04/12/2012 Newsnight


The Autumn Statement. The whistle blowing Russian lawyer who died in jail. Atheist scouts. Why are Clarks shoes beloved in Jamaica? With Jeremy Paxman.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 04/12/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Lunchtime tomorrow is the time for bad news. In the annual assessment


of the state of the economy, we shall learn how badly mangled the


Government as policies have been, by their head-on collision with


reality. It doesn't look good. Losing Britain's triple-A rate


something politically almost suicide, having your banks go bust


is almost political suicide. Slashing the welfare budget by


taking out the pensions political suicide, everything is bad for the


Chancellor at this stage. Is it time the Chancellor of the


Exchequer stopped pretending he has any control over events?


How the imprisonment, torture and death of this man have spurred the


US Congress into a crackdown on Russia.


Hundreds of Russian officials are set to be banned from entering the


United States, and have any assets there frozen. A similar law may


soon be coming to Britain. As NATO decides to send anti-


missile defences to the Turkish- Syria border, is Damascus really


preparing to use chemical weapons. How sensible shoes took over


Jamacia. From the number one station, here comes UhUhUh, whether


you wrong or right, you gotta listen to Newsnight. Don't get the


blues, it is all about the shoes. The Government was busily getting


its reaction in first today, before George Osborne stands up in the


House of Commons tomorrow, and tells us all what a terrible state


the economy and the public finances are in. So, tomorrow morning's


papers will report �5 billion of our money being spent on schools,


transport, science and so on. But come lunchtime, Mr Osborne will


have to come clean. In his Autumn Statement, he will have to give us


the rest of the picture. Paul Mason is here with the full bucketload of


gloom. What are you expecting him to say?


Two years ago the Chancellor did put the lid on what could have been


quite a bad position for the UK, an insipient debt crisis in Europe and


everyone else getting dragged into it, by laying out two targets, the


debt and the deficit, one is the long-term loan and the other is the


debts. They said they would wipe out the deficit in five years and


get the debt rolling by the end of parliament. We will find out


tomorrow that he will miss both targets, it is highly unlikely he


will hit either of them. That is not the end of the world -- you


could, under normal circumstances say, and he has done it before, we


will do more austerity. This time last year they said more austerity,


and it will last longer. This �5 billion announcement today is a


straw in the wind that says they will not do that. They could have


send said departments find �5 billion to wipe out the debt and


deficit, instead they are using it to spend. If there was a letter


between A and B, we would be on plan, whatever that letter of. This


is not Plan A any more. What about plan K or L or M?,


can't go on doing austerity forever. That is what they are effectively


recognising. There comes a point when the markets say they don't


believe you? In the moment they are in disbelief mode, even the Germans


were rumoured to be seeing a downgrading of their credit status,


it didn't happen. All the European instruments reflecting the state of


the European economy are being downgraded. We have had triple-A


rating t says our debt is 100% solid. Even if you lost it, the


consensus is it wouldn't be the end of the world, because everyone else


is losing their's. The problem comes when people look at the ways


out, they say there is no growth, the austerity is at the end, you


can't politically do any more what do you do? Historically we know


what Governments do, they wipe out the debt by allowing inflation.


This is the concern of some of the investors I have been speaking. To


When you stand in the City of London and look around, you see


messages about greatness, stability, a global economy built on


reputation. In times of great stress, goes the message, we


produce great men, philanthropists, builders, leaders.


It is clearly taking longer to deal with Britain's debts. It is clearly


taking longer to recover from the financial crisis than anyone would


have hoped. But we have made real progress.


But how much longer? On the answer to that hangs the possibility of


huge budget cuts, lasting well into the next parliament.


