05/11/2012 Newsnight


Jeremy Paxman in Washington with a look at the US Election. The UK government announces a new enquiry into North Wales child abuse.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/11/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello from Washington. By this time tomorrow, we shall be about to


learn who is to take on the Tennessee of the White House behind


me, and the role of leader of the free world. Could Obama really lose


Today The Boss, summoned the aid of The Boss. I stood with President


Obama four years ago, I'm proud to be standing here with him today.


Because he promised me a ride on Air Force One! His challenger kept


on hammering home the same, unadorned, message. I know how to


change the nation, how to get it back on course, how to create jobs,


how to get a balanced budget, how to get rise in take home pay.


mystery, of course, for a visitor to this country s how a man won


such a resounding endorsement from the American people, could


apparently have put it all at risk. What happened to this charismatic


presidency to put it all on hazard, was he dealt a bad hand, or did he


misplay it. In Miami, George Bush's brother seems confident he knows


who will reap the benefit. numbers are up a bit, I'm pretty


optimistic, that in Florida, at least, Governor Romney will win.


Tonight, in London, after Newsnight reports, allegations of a cover-up


in the North Wales abuse inquiry, David Cameron acts. I will ask a


senior, independent figure, to lead an urgent investigation into


whether the original inquiry was properly instituted and did its job.


The former care home resident who now alleges abuse by a senior


Conservative politician in the 1970s gives us his response.


think it is excellent news. I just hope we are going to have an


investigation into the abuse, and not necessarily the inquiry.


One thing this country isn't short of, is people who claim to know.


They include cefalogical analysts, who believe the outcome was


determined by an event last night. The Carolineer panthers, upended


the red kins. You can call an election is whether the red skins


win their match. In this case, it is Obama taking a bath. After the


opinion poll has forecast the closest outcome in many years.


