02/10/2012 Newsnight


Can Ed Miliband convince? Afghan asylum seekers in Britain. And we talk to musician Bobby Womack about the poor in America.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 02/10/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



One-nation under Ed, the leader of the Labour Party delivers a speech


unlike any we have ever heard from him. That spirit of one-nation,


one-nation, a country where everyone has a stake, one-nation, a


country where prosperity is fairly shared, one-nation, where we have a


shared destiny. What would Benjamin Disraeli, the Conservative who


invented the one-nation idea make of the Miliband version. More to


the point, what will the people of the 21st century make of it.


How much does an Afghan have to do for our Armed Forces before we let


him live here. This one was blown up, but still denied asylum. Even


after this, I have left my job, they will kill me for sure, they


won't let me. They need to take their revenge.


Over in the corner of the studio, the President of the Royal Society


of Chemistry tests a scientific phenomenon that defeated Aristotle,


why does hot water freeze faster than cold water.


He didn't say "prick me, do I not bleed", but Ed Miliband, generally


considered the low-calorie calibre of party leader, did pull over a


pretty good speech today. No script and some bad joke, they all seemed


pretty impressed in the hall where the Labour Party was having its


get-together. That is not a normal cross section of people. In the man


of the blind the one-eyed man is king, of course. Labour know if


they are to have a chance of winning the next election, Ed


Miliband has to make much more of an impression than he has managed


to do so far. Allegra Stratton there was. He seemed to have


impressed them. Can you speak 70 minutes without notes. Two minutes


is tricky enough. It was quite electric, I was standing near some


people who have been very critical of him before, it was amazing. My


theory is this, he's now up to his opt number -- optimum operating


capacity. This is Ed Miliband he knew he could be and his team, but


this is the Ed Miliband we haven't seen since he was Environment


Secretary, or running to be Labour leader. It was went back when it


was promised this guy could do something, he got the job and he


did wobble for a long time. He has only really righted himself today.


There have been some impressive substantial speeches recently, but


not in terms of performance. There were arguments in today's speech,


but I think he's been making them before, actual low, it is just that


he sort of opted for this one- nation thing, which is cheekiness.


What, for me, was the key thing, was the performance. The confidence


it will give him shouldn't be underestimated, when he now has the


quite formidable task of going out and turning that, the newspaper


reported them yesterday, the two out of ten who think he would be


the good Prime Minister, into a lot more. You look sceptical. Do you


think people will genuinely change their political allegiance that he


can deliver an apparently unscripted speech for over an hour?


Of course not. What speech like this do is give a movement and team


a sense of confidence, and a hall and party a sense of confidence.


There may be a few people out there who will start to notice. We are


two-and-a-half years away from an election, people aren't going to


form their judgments now. What, I think, we should bear in mind with


the polls, they are very damning for him, they have a lot of work on


that. The work they also had on speech-making, they now clearly


don't have to do. But in terms of those polls, the thing people say


is, of course people see David Cameron as Prime Minister, because


I is Prime Minister. It is difficult when you are the --


because he is Prime Minister. It is very difficult when you are the


leader of the opposition to do that, it is difficult to convey that. He


has a huge way to go, it is just one of the things he had to tick


off, he did tick off today. Week two, day two, 2.00pm, party


leader two of the invisible party conference season.


Another leader arriving for their speech, a speech destined to be


forgotten. The mid-term director- general. Move along, there is


nothing to see here. -- dirge. Move along, there is nothing to see here.


Us journalists like to say this is the speech of someone's life,


usually it isn't. This one is moderately to very important, he


has to prove at this prifvot point in parliament that he has the ideas.


The trouble for the speech writers is this is something


impersuceptible, people here and out there will feel it in their gut.