The idea of Britain, as a triple-A nation, whose debt is always under


control, whose money is always good, is ingrained into the very fabric


of this country. But tomorrow we could find out we are just like


everywhere else, that our fiscal promises are equally capable of


being broken. It is all about growth, this is


what they thought receipt coverry would look like two years ago, and


this is the reality. Way lower. And the forecast made last March says


it will take three more years to get back on track. Tomorrow, there


is a new forecast. The experts say it will be lower still. That means


the Chancellor could miss his targets for getting the debt and


deficit down, putting Britain's triple-A rating at risk.


triple-A rating will matter a lot, both because it is part of


Britain's international repcation as major financial centre. It --


reputation as a major financial centre, but also George Osborne's


reputation, he said that is how we should measure his performance as a


Chancellor, the triple-A rating. If it goes that is a huge blow to him.


What are the chances of it going? They are pretty high.


David Cameron ordered Whitehall to make 1% extra cuts to fund a new �5


billion investment fund in schools and infrastructure. We are very


excited and surprised to be able to ask the leader of our country some


questions. The questions beyond this London school room are obvious,


is it realistic to go on pruning away at small, departmental


budgets? It is very realistic, because Government departments


aren't actually spending up to their budgets. So I think we can


say to them, you have to cut back some spending, including some


unnecessary spending, let's put that money into things that will


make a difference in our country and our economy.


But, when it comes to the tens of billions they will need to balance


the book, there is a bigger choice that could affect all of us. Slash


spending on welfare, or cut the budgets of the very departments


protected today. The right thing to do is to take off the ring-fence of


health and education. If you were to cut health and education


spending by the average 17.5% spending reduction that is were


imposed on other departments, that would get you about �25 billion.


would be politically suicidal? Absolutely there aren't any


politically happy ways forward here. Losing Britain's triple-A rating is


political sued side, slashing the welfare budget by taking out the


pensions is political suicide, everything is bad for the


Chancellor at this stage. Government looks set to spend �680


billion this year. If you are going to cut hard there are only a few


big budgets you can cut from. Welfare is the biggest, health and


social care just behind, then education, the rest is small


compared to that. But for savers, and that includes


everybody with a company pension, or saving for a house, tomorrow's


figures raise a different kind of worry. That, if it can't cut, or


grow its way out of the debt, the Government might be tempted to


sneakly inflate its way out. If investors think the Government is


prepared to let inflation eat away at the value of the debt, there is


an obvious danger. What do investors worry about this when


they see this level of debt? readers worried about financial


repression, that is when you keep interest rates lower than the rate


of inflation. That destroys the value of savings and investments,


it is the most politically expedient way to escape from huge


debts. If investors think the Government's prepared to let


inflation eat away at the value of the debt, there is an obvious


danger. The big danger for Britain is that people realise that is the


only way out, and we get either a gilt market strike, or a currency


collapse as a result. Two years ago, the City applauded


as cuts and tax rises, and said the worries of the markets over the


debt. And now, the Chancellor is out on a limb.


Autumn Statements used to be about a few hundred million here or there.


Tomorrow will be about how big a hit the economy has taken, and, how


big a hit there has been to the Chancellor's reputation too.