Never before have so many people have to listen to so much tub-


thumping or fawning, or have to endure a torrent of half truths,


name-calling and bad-mouthing. It would, some calculated, take 345


days just to watch the million television ads. Tomorrow is the


moment of truth. And Mark Urban is here. Is it really as close as they


are saying? It is very close in terms of how many votes each man


will get, well within the margin of error of most polls. The American


system is not a simple popularity contest, works through this thing


called the Electoral College, that picks the President on the basis of


delegate sent by the states. If we look at the graphic that sketches


out what the two candidates have to do, we will see that President


Obama is much closer to that Winning Post, in the middle. The


white line, with about 243 delegates pretty much in the bag,


from the called blue states, pictured on the left there. Mitt


Romney has much further to go, with about 206. Even though he may be


gaining ever more popularity in those states, it is not going to


help him, unless he can dominate those 89 in the middle, the called


battleground state. Even if Romney wins Florida, the one with the most


delegates to the Electoral College, 29, that's still not going to do it


for him. But if President Obama wins just two, Ohio, where he has


been showing very strongly in the polls, and Virginia, where the race


is closer, that would be enough to win him the election. That is why


most of the pundits in this town think that President Obama is on


course for victory. There has been a lot of nattering, indeed we


perpetrated some of it ourselves, about the effects of the Hurricane,


what are they? There has been some very interesting polling done


around this in the last few days. President Obama, who, of course, in


an attempt to win those battleground state, has been out


there today, he has been in Ohio rocking the vote with Jay-Z, and


earlier Bruce Springsteen. He looked very good, very presidential,


co-ordinating the whole relief effort to the Hurricane, everybody


knows that. Mitt Romney has also been out, trying to get the key


votes in the battleground states on his side. He has been down in


Florida, where the shots were taken. He had to effectively suspend


campaigning for a few days at a critical moment last week. Some of


the an all cyst by a respected political blogger here, said that


over the past week the chance of an Obama victory has gone up from high


70s%, to well over 80%. He as describes a good deal of that to


the Hurricane-effect. A lot of people think it has made the


difference. We will see tomorrow. As Mark suggests, the biggest swing


state of the lot is Florida. Obama took it last time, before that it


was the key state in the face-off between George Bush and Dmitri


Gorelov. The latest polls -- Al Gore. The latest polls show the two


candidates tied. Laura Trevelian is there, who is going to take it, get


off the fence? That is the million dollar question, if I was confident


enough I would bet my house, I'm not going to. You can feel the


tension here tonight. The two campaigns are really wrestling down


in the mud for Florida's 29 votes in the Electoral College. I


understand the early voting figures are in. The Democrats have a narrow


lead, nothing like as big as it was in 2008. Remember all that chaos in


2000 hanging chads and all that. Already you have Republicans of


accusing dirty tricks and stopping turnout. It is down to the wire. We


have been across the state, Tampa to north of Miami, where we caught


up with the Obama campaign. Just a few hours left. Nearly 140


million Americans can vote. But the result will rest with those who


live in the 106 counties which switched from Republican to


Democrat last time. No matter whether you are black or white or


Hispanic or Asian ornateive American, young, old, rich -- or


native American, young, old, rich, poor, you can make it here in


America, that is what we are fighting for.


The towns and cities that matter most have been inundated with


campaigning. It is not about policies or issues,


it is about hand-to-hand combat, fighting street-by-street,


capturing every single last vote. At the close of this long campaign,


it really is a numbers game. The architect of Barack Obama's


spectacular rise from local politician to President claims the


Democrats will win again. What will it hinge on in the end, who get the


most of their coalition out here in Florida? There is no doubt about it.


I think there has been this sense that it has been propagaged by the


Republicans, that our base will be less motivated, I think they are


highly motivated. In Mitt Romney is to win the White House, he must win


Florida. They call this stretch of central Florida the highway to


political heaven. Who whoever wins the territory either side of the I4,


wins state. You have the I4 between Tampa and the Space Ghost. Whoever


wins that the I4 quarter wins the state elections and presidential


races. Jeb Bush knows a thing or two about


winning elections. It is two Presidents in the family, he's


tipped one day to run himself. Right now in former Florida


governor is stumping for Mitt Romney. Florida has been a


battleground state for so long that both sides are really good at it.


Our side this year has the intensity on its side. The number


of early votes on the Democratic side, relative to four years ago,


where they had an incredible army of support, is down 70%. Our


numbers are up a bit. So, I'm pretty optimistic that in flour


dark at least, Governor Romney will win. In a bakery, just off the


interstate, Jeb Bush is trying to make that happen. Crucially the


voters are elderly women and white men. Crucially those groups have


been shift to go Romney. Take Alex Rosemurgy, who voted for Obama last


time of the I tend to identify more with Romney's moderate Republican


beliefs than Obama's belief, particularly with regard to the


economy. If the Democrats are losing white voters, they must get


more his Spanish, female and younger voters on their side. This


bakery turns out to be a cross section of the entire race. Who


will the staff vote for? Obama. going to vote for Obama, that is


who I'm voting for. Welcome to the Caravana, a


distinctly Hispanic way to get the vote out. They dance Porto Rican


voters to the polls. Even though American is looking for diverse,


and Latinos say they will vote Democrat, she's leaving nothing to


chance. Ardour on the campaign trail is needed, when it is thought


the coalition of minority voters has lost enthusiasm for the


President. We understand that minorities in general are those who


identify with the Democratic party, we are focusing on African-


Americans and Latino. The women's vote will be important for us. In


the I4 quarter, which is the battleground of all battlegrounds,


we need to get the vote out. Mitt Romney made his final stop in


Florida, his plea was simple. have one job left, that is to make


sure that on election day we make certain that everybody who is


qualified to vote gets out to vote. We need every single vote in


Florida. The key word here is "qualified", in the fight to


maximise turnout, Republicans are concerned about voter fraud. So


watch out for legal challenges and the dreaded recounts if the race is


as close as it looks. Floridians have been voting early,


queuing round the block. I see lots of young folks, I see lots of


ethnic voters. Local Republican randy Johnson watched in a


reflective mood. I would have to guess that we are probably not 30%


of this line. Does that surprise you, that Democrats still have


enthusiasm for Barack Obama? does. It does. I think it probably


surprises many people in my party. We don't quite understand it.