From the beginning he was going for the guts. This, is actually quite


rare. Only one problem, where is my speech. I want to do something


different today. I want to tell you my story. I want to tell you who I


am, what I believe, and why I have a deep conviction that together we


can change this country. My conviction is rooteded in my


family's story. A story that starts a thousand miles from here. Because


the Milibands haven't sat under the same oak tree for the last 500


years. No notes, no elect tern, no guide text for people like me, this


was 70 minutes of not particularly new personal anecdotes, but


defiantly new confidence, and a defiantly new argument. For many,


this was pre-leadership Miliband, back when he was promise, not


disappointment. My parents didn't tell me what career to go into. My


late father, some of you know, wouldn't agree with many of the


things I stand for. He would have loved the idea of Red Ed! But, he


would have been a little disappointed it wasn't true. My mum


probably doesn't agree with me either, but like most mums, is too


kind to say so! Look, when I was younger, I wasn't certain I wanted


to be a politician, but I do believe the best way for me to give


back to Britain, the best way to be true to my faith, is through


politics. Then, for the political cross


dressing, so beloved of our leaders. 140 years ago to the year, another


leader of the opposition gave a speech. It was in Free Trade Hall


that used to stand opposite this building, it's a rad son now, by


the way. His -- Radisson now, by the way. His name was Benjamin


Disraeli, he was a Tory, but don't let that put you off, for the


moment. Let's remember what Disraeli was celebrated for, it was


a vision of Britain, where passion, loyalty, dedications to the common


cause, courses through the veins of all, and nobody feels left out. It


was a vision of Britain coming to the to overcome the challenges we


face. Disraeli called it "One Nation". We heard the phrase again


as the country game together to defeat facisim, and we heard it


again as Clement Attlee's Labour Government rebuilt Britain after


the war. Friends, I didn't become leader of the Labour Party to


reinvent the world of Disraeli, or Attlee, but I do believe in that


spirit. The Tories would later attack Miliband, saying he cannot


be one-nation, when a day earlier he launched class warfare on the


Prime Minister. But their private worry is that Miliband has launched


class warfare on the very rich, aligning himself with everybody


else. Next April David Cameron will be writing a cheque for �40,000 to


each and every millionaire in Britain. The Prime Minister is not


actually doing that, but Miliband's game is clear. That is more than


the average person earns in a whole year. And he thrilled lots of bet-


makers with the "P" word. I say this, you can't be a one-nation


Prime Minister if you raise taxes on ordinary families and cut taxes


for millionaires. You can't be a one-nation Prime Minister if all


you do is seek to divide the country. Divide the country between


north and south, public and private, those who can work and those who


can't work. And you can't be a one- nation Prime Minister if your Chief


Whip insults the great police officers of our country by calling


them plebs! The rhythm was not the usual sterile patter of political


speeches, sometimes it showed, polish relinquished for a bit of


personality. Have you ever seen a more incompetent, hopeless, out-of-


touch, U-turning, pledge-breaking, make-it-up-as-you-go-along, back-


of-the envelope shower than this Prime Minister and his Government.


That is my faith. One o'Clock Gun nation, a country for all, -- one-


nation, a country for all, everyone playing their part, a Britain we


rebuild together. Thank you very much.


Wow, I was wrong, that was probably the best speech Ed Miliband has


given since becoming leader, even critics of his standing next to me


watching it, accepted it was a very powerful speech. I would say he


would now be pleased with both the voice he has shown to the public


and the argument he has made. It is now over to you whether you like


that voice and accept the argument. There were policies announced today,


there was an argument, there was even some political ancestor


stealing. Individually they are not the story. Today belongs to the


inperSeptemberabilities of parliament, Ed Miliband landed one


in the gut. The designated Ed Miliband


cheerleader for tonight is the Shadow Business Secretary, Chuka


Umunna. He's in Manchester. Can you tell us, Chuka Umunna. Hi Jeremy.


Hell lo. How is a one-nation Labour Party blifrpb different --


different from previous Labour parties? The message Ed got over


successfully today, is we have big problems as a country, we have the


short-term challenges around growth, we need growth back in the economy.