It was, afterall, the Conservative manifesto, in 2010, which promised


we will safeguard Britain's credit rating with a credible plan to


eliminate the bulk of the structural deficit over a


parliament. Well, the credit rating is far from


safeguarded, the promise of eliminating the deficit by 2015,


has evaporated. We will find out the hard facts about debt and


deficit tomorrow. With us now are Elissa Bayer, the


senior -- a senior invest director, and Clare McNeil from the Institute


for Public Policy Research, and Gillian Tett, azestant editor of


the Financial Times. How -- Assistant editor of the Financial


Times. How big a deal is this tomorrow? It is a huge deal. It has


only got worse with macro-economic situations, the Chancellor faces


two nasty Balancing acts. He has to some how persuade the market that


he's not increasing austerity, and but also not going overboard. He


has to walk a tight rope. At the same time he has to persuade the


population what he's doing is fair, and get people to buy into it. That


is like parent with two custard creams trying to divide it between


three kids, whatever happens everyone will complain. Or everyone


gets a few crumbs, perhaps? Exactly. Supposing that we were to lose our


triple-A rating, as was alluded to there a couple of times. How big a


deal would that be? I think for the last year or so we have lived with


smoke and mirrors, do we really have a triple-A meeting, even worse


than that of the United States, who won't talk about the subject. That


is a certain. But, Gillian and I were looking, I look after private


investors, can we touch Government stocks at the moment, the prices


are inflated beyond belief, if you hold them all you will do is lose


money. The markets are saying there is a query on the status, even


though it hasn't been altered. Would it matter if we lost the


triple-A status? It matters for our borrowing, yes it doeser ma. It is


all about status, they don't want to lose it. But if you look at the


countries downgraded, we're not too far off, in some respects. We are


in the same boat, most of us? the boat isn't happy. To be cynical,


if there was every a good moment to lose your credit rating, it is now.


A lot of Europe is in deep problems. The US is engulfed in this huge


great debate about whether it can get some budget deal before going


over the fiscal cliff and has a crisis in two weeks time. Investors


aren't necessarily going to be able to rush out and find another safe


haven if they lose faith in the UK. It will be painful, but it is as


good a time as possible to have the problem. This pledge that George


Osborne made, we are all in this together, it doesn't look like that


any longer? It doesn't, we know at the moment that the burden that's


being placed on low-to-middle- income families is very high. Most


of the cuts are from public services, welfare cuts, rather than


from tax rises. We know that those on the lowest incomes use public


services more, and they tend to rely on welfare more. So at the


moment it seems the poorest, in some ways, are shouldering the


majority of the burden here. rather agree? I completely agree, I


know a lot about a community up in Liverpool, who are seeing some


potentially horrible cuts down the road. There is already high levels


of unemployment, people really rely on public services there. To take a


small example, these days the Government is putting more and more


of the services on-line t assumes everyone has internet, up there, in


this part of Liverpool, they don't. The library has just been shut,


which provided the Internet access. That is the on the ground detail,


where people are really suffering, and where tomorrow's budget will


just add to the squeeze, as Claire says. You say carry on letting the


debt mount? You need to take a sensible approach to deficit


reduction, we think when the economy is weak as it is at the


moment, slow down the pace, and speed up once the economy is


stronger. You can think about how you can introduce policies that


will boost the economy, at the same time as supporting families. So


childcare, for example, you know, raising the female employment rate


would obviously positive in improving our tax base, we need to


think more about those kinds of policies. If the Chancellor were to


listen to that sort of counsel, to pay heed to the social damage that


sounds as if it is being done by cuts that have already been made,


and will be made. What would be the consequence, as far as somebody


like you, looking at the economy, is concerned? I think the other


thing, the more you do this, the worse it is getting. We are not


very far down the line. That is the other problem, it will get worse.


That is another thing that makes it more and more unattractive. But I


suppose, our side, we look after people who, I think, have saved,


who have made effort, who have been prudent. He's looking at that all


the time. He's trying to reduce what they have got. I'm seeing more


and more clients give more money to their children, and the children


are in their 50s. It is just a spiral at the moment. I can't see


inheritance tax to be much of a problem, they won't have it to pay.


It is hitting the middle all time. You are not serving the lower,


because they haven't got it t and you are attacking the middle.


Presumably these people who have savings are damaged once inflation


gets going, that is another suggestion, you kind of relax


inflation targets, and the debt starts to go away, gradually?


and deposit rates will not go up any time, are they? What is


desperately needed is somebody who can actually rally the country


round some common vision, and almost invoke that Churchillian,


blitz spirit that we are all in it together? That is what they claim


to be doing? They claim, but it is three years. You can pull that


rallying cry once or twice, when you have a clear-cut enemy, right


now people are worried about how long it will last and who is


responsible for this, and is the pain being shared out fairly, and


do people still have enough incentive to buy into the kind of


vision the Chancellor will try to present tomorrow. You have


different ideas of who is being unfairly penalised, does any of you


feel that there is any fairness in this strategy. Do you Gillian?


are certainly trying to find that. It was very telling that they have


now taken to pointing the finger at foreign corporation, that is a very


convenient way to say we will get more tax on them, whether it is


Starbucks with or Google, or somebody else like that. We will


see more and more of that going forward. The Chancellor is clearly


trying to position this budget that it is fair. There are measures that


will try to hit those at the top, restricting pension tax relief for


high earners, corporate tax, as Gillian says. And also measures to


support people on middle income, freezing fuel duty, for example.