24 hours to go, does Barack Obama's message of hope still resonate?


Despite the economic turmoil and political division? Or will


Romney's troops prove the more committed and enthusiastic? Watch


this space. The cream of US punditry is here to


tell us how the race stands on the last day of full campaigning. We


have Tim Carney, from the Washington Examiner, the New York


Times economic policy reporter, Annie Lowrey, and Time Magazine's


deputy Washington bureau chief, Michael Crowley. The big mystery


for a lot of visitors here, is how Obama, who swept in so triumphantly


last time round, could, apparently, be at risk of losing the presidency.


Just what happened? He inherited a poisoned chalice. Sometimes I


wonder had he known about the economic catastrophe coming, would


have wanted to run for President at all. It was a really hard time to


take over. Republicans will say, he's had plenty of time to try to


repair the economy, it has been four years, you can't blame George


Bush any more. I think fundamentally this was a man who


was curse today begin with, and still face as very high


unemployment rate. He really will be fortunate to be re-elected with


the rate as high as it is. What went wrong? Simply, the recession


was much worse than people expect, and the economy is in a terrible


state right now. There is some evidence it is improving. It is


getting better. People are disappointed with the economy and


it has tremendous reprecussions in this case. Is begs the question is


this a presidency worth winning right now? A lot of people expect


the economy to recover, that is why Obama would be upset if he lost. I


disagree it was a mess he inherited. I have been focus on the suburban


vote in Ohio and Virginia, a lot of people thought Obamacare turned


them off, most people don't understand the content, but the way


he pushed it through. It was a little heavy-handed, that turned


off a lot of voters. Obamacare is something vaguely like the National


Health Service in Britain isn't it, just for the benefit of anyone


watching? It is one step in that direction. Can I just add. More


people have axe sets to free healthcare, that is the basic --


access to the free healthcare? Incidentally I think he's a victim


of his own high expectation. He set himself up to fail for making such


huge promises. It is a her receipt kal belief for some out here. --


heretical belief for some out here. Let's talk about the campaign, it


seemed ugly and devisive and fractious and bitter and bad


tempered, what did you think? think the campaigns tend to be some


what contentious in this country. Just bad-tempered. Times are very


tough in the United States. This was a campaign unusually focused on


policy issues, about the saving of the American middle-class and


creating jobs. These were two men almost at odds on how to do that.


And were making impassioned cases about it. Each was classically


redefining what the middle-class was. They seemed to talk about


different groups of people when they talked about "the middle-


class", the fabled middle-class? American politics the middle-class


is almost everyone. Its different groups of people or one immpossibly


large group of people. It is supposed to resonate with everyone.


The nastiness comes from the President, he bears a lot of the


blame. He didn't have much of a record to run on for a lot of


reasons, some which were his fault and some not. Right out of the gate


he set out to define Mitt Romney as an unacceptable alternative.


Knowing he was not likely to be re- elected on his own basis, and make


Mitt Romney unacceptable. People say the referendum is on the


incumbent, Barack Obama was about making it on the challenger, Romney.


What would a Mitt Romney President be like for the rest of the world?


Romney doesn't have a core set of beliefs, he has an approach to


topic. He goes ahead and tries to be systematic, he's a moderate at


heart. What he wants to do is not laid out by any ideology, in the


way that gub was, or to some extent, Obama is. On foreign policy s the


third debate made a lot of people less worried about him, people were


afraid he would be too hawk irk, he seemed very measured in that --


hawkish in that way, he seemed measured. What do you think?


times Romney's rhetoric was very tough. Some of his senior advisers


were throwbacks to the Bush years, when there was an interventionist,


pro-democracy American foreign policy. In the debate he tempered


it. You were more likely to see American support for an Israeli


strike on Iran or American strike on Iran, if Romney is President.