We have got long-term economic challenges, which require a


complete restructuring and building of a new economy. Viewers of this


programme are really facing the biggest squeeze on their living


standards in a generation. The question is, how do you tackle


that? Do you want to answer my question, how is the Labour Party a


one-nation Labour Party, different to other Labour parties? If you


look at our embrace of business, that, perhaps, is not something


that has been associated with say, old Labour, in the times past. The


point we have been making today is, for example, yes, we're looking to


the private sector to grow the economy in the future, and business


has a role in, that but we are looking for business to work in


partnership with our FE sector, to produce the training and skilling


up of our young people that are needed to power our economy. If you


say look at the message in and around banking, Jeremy, we are


saying, for example, in relation to banking, look, it is not a question


of banker-bashing, we actually want to see the banking sector reformed,


restored to its former greatness, but to serve the real economy, to


serve our small and medium-sized business. So on the line, if you


have a line from the Labour Party, Michael Foot on one end, Tony Blair


on the other, where abouts is Miliband's Labour Party? I wouldn't,


I'm not necessarily in favour of defining by personalities. I think


the point is we are Social Democrats. It is by policy, is what


I'm looking for? We are democratic socialists, or whatever you want to


call it. We believe we are mutually independent, we want to give


individuals and the families the platform to go on to achieve their


dreams and aspiration, we believe that is only in the context of a


strong society. That involves much of our approach to how we think we


should resolve the issues facing the economy. That is why we argue


for an active industrial strategy, where you have Government acting


collaberatively with business to produce solutions. That is


different from the story extrapolate of things, their


assessment is the best thing Government can do, is stand aside,


deregulate everything and leave it to the market. If we learned


nothing from the 2009/09 crash, that is a broken and failed


approach. Ed Miliband said everyone has to contribute to the success.


This one-nation slogan is absurd, when less than 19%, or fewer than


19% of the electorate bothered to vote for you? Well, it is not


absurd at all, it is about one- nation Britain, it is about


everybody. To my mind, what it takes to transform the economy, to


transform all of our lives, it is a difficult situation. That is


requiring everyone to play their part, that is a slightly different


issue as to whether they vote. I tell you what is relevant. This was


a personal speech, Ed was explaining why he believes in what


he believes in, why does he have faith in all of us as one British


people, to sort out the problems that we have got. So you have got


quite a lot of detail about his back story and his family. I'm glad


you have brought up this voting issue, Jeremy, actually, one of the


biggest problems facing us as politicians, people thinking we are


all the same. Incredibly people, a lot of people are angry with what


the Government has done, in my constituency I have 15 people


chasing every Jobcentre Plus vacancy at the moment, a lot of


them are very angry. A lot of people are disillusioned with


politics. Ed was seeking to say today, this is what I believe and


why I believe what I believe, I'm not just any old politician, I'm


serious about delivering the change for you and your familiar loose.


When he talks about -- Families. When he talks about David Cameron


writing a cheque for �40,000 for every millionaire in the country.


What he's really telling us is that's what he sees is the


management of the economy, that is not what David Cameron is doing,


and you know it's not what he's doing, what he's proposing to do is


not take away from them �40,000. In that sort of language, Ed Miliband


is making it quite clear what he sees as the role of the state and


taxation, isn't he? I just simply don't agree with your analysis. The


simple fact is, one of the reasons that the cut in the top rate of tax.


That is air money, that is the analysis? Why it was so toxic. I


will tell you the real analysis behind it, that was so toxic for


the Government. It was toxic for the Government because they were


doing it at the same time they were, for example, imposing a granny tax


and various other things. Do you really think he's writing �40,000


cheques for every mill tkwron air in the country, you don't believe


that, you are a highly intelligent man? The effect of reducing the top


rate of income tax from 50p to 40p, is to give them a tax break in the


region of �40,000. This isn't a Labour or Conservative issue.


is not writing them a cheque? not a left or right issue, Jeremy


that is a right or a wrong issue. The eyes of most of your viewers,


to go and dish out a tax break, in that order, to the richest people


in this country, at the same time as I have just explained to you,


for example in my constituency I have 15 people chasing every


Jobcentre Plus vacancy at the moment. That is just wrong. That is


wrong to most people watching this programme. This point he made today


about not being willing to see a growth in the gap between rich and


poor, why does he believe that now, and didn't believe it when you were


in Government? I think he's always believed that. I have always


believed that. Why did the gap get bigger then? Because, obviously, we


should have done more to close the relevant gap -- relative gap.