But the reality is there is some very difficult choices to be made.


It is positive that there money going into infrastructure, but


squeezing frontline services isn't sustainable. This question about


choices, it is an illusion, isn't it, there is room for manoeuvre?


There is a question about a balancing act, they are walking


down a high wire right now. Very subtle presentation issues, and


subtle swings to the right or left will have a big impact now. Do you


think there is choice? No, I think politics are she short-term, they


are look to go 2015, and they have said not much will happen while


there is a coalition, you actually need to do things, and you will


upset more people. Maybe you can start moving this economy. That is


what is important. If the predicament is so great, and the


area for manoeuvre is so, very, very narrow, it doesn't rather make


you think what 2015 will be about. Whether anyone can offer anything


terribly different? No, and I think there is an international


disillusionment with politics, which is correct. What can they do?


But I think the talking about it, people are fed up with that,


actually you do need to do something. I have just come from a


charity dinner, more and more is being put on the charities. Where


do he they think the money is coming from?


The a chief economist from the BIF, gave a devastating speech and


pointed out that economic cycles happen in multidecade periods, and


Governments only last for a few years. You have the fundamental


clash right now, you need Governments to be able to take a


five-year or ten-year view, yet unfortunately they are looking at


one or two years at most. That is a real problem. There is no way


around that? Not at the moment, no. Not unless you believe in


democracy? Or you look like technocratic solutions like Monti


in Italy. Maybe the next decade will be about people questioning


the balance of how democracy works and looking at more technocratic


solutions. The economic choices confronting the west right now are


so painful, that the pressure won't evaporate quickly. There are


clearly tough choices, we shouldn't be too, throw up our hands too much,


there are decisions thatkg made now, investing more in skills and


apprenticeships, which will improve levels of production in our economy,


move us towards a more innovative economy. Policies like childcare,


for example, which can produce more bang for their buck. We must also


think about what can be done in the here and now, as well as


considering the difficult situation we find ourselves now. You take


something like the Standard, when they have a campaign to get people


out there to help, people to go into schools, people to help with


reading, people come forward. It is motivating people in the right way.


I was talking to my clients over the Olympic, the Olympics did a


great thing. I have just been away, and people said fantastic what we


did. If you built on something like that, that is progress, getting


people all facing the same way and seeing a benefit.


The American Congress looks to be on the verge of passing a law


guaranteed to irritate Russia. Moscow is warning of what it calls


"harsh counter action" in retaliation for legislation to be


debated in Congress tomorrow. Which will bring in all sorts of


restrictions on people said to have been involved in human rights


abuses. The trigger is the death of a lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky. But the


case has potential implications, right across relations between


Russia and the west. In a moment we will talk to the man taking the


bill through the US Senate. First Mark Urban reports.


It has emerged that it demonstrates it was definitely Magnitsky to


blame. A convicted thief, a has given us his testimony confirming


the link between Mr Magnitsky. He was told in no uncertain terms that


the mastermind of the whole affair was Sergei Magnitsky. The play, One


Hour 18 Minute, was performed in London last week. It is about the


last moments of Sergei Magnitsky. He died in a Russian prison three


years ago, while working for a businessman, who is determined to


hold those responsible to account. Whenever we had big worries or big


problems, or big situations, he would be just as much of a


counsellor to us as a legal specialist. He was just a decent


really good-hearted guy. Sergei did not want to compromise his


integrity by doing what would have made his life much easier, they


would have stopped torturing them if he had perjuryed himself, he


refused to do -- perjured himself. Knowing he died doing that,


protecting me from what they were torturing himself into doing, is


the most unpleasant, painful thought that anyone could ever have.