You would see a Democratic push in the Middle East for Romney. More


aggressive I would say. Will an Obama second term be different to


the first term? He will face the huge fiscal challenge the United


States will have. He will have to work with Congress that will be


divided, to solve that problem. After that, Congress has not


changed in the last four years, it remains absolutely at loggers, it


is not clear he will get nearly as ambitious legislation through as in


the first. Tackling issues like immigration, but really it will be


about taxes, and about spending cuts, and either President Romney


or President Obama, that will be the first and major thing. At least


in the early terms of either's term. I was hoping we could avoid talking


about the fiscal cliff that people are talking about here. This is a


real serious crisis in the public finances, due to hit January 1st,


which means big tax hikes or spending cuts. Either of them will


have to deal with it? In the most recent crises like this, the


Government shut down debate followed by a death-sealing debate


like we have had in the last four years. It looks like no solution,


then they kick the can down the road, putting it on to a later date.


Nobody wants to go over the cliff or come up with a solution, I'm


confident they will do that again. It won't be a crisis? It would be


if they dug in their heels and stopped anything from going through.


It becomes a crisis, it seems to me, when the global financial markets


start to lose faith in the United States. That is really the deadline.


I think it is possible we will punt and punt and punt. There is not, it


is puntable, for a while longer. The question is s and people


disagree about this. It is "puntable" for a while, that is a


kicking term, isn't it? It may be, we the blames differently here. I


don't know how it will be interpreted. It means you can delay,


fundamentally, to make it clear, my sense is we could delay for a while


longer. Let's hear from someone who knows?


There is this deadline on January 1st, where spending cuts come in


and tax rises. The economy remains very weak. The question is, it


looks like there will be a second trigger, some kind of tax reform,


but when will they create that deadline for themselves. How much


will they spook financial markets before them then. You have seen


foreign Governments, the IMF, the OECD say please don't crater your


recovery, because it matters for us too. Crater your recovery, we will,


right, let's get off the fence on this question of whether they are


all really here under false pretence. Is it as close as people


are trying to suggest. Or is it just that people like you and


pollsters and everybody else has to justify their existence? No race is


ever over. We say, in American football we have a saying, that's


why they play the game, on Any Given Sunday someone can win.


will win? I would give Obama something like 4-1 odds to win.


Romney could win, but it would be shocking. It is coming down to


confidence in polling in states like Ohio and Virginia that remain


very close. Gut instincts? It looks like now it would be harder for us


to have a President Romney or President Obama. This is above my


pay grade. I don't know how valuable the gut instinct is, the


polling shows a clear picture, it is more a epistobale, very fancy


word, puntable, I spoke to some Republicans who sound awe


thefrpbtic, and spinning and sounding in good cheer, they are


sounding effective. The polls did worse in 2008 and


2004. Even the geekiest of the election


geeks won't attempt to claim that this election is up there with what


happened four years ago, when Obama won the presidency. That was seen


as a transforming event. Not just because it took a black man to the


White House, but because of what he himself promised. What happened? We


have taken the measure of his time in office. Hello Chicago, tonight,


because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining


moment, change has come to America. Change, so many candidates for the


White House have promised it. amazing many American voters still


believe them. Perhaps they yes or no for somebody who can transcend


the grid lock and systemic deadlock of Washington politics, in order to


bring about something really meaningful. How has President Obama


done? Few politicians would have relished taking the helm, in the


midst of global economic crisis. From the outset, Barack Obama knew


that he would be judged primarily which what he could do to breathe


life back into the US economy. We know the challenges that


tomorrow will bring, are the greatest of our lifetime. Two war,


a planet in peril. The worst financial crisis in a century.


answer came in an $800 billion stimulus package. It was old


fashioned job preservation, with some new policy twists. Among the


economists advising the new White House team was jar rad Bernstein.