incompetence is it? Of course not. You believe something that you


couldn't make happen? Let me answer the question. The fact is s we lost


in 2010 for a reason -- -- is we lost in 2010 for a reason, we


didn't get everything right. It is a source of regret that the


relative gap grew in our time of Government, despite the fact we


drew many people out of poverty. What the people want to win back


their support, they want us to demonstrate humility, and not that


we carry on as if we are entitled to their support, we are not, we


have to win it back by showing good policies that make a difference to


them. For example, the focus today on the forgotten 50% of people who


don't go on to university, but who need those highly-skilled


Vocational Qualifications in engineering, for example, we are


saying we need more focus on that. We need to change the situation


where, for example, only a third of large firms are providing


apprenticeship, so we have more apprenticeships for people going


not going to university. These make a practical difference to people's


lives, that is how you demonstrate that you are serious about


affecting change. We have reconvened the Newsnight political


panel, who have been watching speeches since Disraeli gave his


speeches. Danny Finkelstein, who used to be speechwriter for Robert


Peel, and writer on the times, and we have an adviser to Gordon Brown,


and Miranda Green who used to be an adviser to Paddy Ashdown, previous


leader of the Liberal Democrats. What did you think? Fluent,


effective, it will have achieved with the audience, very important,


in Westminster and in the party, greater kfdeoints in Ed Miliband's


leadership. -- confidence in Ed Miliband's leadership. Personally I


think he's too far to the left. He doesn't agree with the analysis and


doesn't accept the moderniser PlayBook. I don't agree, he has


made it clear and the party conference made it clear that is


where they are going to stand. did you think? It was a fantastic


performance, he looked as if he was enjoying himself. We haven't seen


Ed looking like he was enjoying being Labour leader for quite a


while. It will mean Labour voters will have a spring in their step.


That is important. One of the things we have seen is Ed has


underperformed with Labour voters, by contrast, with how Cameron has


with Conservative voters. If he achieves that, that will be a big


achievement. How did you enjoy it? I enjoyed it very much. There were


some quite good jokes in it? There were, it was a good performance, I


hold my hands up and say I misunderestimated this man. I do


think it will change the perception. I do think one of his advantages is


that he's not as bad as people think he is. I don't mean that as a


cheap comment. There is a gulf between his ability, and where


people think he is. He has quite a big problem in filling that. Don't


let's forget that people don't watch the speeches. This will only


have a small role in moving public opinion. But he's got that as an


advantage. Personally, I think he should have used it for a more


courageous speech. That whole approach would have worked, if he's


going, for example, to attack vested interests, he just mentions


the banks and Miguel-Anxo Murado, he has vested -- Rupert Murdoch, he


has vested interests in his own party. He fought for the leadership


because David Miliband believed in doing that, because he doesn't. I


agree with David Miliband, he is being true to himself with the


speech he delivered. I think the one-nation thing was powerful, at a


time when people feel hopeless, it is a hopeful message. Tony Blair


talkeded about it, everyone's talking about it. William Hague's


spring conference speech of 1999, one-nation. Absurd though that is.


Danny is right on the substance of where he has positioned himself in


terms of individual messages and policies, what I thought was


interesting today is that when you watch the arc of the speech, you


didn't come away with that. It was much more of a Tony Blair moment of


speaking to the whole nation. In that sense I actually thought the


one-nation unifying message was very clever. Is it a problem?