That is what drives me, every day, to make sure that for him, trying


to protect me, that he died, I have to protect him pros tu mostly and


make sure they -, -- posthumously, and make sure they don't get away


with it. This could bring Russia into fresh controversy, as a new


law in the United States targets hundreds of Russians officials.


Hopefully a year from now we will be sitting in a seat where we can


say that Sergei Magnitsky's death changed the way in which human


rights abuses are being dealt w and the way they are being dealt with


going forward, not just his case, but other cases, is take away their


visas and take away their assets. Russia can keep this Magnitsky law


as normal, it is not normal from our point of view. It is


discrimination of Russians. We don't want to a low anybody to


believe that somebody can discriminate against Russians and


to have no responsibility. Bill Browder's company bought a


Russian business, and soon discovered it to be involved in a


huge tax fraud. Sergei Magnitsky was digging into that, when he was


arrested and thrown into Moscow's notorious Boutirka prison. The list


of those abusing and killing him amounted to 60 people. Some from


the prison were fired, and others cleared by Russian investigations.


Let me just share with my colleagues, just a little bit about


the life and death of Sergei Magnitsky. But such is the evidence


now accumulating against those on the list, that the House of


Representatives last month passed the Magnitsky Act, banning those


held responsible from entering the US, owning property there, and


freezing any assets. Campaigners are now seeking similar legislation


in the UK, with support even from a former ambassador to Moscow.


would very much like to see the UK and the EU, western European


countries, pass the same law. Not because I'm anti-law, but Russia is


suffering from a cancer of corruption, and a cancer of out of


control security and authorities, this sort of action by western


countries will help them to get this sort of thing under control.


Tony Brenton had a number of stand- offs with Russian officialdom while


there. Britain also pointed the finger at Russian state security


for attempting to assassinate exiled tycoon, Berseovsky in the UK.


The unexplained death of another Russian, Mr Alexander Perepilichny,


threatens further stress in the relationship. Mr Perepilichny died


while out jogging in Surrey. He had been giving evidence to those


investigating Sergei Magnitsky's death, and the tax fraud he was


probing. In the summer of 2010 we received


an e-mail from an unknown man named Alexander Perepilichny. Who said


that he had some information on some of the tax officials, the


people who did the illegal tax refund, about how they got rich,


and how their money went to Switzerland. We thought that was a


very interesting suggestion. And so we met with him, he showed up with


what I would describe as a treasure trove of documents. Russia's


Foreign Ministry has reacted to the passage of the UK Magnitsky Act, by


accusing the Americans of double standards, and threatening a harsh


response. There has been speculation about reciprocol bans,


and harsh trade agreements, and even disruption to key agreement on


the UN Security Council. Sergei Magnitsky was 37 years old, he left


behind a wife and two children. the Magnitsky Act goes through


Congress, many names are being added to it, some seeking also to


extend it to Russian officials accused of other crimes. It is


becoming a template for action, against a broad swathe of


officialdom. In London, and other European capitals, Russian


diplomats anticipate similar battles, as new Magnitsky Acts are


put forward in these different countries. Already human rights


campaigners have expanded the original list to hundreds of


Russian official, they believe that carrying Onyango this path is


essential to Chancellor -- on in this path is essential to


challenging the corruption and illegality in Putin's Russia.


have to understand who the Russians are, they are extremely aggressive


group of people, who have all sorts of criminal interests. To some how


try to appease them, over the hopes that they might be nice to you, it


is like a battered wife hoping that the husband will not beat them the


next time. We have leavenage here. People don't seem to understand --


leverage here, people don't seem to understand, that targeted sanctions


against corrupt officials, in countries like the UK and the US,


and France, is about the biggest leverage you could ever have.