The first time the economic team got together was mid-December 2008,


it was snowy and dark in Chicago, and dreary, the discussion was


really about just how deep the economic recession of. At the time


we didn't have the data to know how very deep it was. Our sense was


this was a serious downturn. Could it deliver meaningful change fast


enough? If he don't have it done in three years, it will be a one-term


proposition. The effects of bailing out the economy, unemployment may


not have got dramatically worse, but it hasn't got much better


either. Still hovering around 8%. The President said himself, and I


will quote him, "I gestion there weren't enough shovel-ready jobs".


What it did, a lot of the money, the $800 billion, was money for


union work. A lot of the union work was not work ready to be done.


was reform of the healthcare system that offered the President his best


chance of changing the lives of most Americans, and breaking


Washington DC's gridlock. It will make coverage affordable


for over 30 million Americans who do not have it. 30 million


Americans. Healthcare countdown, and Democrats tell us they are


making changes to the bill. package they called Obamacare,


combines patient, employer and Government funding, to extend


healthcare to tens of millions. But it also triggered a bitter battle


But they didn't stop the President, even if the full plan requires Mr


Obama to win re-election. Victory really looms quite large, relative


to some of the details that got hammered out in negotiations with


opponents, you have to understand that in American politics reforming


the way we provide and deliver healthcare has been a goal of


Presidents for decades, literally decades. The fact that the


President was able to get that over the legislative goal line will


almost certainly be an important part of his legacy. Let's resist


the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettyness,


and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. President


Obama, can you hear America now. Once the Republicans regained


control of the house of representatives in 2010, funding


the Government theself became increasingly fraught. Leaving


unanswered basic questions about spending and taxation.


If the President were to be re- elected, we have crisis right on


the horizon in January, be it on tax, he is questation, dramatic


dsequestation, and drat dramatic tax cuts signed into law. His feet


will be in the fire. The President himself seems to recognise his


failure to foster a less adversarial relationship with


Congress. If you ask me what is my biggest disappointment, is we


haven't changed the tone in Washington as much as we would like.


You don't bear responsibility for that? As President I bear


responsibility for everything, to some degree. To those who would


tear the world down, we will defeat you. President Obama wound down one


foreign war, Iraq, and gained public approval for it. But he


ramped up another, Afghanistan. He considered it the "good" war, but


he increased involvement there at huge cost, and for quite


questionable benefits. Indeed Afghanistan might have been much


more of an issue in this election, but for a particularly successful


raid into Pakistan. Good evening, tonight I can report to the


American people and to the world, that the United States has


conducted an operation that killed Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al-


Qaeda. But what of foreign policy in its less violent forms? The


administration tried to reset relations with Russia, Iran, and


the Muslim world, more generally. It stood clear of Syria, and


attracted Republican criticism for abrogating leadership. Part of the


Obama administration is tackling issues that are profound, even


historic, and having an expectation that they could be addressed and


resolved, in four years. Few of the issues that Obama has confronted


realistically, could have been resolved in one-term. The President


and his supporters have adapted their narrative. Re-election, they


say, is necessary to consolidate the gains of the first term. Be


that in healthcare or overseas. It's not a bad argument, but it


does suggest that the President's first term has hardly transformed


politics in the way many hoped it would.


My guest was in the room when many of the key decisions of President


Obama's first term were made, in his role of chairman of the Council


of Economic advisers. Voted funnyiest celebrity in 1979, he's


Professor of Economics in the Booth School of Business, he joins me


from there. Do you think we expected too much from President


Obama? Probably a little bit. You know, he did accomplish a great


deal. But there was certainly an air of hope that he would


accomplish even more, I think. I think the grim realities of getting


out of a financial bubble, driven - - financial bubble-driven recession,


have been harder than anyone thought. And I think the opposition


of the Republican Party to what the President was doing, which started


really before he even took office, you know, the very day the


President took office, he tried to get a whole lot of his nominees for


the top jobs confirmed, and they were already getting held up by


Republicans in the Senate, before he was even in office. So I think


that those two things, combined, have made for, you know, what's


clearly been a tough slog getting out of this.