have a lot of work to do? I think it is a mistake for parties to make


policy too far ahead in opposition, even close to the election. They


get strung up on policies that don't work. People don't follow


them, they don't understand what the parties are saying. I think


that was the right decision. Where I question the strategy is that


he's a few points ahead in the polls, maybe even ten points, he


could use the political capital he has built up to take risks with the


party, and move the perception, so swing voters believe they are safe


to vote Labour again. People aren't listening at the moment. In a sense


I think this is about shoring up. Why are they not listening? Because


they don't listen to Labour Party leaders' speeches at conferences,


they don't watch conferences, they simply don't. It was brave of him


to say today, that he was there to prove to you that not all


politicians are the same. Good luck at the moment with that. What we


learned from the speech is he's not going to do that, he's never going


to do it. He didn't just not do it because it wasn't the moment. He


has made a decision, he thinks the electorate has moved towards the


left because of the financial cry he is, that he can pitch himself to


the left of where Tony Blair of. He said that explicitly, with quite an


acidic passage on new Labour, I thought. I don't agree with him


politically, you wouldn't expect me to do so. I think he will have


trouble making that work, but, at least that is what he thinks. If he


was, if his attempt was to show he was authentic, I think that he had


to say what he thought. He was true to himself. He came over as the


nice man he is. I think that came through very clearly. Danny talked


about spending political capital, to be tough on your own people.


That's incredibly important, particularly if you are going to


sell yourself in the next two-and- a-half years as a Government in


waiting. I think today he was earning thatAl, that you can now


askp -- earning that capital, that you can now ask him to spend. I


don't think he could have made that speech before now. I'm desperate to


know, why given he can make a speech like that, that his reading


from a script is quite abysmal. Why did they let him do that. He has


fuelly done this at conference before very -- he has actually done


that, at conference before he has done that before, everyone has


thought where is Ed. He has made those bits of speeches before and


strung them together. Usually when somebody repeats, when somebody has


an apparently huge feat of memory, Elizabeth Dole did this at a


Republican convention, it was because she made that speech over


and over again. I think what's impressive about it is to do it on


such a huge occasion and show no everybodys. What voters would


complain about him -- Nerves. voters will complain is he has no


charisma, were there swing voters watching they would have been


surprised. Voters don't like reading because they think someone


has else has written it. It was a good performance from that point of


view, it will have a limited swing because of people watching it.


is like an echo chamber? People in that echo chamber will hear him out


and he will have a following. just not overestimate it, really,


one of the things that happens constantly in politics, I always


used to remember this with William Hague, you would wake up the next


morning after thinking you had done brilliantly, destroy Tony Blair in


the House of Commons, nothing moved. No-one noticed. So he has to do


this again and again. S this is the beginning, the have noticed.


problem is the one-nation concept was quite thin. The interview with


Mr Umunna indicated there wasn't very much to it. It seemed to go on


and on. The answer without any content. Maybe I'm being unfair. I


couldn't detect what it was. I just thought I left wondering what it


really of. The reason is, doesn't really want to steal the


Conservatives clothes and be a Conservative, that is not what he


is. That's not what he wants to do. He hardly, the elephant in the room


of the deficit, the fact we are bust. That hardly got a look in


anywhere? That is the thing, the question of whether people will,


once again, be willing to trust the Labour Party with the nation's


finances is the only thing that matters, really. But I do think it


is an important day. The only one of the difficult issues that Labour


has to Faye, he faced into it well, was immigration, his language was


interesting. He definitely realised he has to do something on that. He


talked about welfare effectively, I thought. Moderately. I thought it


was a bit thin. You must have been chuffed he wasn't attacking the


Liberal Democrats? There was one mention, and one boo from the hall,


but, yeah, the Lib Dems got off lightly. I think if he has listened


to the message that the real enemy is the Tory Party, that is a


positive thing as well. He has a party base, he might have a problem


forming a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, he might wish to


do that. I did a fringe meeting at a Labour Party Conference, the


anger from the conference floor about the Liberal Democrats, Ed


Balls calling them Tories. He doesn't want to stoke them out.