We remember him every minute of every day. Sergei Magnitsky met a


lonely and lingering death, in a Moscow jail cell. Remembered


initially by those who loved him, or who he worked with, his name is


set to appear on the US statute book, a rallying point for those


who wish to change Russia. Senator Ben Cardin is on Capitol


Hill. Do you know how many people will be subject to this law if it


is enacted? The number of people that will be subjected are those


that were involved, those that we have clear evidence that were


involved. We're not going to release the numbers, but at this


point it is those who attempt to come to our country, are not going


to be able to. Those who want to use our banking system, won't be


able to do it. We don't want their illegal gains to be hidden in


America, or for them to be able to visit their wealth here in America.


It is the right standard. We call it the Magnitsky Standard, we want


it to be used internationally we think that those who are violators


of gross international human rights standards, shouldn't benefit from


being able to visit, or hide their money in another country. But to be


clear about this, will they know that they are on the list, and how


will they be able to get off the list? They will be known when the


list is released, there will be a list. Quite frankly, they will know


if they can come to America or not. They try it apply for visas,


frankly, they know. The people involved here, this is not a hidden


secret, we know the individuals, we have identified the individuals,


they know who is involved here. The tragedy is the Russian federation


hasn't taken action against them N some cases they have been promote.


We are attempting to say, look, you have a responsibility as a country,


to the rule of law and to hold accountable those who have violated


basic human rights. This bill is really aimed at the Russians. The


Russians deserve a better Government. Quite frankly, there


have been many Russian business loaders, as well as citizen, who


have urge -- leaders, as well as citizens, who have urged us, not


just America, but other countries, to take action to help their


country do what is right. There may be very senior figures in the


Russian Government who could be on this list and prevented from coming


to the United States, couldn't there, presumably? This bill is not


aimed at political leaders, but those who are involved in


corruption and the death of individuals who have tried to be


responsible and bring this attention to their Government. It


is gross violations of human rights that have cost people their lives


and fortune. It is a well-focused, and not aimed at political leader.


Vladimir Putin, though, sits at the top of that system? Mr Putin, we


have concerns about him, it is not aimed at a political leader, as I


said before, there would be no danger whatsoever, if if Mr Putin


wants to visit the United States, he will be clearly welcomed in the


United States, this bill is not aimed at the head of the Russian


federation. It is aimed at those who were involved in the cover-up,


those who were involved in the penetration of the crimes against


Sergei Magnitsky. Why stop at Russia, though, why not apply this


rule to China, to Saudi Arabia, to various other states in the gulf?


We agree, it should be universal and global. We think it is the


standard now, once Congress has enacted this, in regards to Russia,


that this will become the international standard. I have


talked to many of the co-sponsors of this lepblgs lakes, both in the


House and the Senate, we intend for it to be applied to other countries.


There will be those that says, what right does a country what ships


people around the world, holds them in secret prisons and has trials


throughout the world, what right do they have to lecture on human


rights? We don't lecture, we believe in international standards,


I believe we should be transparent in the way we deal with unlawful


combatants, that is a more recent problems within the international


community, there hud be international standards for dealing


with unlawful combatant -- should be international standards for


dealing with unlawful combatants. They pose a risk to all our


countries, we need the information we need to keep our country safe,


it has to be done in an appropriate way. Do you measure or take into


account at all, the need to secure the co-operation of countries like


Russia, which have pretty discreditable human rights records


in many case, but they need to be on board to get some sort of peace,


for example, in Siria. Don't they? It is interesting, I chair the


United States Helsinki Commission, our participating arm in the


Organisation for Security and Co- operation in Europe, I'm the Senate


chair. Our responsibility as a member-state, Russia's


responsibility as a member-state, is we have a responsibility to


raise these issues. We think that good relations require us to be


honest with our partners and say, look, we need help with regards to


trade ordealing with Iran, ordealing with other issues, but it


doesn't hold us back from our responsibility, to raise other


issues concerning human rights. That is what a mature relationship


involves, it is complicated and it is not one issue. Certainly it is


our responsibility to raise the issues as we see fit.