He said after the last election, he said, change has come to America,


he couldn't change Washington though? Well, you know, it deends


how you look at it. He -- it depends on how you look at it. He


certainly hasn't changed that there is a group of people who oppose


anything he does. If he suggests policies that are historically


Republican ideas, they oppose them, just because he proposed them of


the I joke that it felt like we're back in the old east German judge


at the Olympic, they have the card filled out before he's even done


anything. He could hit a triple flip, they are still giving him a 2.


He hasn't able to change that. On the other hand, if you look at what


did he accomplish, he was able to change some pretty significant


things. They still remain controversial, but to finally get


universal healthcare in the country, to finally regulate the financial


sector in a way that the deregulation of that sector really


caused a lot of the crisis. To end the war in Iraq, to kill Osama Bin


Laden, all those seem pretty significant changes, things he


promised he was going to do. But, it's hard to change that partisan


tone, that is definitely proved true.


You have been privvy to some of the discussions and decisions, on one


of his own benchmark, which was the promise to reduce the level of


unemployment, he didn't meet his own self-imposed target. Does he


personally feel a sense of failure there, do you think? Well, I would


be a little careful with that. The number that gets quoted by his


opponent governor Romney was a forecast that was made before there


was an Obama administration, it was made in the transition, in the fall


of 2008. And it said that if you pass a stimulus, the unemployment


rate would not go above 8%, it said if you did not pass the stimulus,


the unemployment rate would go all the way to 8.9%. Of course it was


well above even 8.9% before the first dollar of the recovery money


went out the door. I think it wasn't just the in coming


Government that made the mistake on the forecast, it was the entire


private sector forecasting industry that made that mistake. By six to


eight months into the administration, the official


forecast, put out by the Government, that you can look up in the budget,


was that by the Fall of 2012, the unemployment rate would be 8.2%.


Which is even a little above where it is now. Quite early on, I think


the President and the administration understood what the


circumstances were going to be. I think he definitely want the


unemployment rate to come down. He says every time the jobs numbers


come out even if they improve a lot or little or stay stagnant, he says


it is a long waying to. It is a persistently high unemployment rate


in the US, even though it has improved a lot.


Of course he wants it to come down. Let me ask a simple question, to


which you can give a pithy answer or not, many of us outside politics


are baffled by why people want high office. Do you think he has


actually enjoyed being President? Some days, some days not. He


certainly looks, his hair is a lot greyier. I used today say, I had a


-- greyer, I used to say I had a full head of hair before I got to


Washington, I don't know what happened. I'm sure there are days


he would prefer to be back out here in Chicago. But, you know, he


probably didn't go there for the fun, and he hasn't been


disappointed. Thank you very much for joining us.


That's it for now. If things go to plan, which is always a pretty


foolish assumption, we will be devote all tomorrow's Newsnight to


the election, and who America thinks is best capable of fixing


things here. For now I leave you to Paul Mason.


Thank you. The Prime Minister today ordered an urgent inquiry into the


handling of child abuse allegations at North Wales children's homes in


the 1970 and 1980. The move came after reporter, Angus Stickler,


revealed on Newsnight, on Friday, allegation of a cover-up, during a


judicial inquiry, led by the High Court judge Sir Ronald Waterhouse


in the late 1990s. One of those abused claimed a former senior


Conservative politician had been involved in the abuse. He's now to


put the allegations direct to the Welsh Secretary, David Jones, in a


face-to-face meeting tomorrow. Decades ago, children living in


North Wales care homes were raped and abused, it has been alleged


they were used by a paedophile-ring. One particular night that I always


recall, is where I was basically raped, tied down, and abused by


nine different men, sexually. and another former resident told us


one of the abusers then was a senior Conservative figure. That


claim prompted the Prime Minister today. Child abuse is an absolutely


hateful and abhorrent crime, these allegations are truly dreadful, and


they mustn't be left hanging in the air. Police investigated some abuse


claims, then there was a lengthy inquiry, chaired by Sir Ronald


Waterhouse, a former High Court judge. He heard from 650 former


residents of children's homes. But Steve Meesham told Angus Stickler


of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism on Newsnight, it didn't