could find a lot of hatred for the Lib Dems at Conservative


conferences too, couldn't you? not refraining from that myselfment


I'm saying he has to be careful not to stoke it up. If he stoke it is


up he could find when the moment comes, the party base won't let him


do what he needs to do. Not a bad few days, if these things matter at


all, any longer for the Labour Party, was it? I think, as I say,


the Labour Party and Labour voters will have a spring in their step


now. That's quite an achievement. They haven't had had. They have


been thinking why did we vote for this guy. I don't think they are


thinking that tonight. The UK Border Agency has done it again, it


is in asylum of an Afghan man wounded in the war. There are


plenty of people wounded in war, when Johnny Tocco was injured he


was working for -- Emily Atak, was injured he was working for the


Interpretors are the filter through which -- interpreters are the


filter through which NATO absorbs in Afghanistan. Their mission is


dangerous, dozens have been killed, and millions have been wounded,


among them, Mohammad Rafi Hottak, who soon learned that this job


could have terrible reprecussions. We are already on the blacklist of


the Taliban. If they catch us, even after I have left my job, they will


kill me. They need to take their revenge, the best person they can


get hold of is interm pret ters, they have proven -- interm pret


ters, they have proven -- interm preters, they have proven that. If


you quit your job it doesn't make sense, you are making yourself


vulnerable, they can watch you anywhere. This week he has been in


the media spotlight, following the Home Office rejection of his


application to stay in the country. I was horrified that the Home


Office has not bothered to check the facts, there are witnesses, and


evidence in the support units, there are witnesses, myself and


others who would verify the fact that he had worked for us for a


very long time. Back in 2007, the Afghan interpreter was patrolling


on the streets of Sangin, one of the most dangerous places in his


country. The troops he was with came under attack. Even then I had


to do translation there. The Afghan forces were firing, the British


were saying ceasefire, stop firing, they wouldn't stop firing. Even


though I didn't have the strength to even say a word, because I was


internally bleeding and externally, it was a lot of pressure on my


chest. God knows how did I survive. Even at that time I stood up again


and I said stop firing, stop firing. And I don't know did I fall or they


laid me down again. Any way, they stopped firing.


The British officer he was with had been killed by an IED, or impro-


advised bomb, and he was badly wounded. However, after being


treated for those injuries, schrapnal wounds that still heavily


scar his body, he returned to his duties. It was when he finally


decided to quit the army and come to Britain, that his problems


started in ernest. Lacking the proper papers, Rafi paid people


smugglers to bring him into this country, hidden in the back of a


lory. Sbs he got here he went -- lorry. As soon as he got here, he


went to the authorities to try to legalise his position. It was at


that point a situation that can only be described as Kafka-esque,


began to unfold. This week, after 15 months awaiting a decision, the


UK Border Agency wrote to Rafi telling him he could not stay in


this country. Their letter pointed to discrepancies in ID cards he


submitted, saying none of these record his name as Mohammad Rafi


Hottak, it added, despite a number of inquiries -- enquiryies from the


MoD, his employment was not verified, and bizarrely, throughout


his interaction with the UK Border Agency, he had spoken English.


say, I can't prove in my claim who I am. The reason I came to the UK


is because I have served this country, this Government, in


Afghanistan, and I have considered them as my own family. I speak


English, and I, if not fully, but partially I understand the culture


and the way that things work here. I understand why you are all angry,


I'm very sorry. The interpreters have no guaranteed asylum in


Britain. If they apply today they have to join everyone else who is


applying for either refugee status or humanitarian protection. And,


there is no recognition of the enormous danger that people who


have been interpreting for the British or Americans are facing.


They are very much special cases. Tonight, the Border Agency has said


it is reviewing Rafi's asylum application, because the increased


level of publicity around his case has led to new and significant


information coming to light. However, the questions of why it


has taken 15 months for them to realise their mistake, and what


happens to others in similar situations remain.


Rory Stewart is a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee,


he was in Iraq where his interpreter was killed in 2005.