Thank you. Ever since Elvis Presley pulled on


a pair of blue suede shoe, there has been a vital and much


overlooked connection between footwear and music. Think Nancy


Sinatra, Paul Simon, punks in Dr Martens, or rappers in deluxe


trainers. There has surely never been a more likely pairing than the


sensible, back-to-school shoes made by Clarke's of the West Country,


and thumping baselines of Jamaican Reggie. Yet star perform mers there


have gone to the top of the charts, by extolling the virtues of the


brand which thousands of British children have only better at the


behest of their man. A much-needed coffee table book has been written


on the subject now. Steve Smith reports.


So many feet, so many shoes. Can you tell just from this, that these


are dancing feet! Some of us love a shoe shop, of


course, for others it can be a bit of a drag. A reminder of buying a


new pair for school. If only there was a bit more colour, and pizas,


to the whole shoe experience. # Teach your children


# How to spell Stone me, it is only reggae great,


Dennis Alcapone. Dennis, fancy seeing you here?


Dennis has long been a natty dresser, as evidenced by this


picture for his LP Beguns Don't Argue. That goes for his footwear


too. Not bragging and boasting, but Jamaicans are trend setters. We are


fashion-conscious. From, I was a little boy growing up, it was


always Clarke's. If you're not wearing the Clarke's, then you are


not saying nothing. They seem to fit perfectly. She looks like a


proper little Princess. Hang on a minute, are we talking


about the same Clarke's. The perfectly good, but how to say it,


intensely practical things that our mum's pushed us into.


# Clarks me prefer Dear long suffering viewer, we are.


Here is Jamaican dancehall thing, Vibes Cartel and things,


celebrating his accesssory. Good to see an advertisment for good shoe


maintenance. # Let me get my Clarks


# I'll show you Clarks. In the Caribbean, it turns out the


unassuming lace-up and the ankle boot are the footwear of choice,


beloved of the biggest names on the reggae scene. I have a full closet


of Clarks, more than any other Live and direct, straight!


Of course, other brands of shoe, and I can't stress this too


strongly, are also available. But why are Clarks so on-trend in


Jamaica. A London-based DJ has gone in search of answers.


Clarks are from England, and Jamaican people, generally,


especially in the past, I would say, loved things that came from England,


or way were made in England. They were made to a certain quality. If


a Jamaican was coming to England, the number one thing that they


would be asked to bring back would be Clarks. And then string vests!


As a second thing. There is your follow-up book, right there! Yeah.


Strip this story back to its roots, and you are left with utter


cobblers, sigh rus and Sirus and James Clark who founded the


business in the 18th sent treatment What on earth do you think they


would make of these reggae guys loafing about in their shoes in the


Caribbean? I think they would not really be surprised. I think Nathan


Clark, who invented the desert boot, thought they were popular because


they were naturally good-looking in a rugged way. I don't think they


would be surprised that those sort of things that are valued in


Jamaica, have made them a really popular style out there.


While Popcaan relaxes on the set of his latest video in Jamaica, it is


important to point out that this story isn't entirely sunny.


One of his former collaborators is facing a murder charge. But, then,


even the highly reputable Clarks, has found itself linked to a


slightly dubious history. In Jamaican dancehalls, police once


picked on young men wearing the shoes. They asked all people with


Clarks boots to go one side, and people with other shoes to step to


the other side. Why was that? rude boys wear Clarks. The rude


boys? That is how they have it. Rude boys is mainly a street boy.


Rude boys are people who love to dress good. By any means necessary.


They might be a little bit, some of them might be in trouble with the


law, shall we say? There is different dimensions. What they


started doing, they started meeting the boys with the Clarks, because


they said they are boys. No such trouble for Dennis Alcapone


at the dancehall these days. Where he is swaging the greatness of mens


wear. If you want to see this item again it is available on the


iPlayer. When I'm going out to the dance, I have to be stepping in my


Clarks boot. We're going to have another look at


tomorrow morning's front pages now. The first look, the Duchess of


Cambridge is all over most of the tabloids, but some of the other


papers have tomorrow's Autumn Statement, though.