get to the truth. Why on earth we had had an inquiry, if we had to


leave out 30% of the abusers, and basically, I was told to do that. I


was told I couldn't go into detail about these people. I couldn't name


them and they wouldn't question me on them. The terms of the inquiry


were drawn up by the then Secretary of State for Wales, William Hague.


It was to inquiry into the abuse of children in care in the former


County Council areas of Gwnyeth and clud, since 1974, to examine


whether the authorities responsible could have preent vented the abuse,


or detected -- prevented the abuse or detected it earlier, to look at


how they respond to allegations of abuse, and crucially, excluding


decisions to prosecute names individuals. Those terms of


reference are coming under close scrutiny. I will be asking a sen


York independent figure, to lead an you are -- senior, independent


figure, to lead an urgent investigation into whether the


original inquiry was properly constitutes and did its job and to


report urgently to the Government. Today we went back to Steve Meesham,


he welcomed the Prime Minister's intervention, but. We also need an


investigation into how the police dealt with this and handled it,


that is very important. We need that done by an outside police


force, maybe the Met, they could come in and look at that. I also


think to have an inquiry, I hope he does not appoint a judge.


He would prefer an expert, for this programme, we understand it will


most likely be a judge that is picked. Others doubt how helpful


the inquiry will be. I don't think a focus on the constitution of the


inquire helps a great deal. I remember reading through the


inquiry when it reported, and felt at the time, that it did the best


that it could, with the evidence that had been gathered. I think it


was limited. That was a problem. A number of complainants were unhappy


with the fact that some of their allegations were not pursued.


cabinet secretary is asking people to go through archives to see if


there are any relevant documents. Many have a critic has written to


the Prime Minister and said this won't work, and the police have to


go through their archives too and the Intelligence Services. Will it


lead to prosecutions, Steve Meesham has his doubts? I think we will get


an investigation, I think they will say this and that should have been


done. There is numerous reasons we won't get any trials or court cases.


Who will attend them? A lot of the people that named certain people


have committed suicide, or they are deceased now. It is such a shame.


How many of them? I'm ware of 13 people that have committed suicide


before and during the Waterhouse inquiry. There has been more sense.


It is very sad. Joining me is Tim Loughton, until September the


Children's Minister, and Owen Smith, the shadow Secretary of State for


Wales. Gent, is this enough, Cameron has acted quite quickly


following the propbl on Friday, is it enough? -- programme on Friday,


is it enough? I think the Prime Minister has done the right thing


today. It is absolutely right he treats this with great urgency, he


feels very strongly about what is going on. We need to get to the


bottom of has gone on. We have over five inquiries going on, the BBC,


the health service, Jimmy Savile, whether the previous inquiry came


up with the right results and was thorough enough. The public is


getting concerned, how much longer is this going on for, how many


different institutions and establishments will be dragged into


soerm institutional child abuse. Can we absolutely be sure this


isn't being repeated somewhere in the country now? I -- I agree, the


Prime Minister has done the right thing today. It was the only thing


he could have done, given the volume of concern and the new


allegations made. The first and most important thing that needs to


happen is, if there are fresh allegations being made, those need


to be investigated, firstly, by the police, and pursued to their


fullest extent. If there are substantiated claims, then clearly


they need to be prosecutions. Beyond that, I think the Prime


Minister is right to suggest this evening, that perhaps, a more


holistic and wide-ranging review. We have already suggested that


perhaps a broader public inquiry might be required to get to the


bottom of this. We are hearing signals out of Number Ten, that it


may be that something bigger is needed. Is that the way it is going.