Heather Barr, a former UN official who works for Human Rights Watch


joins us also. How vulnerable are people who have done jobs like


acting as an interpret er? They are extremely vulnerable, the Taliban


has talked about how they will target Afghans who work with


foreigners, they have said after the foreigners who leave those who


are collaborators have been punished for their treason. The


threats are real. Even people while the troops have been here receive


threat, letters, phone calls. It is very strange that think that


somebody would have to prove individually they are facing a


threat, rather than there being recognition that everybody in this


category is facing a threat. Given your own experience in Iraq what do


you make of this case? I find it very Shaughnessying. I think one of


the big -- very shocking. I think one of the bigger questions about


the system is it is a legalistic approach. People are not good


enough to take on a special obligation for those who have


worked for us. Your own experience, where your own translator was


murdered, after you had left, I believe, there is no doubt that was


as a consequence of the work he had been doing? It is difficult to


prove, but he was receiving death threats connected to the fact that


he had had worked with me. And there were two other women that I


worked with who were also killed. It was the time just after we had


departed from Alimara, where the militia were going around rounding


up people who were working with us. My friend was 25 years old, he


spoke very good English, he worked as a translator for me not because


he was being paid, but because he believed in Britain, and he was


killed. There are thousands acting as interpreters and helping western


forces in one way or another there. Presumably there has to be some


mechanism, can they all be admitted to Britain, the United Nations, or


Canada or wherever? It is definitely true that there are many


thousands of Afghans, maybe tens of thousands of Afghans who are at


risk, because they have worked for international organisations. But,


interpreters who have worked with the military are really a special


case. They are really unique in the fact that they have been seen


constantly on patrol, with members of the international military, I


don't think the Taliban sees any difference between them and Afghan


security forces, or international military. So, I think, if you are


going to draw a lion, certainly they should be on the side of the


line where -- a line, certainly they should be on the side of the


line that should seech special obligations. I don't agree, we


don't have an obligation to everyone who has worked as a


translator, but we have an obligation to be diligent to look


at everyone who has worked as translator N this case they weren't


diligent enough. It points to a bigger problem, which is the whole


asylum system seems to be often a lottery, and run in a very strange


fashion. Do you have a suggested way of dealing with that? I think


the first thing is to recognise we have a huge problem, which is that


it is very difficult for someone in Britain to try to guess whether a


story is real or not. This has come out of people desperately trying to


second guess what is happening in a village in Afghanistan. I have had


friends from Afghanistan, who have successfully come into the country,


with much less than that. And others who have been turned down.


The second thing is, he has come in through human smuggling, we have


created a system that incentivises people to work with criminal gangs


and smuggle themselves into the country rather than a proper system.


The Border Agency said it couldn't prove he was working with the


British military, it took us 20 minutes to get someone to verify


that he did? Indeed, that is why everyone needs to be checked more


carefully. The broader problem is I turn up and say I have come from a


village in central Afghanistan and feel under threat, it is very


difficult for the Border Agency to check that is true, in this case


they got it wrong. Presumably there are all sorts of things that you


might have done to assist the international forces in Afghanistan,


which you might feel, give you a legitimate fear of being at risk in


Afghanistan from the Taliban and others. All sorts of people, it


might be just a farmer who tells them that there are some IEDs on a


road somewhere? Yes but a farmer who tells a soldier that there are


IEDs on the road, he can whisper into his ear, it is a one-time


event, he can melt back on to the farmland and no-one will know he


shared that manufacturing. An interpreter has no way of being


invisible, and showing their support for, not just the


international community, but the mission. It is worth rembering that


Britain's military effort in Afghanistan is impossible without


these interpreters, you can't look for IEDs, you can't partner with a


team from the Afghan national army, you can't reach out and try to


befriend the population and engage them, without the assistance of


interpreters. These interpreters are there in the line of fire,


along with the soldiers every day. They are also facing additional


dangers when they go home at night. I also think we should understand


we are operating in a culture where Afghans feel these kinds of


obligations very strongly it is a culture in which that kind of


relationship, of having worked with someone or partnering someone would


make what we are doing here shocking. Because our whole


presence in Iraq is based on some idea of moral legitimacy, we have


to be particularly careful in how we behave. Not just ethically, but


simply in terms of our whole reputation, not to be seen to be


letting people down. Back to the experiment you saw at the start of


the programme. Why does boiling water, apparently, freeze quicker


than cold water. In June this year, the Royal Society of Chamsry


launched a competition to find the most plausible -- Royal Society of


Chemistry launched a competition to find the most plausible answer.