Osborne hitting banks again in the Times, Paul, what is all that


about? The i and i thinking there will be an extra tax on the banks.


Another one? The article doesn't have any detail about that. We


await the detail. But it is a clear thing, he has to come for all


sections of British society, and the banks are people who clearly


can have money to pay. I think the FT is more promising, in terms of


concreteness. Osborne to extend austerity to 2018. Remember,


famously, a year ago, on this programme, Danny Alexander, came on


and said we are extending the austerity into the next parliament,


2018. 2018 is quite a way into the next parliament. We are getting


close to the parliament after it. But, again, in there, sources close


to the Chancellor says he favour not doing that. He will try to


stick to the original debt target. The FT does reckon we will see a


very pessimistic, downgrade of growth forecast, which is the


premise of the discussion we have had tonight. If we don't grow, we


can't grow our way out of the deficit, we are in trouble.


don't think he will say that? think he will say it, but the


sources close to the Chancellor say he won't. So, I mean, look we just


have to wait. It is only 12 hours, it is like Christmas, if you wait


long enough we will find out what the presents are, and the Office


for Budget Responsibility will be delivering them to us geeks of the


statistical world. Enjoy. The Guardian with growth and NHS


figures jolting Osborne? I mean look, the parties are very much on


a sort of agenda of �1 billion here or there. Labour has hit back on


the Conservatives' �5 billion spending move, saying that proves


you shouldn't have cut it in the first place. There is a row going


on about whether they have cut or not the NHS, with the official


statisticians piling in on Labour's side tonight. These newspaper on


the eve of one of the biggest turning points for the Government.


Very interesting in that they indicate almost an eye of the storm


inability to judge what the coalition is going to do. Some of


us still think he might come up with something quite big tomorrow.


Clearly none of the papers have got it. He hasn't made his speech yet,


of course they don't know? If they were to say, look, we are going for


growth, and, or, we are goingor austerity, 2018 we will hit the


targets, welfare getting a massive cut. It won a massive headline


tomorrow. But the inability of the most politically connected papers


to judge where the Government are coming from, tells you a bigger


story about the narrative. I see the Telegraph going with the news


that we are spending �2 billion on wind turbines in the third world.


That is a different announcement? The day you get a wind turbine


announcement for the third world, on the eve of an economic


announcement, the day you know nobody really knows anything.


Couple of other papers, saying Kate could be on the drip for weeks.


That is the change in law of male inheritance. And the Independent is


much more concerned about sperm. That's it, it's turned out that the


news of the Duchess of Cambridgeshire's pregnancy hasn't


just benefited the royal wind bag industry. Nick Nack makers are


thrilled, and in Naples, the craftmen running up Nativity scenes,


are slaving around the clock night and day to bring the tableau up to


the minute. Joseph has a new look foo.


foo. -- too.


Hello, an icey and potentially snowy start for some of news the


morning. A band of sleet and wet snow across many areas. A covering


in place, be aware of that in the morning. Once it clears, lots of


sunshine. Crisp but cold into the afternoon, there will be wintry


showers towards eastern and coastal counties, rain, sleet and hail


along the coast. Inland they will fall in snow, giving a light


covering where they fall too. Further west we have one or two


showers pushing the far west of England. Away from these good sunny


spells. Any sunshine does nothing for the pefrp tour, it will be aled


cold day. For Northern Ireland the odd shower towards the north and


north-east. The best of the sunshine will be further west.


Across Scotland a fine day for many. We will start off with snow showers


in the far north, a fresh covering here. They will fade away, it will


be a cold day, many of us staying in frost. From Wednesday's sunshine


to Thursday's wet and windy weather. The weather system moves in from


the Atlantic, towards northern England and Scotland, snow over the


hills, it will take a while for that rain to reach southern areas,


Download Subtitles