Do you think we will end up with a big judge-led public inquiry?


think it has to be. It is another day, another aspect, another


inquiry. The time has now come, and it is not just the Savile business,


it is not just what happened in Wales. It is also the child sexual


abuse that we have been having with gangs of Pakistani-British men in


the north of England, more arrests this weekend over in led. It is a


different form of what was happening perhaps in Wales back in


the 1970s and 1980s. I think we need to have a really punchy, high-


level, serious, intensive look, at the history of child protection


over the last ten years, and make sure every institution has a really


robust child protection policy. And those people who weren't brought to


look before are brought to look -- brought to book before are brought


to book now. Those who remembered it and covered it were supposed to


be the cat that particular moment, it was -- cathartic moment? Some of


the Vic ims felt it was the case and Waterhouse had dealt with it.


There were three previous sets of investigations, a number of people


had been convicted. The key thing is if Waterhouse and the North


Wales abuse allegations are to be the centre of this, then the role


of the victims, and the views of the victims, must be considered. It


is not right that all of the victims will welcome a fresh public


inquiry. We have the Children's Commissioners nowadays, and the


bodies that decide what they want out of this. Their views have to be


central. The whole thing centres on an allegation of an unnamed senior


Conservative politician from the past. There will be people in your


party thinking, is our institution now going to have the same soul-


searching process that the BBC, the National Health Service, Broadmoor,


have been through in the past four weeks. Do you think that is where


it might go? I said on your programme, some week ago, and I


said on a separate radio interview, when a political connection came up.


Why should we be surprised, we have had the BBC and the church, and all


sorts of institution, who are no some way connected with child abuse,


going over many decade, in a institutionalised way. We shouldn't


be surprised at the political connection as well. What I want to


see, and we have four Children's Commissioner, one of the things


that came out of the Waterhouse Report, of the creation of the


Welsh Children's Commissioner, they should be coming together, I want


to speak to the Children's Commissioner for England, to meet


up, this has tentacles across the UK. Every institution needs to look


in on itself to see if they have now robust policies to avoid any


reoccurrance of this happening now, and if there are guilty parties


there now, they should go rooted out. Do you not see this as a


moment where the whole of British institutions have to look at their


past, and come clean about the way in which they have dealt with this,


and its extent it? Not to be defensive. Listen to the victim,


there is one thing that bind together the Savile and this, the


victims haven't been listened to and believed. They need to be


believed. The resores we are devote to go it, are not devoted to


chasing down child abusers today? They are, we have brought things


like PCO 0, and SION, things have radically changesed and we need to


do more. People are coming forward, because they have more confidence


of being heard. Steve Meesham said the police wouldn't believe them


and roughed them up because they didn't believe them, so they didn't


come forward, they weren't taking seriously, that has to change.


Gentlemen thank you very much. It's A lot of the papers are buying the


idea it is a cliff-hanker. The Financial Times finds a


financial angle, the investment funds in gridlock. The fiscal cliff


we were talking about earlier. The Telegraph runs with the abuse claim


against top Tory, "trawl dreadful" quote -- "truly dreadful". The �624


insult to a rape victim there. That's all for tonight, Jeremy is


back tomorrow night for election A widespread frost, in England the


frost would have lifted. The odd icey patch too. Sunny spells across


the south. Some brightness along the south coast. The cloud will


increase, a day, certainly northern England, of occasional rain and


strengthening breeze. For some it may stay largely dry. Parts of the


south-east staying largely dry, a few spots of rain possible. Mainly


dry towards the south west. The afternoon a good deal cloudier than


the morning, occasional bright spells possible. Eastern areas of


the country, 7-8 degrees. Some parts of south-west Wales stay dry


and fairly bright. To the north occasional rain throughout. Rain in


Northern Ireland it should thin out. To the east brightness. Again


fairly breezy, as is the case in Scotland. Further rain at times in


western areas. To the east the high ground, we will see some cloud


breaks possible later in the day. The difference between Tuesday and


Download Subtitles