us all the time. The most successful in their field will


be recognised at an award ceremony from London's ICA, we will hear


from two Evangelists in the field in a moment. Here is a little of


what we are talking about. The war is currently costing us �12 million


a day. That is the same cost as employing 100,000 nurses and


150,000 care workers. How did you feel about what you just heard from


Tony Benn, now let's hear it again with the right pictures. The war is


currently costing us over �12 mill kwhron a day. That is the same cost


-- �12 million day, that is the same cost as 100,000 nurses and


150,000 care worker. To theal cost of civilian Afghans dead, like the


cost of war is unknown, but cautious estimates exceed 40,000


people. Did the visuals heighten the impact. The theory of data


visualisation, a sin they sees of story telling, regurpblg station


and design, hits different parts of the train, maybe more analytical.


Take this one, what American voters care about. You can click on


"climate change" and see how attitudes have changed year by year,


Democrat and Republican. Then click on terrorism instead and do it all


again. The process makes you feel stimulated and informed, is it


meritricious. In the data bank of power plants and factories around


the world, 20 -times more complex than any previous virus code, it


had an array of capablities, the ability to turn up the pressure


among nuclear reactors or switch off oil pipeline, and they could


tell the system operators everything was normal. It looks


beautiful, but the visuals are just glorified subtitles, is data


visualisation truly a new art form, or the pop culture offspring of


real analysis. I'm joined by two data


visualisation specialists, the founder of Information Is Beautiful


awards, and Kenneth Neil Cukier, the data visualisation expert from


the Economist Magazine. Do you have a sense that we are taking more in,


or we are just taking it in a different way? It feels there is a


lot more data and information around. We are looking for some


kind of solution that allows us to gobble that information and


understand it on the fly. When we are moving fast. Data


visualisingation seems to be able to translate that understanding


quicker than text. Is it more polemic, sub blimal messages, the


way that used to -- subliminal information in a way it used to?


Probably not. The visualisation will have the same shortcomings as


words. You can do more with it than words and less than others. It is a


new medium, there is a Rennaissance going on of the new tools we have


to show highly quantitative information, to say it is more poll


lem kal, probably not. Let's look at a few examples, you have brought


in favourites, and the viewers will know it as what we call chart porn,


a way to get people to look at things they like looking at it.


What is this? It is Denmark looking at survey results about Islamic


head dress. The designer has done a pie chart and used the medium


itself to express it. It is the way of opening up the subject, and


stopping the enwit that we have when we look at it. You have the


equivalent of the bar chart on the headbands? It is using a different


approach to visualise that data. Has more impact and is more


memorable. Take us through the next one, the 999 calls? In New York


they have 311 for non-emergency phone calls, the municiple services,


this, going from left to right is the frequency of certain types of


calls in a period. The noise is the pink bar going through the middle.


You have dead animal removal, road kill, a big issue in New York.


Noisy neighbours, graffiti, and so on. Why is that more effective than


a bar chart that could show meet same thing? It is depicting it as a


landscape. You can roamit yourself and find your own connections,


explore patterns. It is also showing lots of variables all at


once. It is showing a vast and extraordinary amount of information,


that you can take in immediately. Imagine if you worked in public


serves and you wanted to bring those who are specialists to this


type of complaint with the complaint that was made. With lost


property you want it in the afternoon. You know that now


through this. With the dead animal removal, you want to do that


quickly, because it could be a source of health hazard. You would


know when to put the person there who would be able to interact with


the caller better to get emergency people to clean it up. Looking at


your examples, they pick out the US map and the states, using it to


very different effect. This was a mind-boggle when I saw it, I


couldn't get my head round it? Great, it was not so great it was a


mind boggle, but it is an interactive map, if you could mouse


over it you could see more data. Russia is where Texas is. The map


in the United States, in the form of the GDP of the country, that the


state corresponds to. Texas has $1 trillion in terms of wealth in


terms of the size of the economy. So has Russia, we put that there


together. Who knew that Italy, the bot of Europe, should have an


economy about the second or eighth largest in the world, also the size


of California, $2 trillion. Greece we think is basket case because of


the problems they face. Washington state is a small but important


economy in America. You have the same in population. They stay with


this map and it changes colour, talk us through now. Saudi Arabia


has the same number of people as Texas? That's right. 25 million


people in Saudi Arabia, it is one of the geopolitically strategic


countries in the world. Mexico may not be strategic, depending on


butter reet toes, but you can see that Texas punches above its weight


in terms of those 25 million people having a presance if it was its own


state. Poland has large state, so too California has a massive state


for America. It is a way of reconcept actualising the United


States, for many people it is breath taking that this one country,


without one country in the UN, has the heft that it does. Fascinating,


thank you very much. That is all we have time for in Newsnight tonight,


Paul Mason is here tomorrow, from Paul Mason is here tomorrow, from


all of us, a very good night. The worst is nearly over, certainly


by Wednesday things looking better across the northern half of the UK,


in terms of the lack of rain out of the sky. Heavy showers further


south. A welcome return of sunshine in northern parts of England,


Northern Ireland and southern Scotland. One or two showers in


Northern Ireland, nothing like the intensity we have seen. Further


south a scattering of heavy showers, sunshine inbetween. Temperatures


into the mid-teens not feeling too bad. The south west of England,


South Wales, could be the focus of heavier downpour. Not the


widespread rain seen recently, the ground saturated, so more localised


problems maybe. For Northern Ireland it looks like staying dry,


temperatures around 14. A cool breeze flowing from the north. That


is the story across much of Scotlanded today. 1 degrees in


Inverness, and glos co-a fairly ples -- 14 degrees in innerves, but


With the cull of badgers about to begin, Newsnight speaks to protesters about their tactics to stop the killing. Farmers and wildlife experts join Emily Maitlis to discuss whether shooting badgers will prevent the spread of bovine TB.

Download Subtitles