They didn't expect a great entry but thousands of entries came from


around the world. They broadened the competition by opening it up to


the public. Earlier the professor put the


# Ice ice baby So what you were seeing there was


some boiling water and some water at room temperature, each being


placeded in a freezer, which will now be brought from the freezer by


our producer, Hannah, who will bring it across to the studio, we


will see whether the frozen water or the boiling water has, in fact,


frozen and the room temperature water hasn't frozen. It's taking an


awfully long time to get it out of there. Well done! We have a big


problem with the experiment, neither has frozen. Did you plug in


that freezer? I blame the friezer! This is rubbish -- Freezer. This is


rubbish, they are both liquid. sure the red one is colder. Stick


your finger in, they are both the same. This is a completely rubbish


experiment. But I think that is an experiment, that is live television,


it is a real experiment. Indeed it is. Had it been rehearsed perhaps


we could have got it right? could have faked it, but we didn't.


If this were going properly if someone had had plugged the fridge


in, the red one, I think, is the hot one, the boiling one, would


have frozen by now? It would have. The one at room temperatures


wouldn't have? People can do it at home, to see if what we are saying


is true or not. What are you looking for? We are looking to find


why this happens. We don't know. you don't know, how can you judge


when someone has given you the right answer? If they give us a


good explanation of the answer, we can decide whether it is plausible


or not. We can do more experiments to see if it is right or not.


you going to do those experiments? I would like to do those


experiments. If someone writes in and says, I think the reason, I


should add we added dye to these, maybe it is the food colouring.


Even the tray isn't cold. This is a complete shambles. I'm very sorry


about that. But your experiment, your desire for knowledge at the


Royal Society of Chemistry, is impressive. You are looking for


people to give you an explanation for the fact that this phenomenon


occurs in a well-regulated experiment. That's right. But you


have no way, have you, of judging which is the riech explanation?


Well, I think we can -- Right explanation? I think we can look at


the explanations that people give us and see is it based on fact, it


might give other people ideas to do more experiments. If someone writes


in, how many have you had? Nearly 22,000 explanations.


explanations, have you read them all? -- 22,000 explanations, have


you read them all? Several of them, not them all. You find one that


seems plausible, do you give it the money, how much is it, �1,000?


is, we are asking the public to look at some of the answers and see


which answers they like, we are also putting a panel of experts


together, other scientists, to consider the responses, and put


their vote in, we will see what happens. Is there any practical


application at all? The main reason for it was to get people interested


in scientific experiments, and to do the experiments and think up


answers for themselves. But, bottom line, if you want a gin and tonic


with some ice in it, put hot water in the freezer. That is a great


practical application. Tomorrow That's all from nice night tonight,


until tomorrow, good night -- Newsnight tonight, until tomorrow,


Hello again, a lot of showers to come through the night. As we head


into tomorrow there should be more sunshine, and the showers should be


fewer. A scattering of showers and sunny spells, the winds not as


strong and blustery, the winds feeding in frequent showers to the


North West of England. Again, Cumbria could be the wettest place


in the country. Fewer showers east of the Pennine, for most of the day


it will be dryer. Sunshine coming out across the south-east of


England, a scattering of showers, colder than today. A much better


day for the south west of England. Fewer showers, more sunshine,


particularly in the afternoon. There will be some sunshine in


Wales as well. In the afternoon it is the north of the country that


will have most of the showers, those showers pulling away from


most of Northern Ireland, so more in the way of sunshine again in the


afternoon. A mixture really in Scotland, there will be some


showers developing a little more widely, most will be light with the


best of the sunshine for the eastern side of the country. It may


well stay dry for the most part in Edinburgh and Inverness, not just


into Wednesday but Thursday too. Further south we will have sunny


spells, a scattering of showers, the odd heavy one can't be ruled


out. Thursday looks that bit dryer even further. Arguably Thursday is


Download Subtitles