16/07/2013 Newsnight


Who is to blame for the 11 hospital trusts that failed? Plus, new laws to stop lobbying, north Vietnam finds capitalism and muttering thespians. With Emily Maitlis.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 16/07/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



11 hospital trusts are placed in special measure. Whose fault is


that then? The front benchers blame each other. If the NHS is


considered Labour's proudest achievement, today is their darkest


moment. This report is about his Government and failings happening


now. We will hear from the Health Secretary now. After the rows and


expose says, making political lobbying transparent rather than


plain packaged plans are expected on MPs' desk tomorrow. We are


obsessed with lobbying. The man who invented modern lobbying takes on


his citiblgs. Capitalism north vet niece style.


Is this what it is to plan your business? No!How a communist


dictatorship got itself a market economy. And...Is It terrible?The


sex stays but the mumbling has to go. I don't know why, but no.How


the BBC Director General has declared war on this kind of thing.


The lurid headlines of the weekend suggested 13,000 preventable NHS


deaths, but the truth of the Keogh Report today suggested something


far more anodyne but just as dismaying. Trapped by mediocrity


said the report. It uncovers long standing problems at the trusts,


mediocrity known about but never addressed. The Government and


Labour were understandably furious, mostly at each other.


Today was supposed to be about making our hospitals safe for


patients. Instead as the Keogh Report was presented to MPs, it


became a political blame game rapidly. The Health Secretary,


Jeremy Hunt, said problems had begun under Labour. If founding the


NHS is considered Labour's proudest achievement, today is their darkest


moment. As a Labour Government is exposed as caring more about its


own reputation than our most vulnerable citizens in the NHS.


Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham hit back. Accusing the


Health Secretary of playing politics with people's lives.


report is about his Government and failings happening now on this


Government's watch. He then referred to decades of neglect in


the NHS in the 1980 and 1990s and the challenges of long waiting


lists? The last Labour Government dealt with that issue, I'm proud of


it and we are proud of our record on the NHS. It is depressing that


issues that ought to be about quality and safety of patient care


then descend into a political argument between Labour and the


Government. We should be reaching to the higher ground asking the


kinds of questions Sir Bruce has done in his report, understanding


what causes failures of patient care. I hope politicians will move


beyond today's discussion and to have that more plaiture discussion


that the NHS -- mature discussion that the NHS itself is looking for.


The review found 14 hospital trusts There is absence of a culture of


openness, a lack of willingness to learn from mistakes and lack of


ambition and ineffectual governance. 11 of the 14 hospital trusts were


put on perb measures today. One criticised for out of hours care


and poor track record on bed sores, and for shifting patients from


ward-to-ward, sometimes multiple time, was the George Eliot Hospital


Trust near Birmingham. It was making sure patients got to the


right ward at the right time, we are increasing beds in the hospital


and look to go see if we can put additional nurses and doctors into


the hospital out of hours. So there are some really good and positive


stuff we can take forward. Each trust met the Keogh team at a risk


summit to discuss their future. The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust


was not singled out for special measures, but its management team


has been told to make improvements in talking to patients and other


areas. We let patients down in terms of not getting good flow


through the organisation so patients waiting for longer than


they should have. In making some of our discharge processes not being


as slick as they should be so patients are waiting for long


periods to go at the end of their stay with us. Most of the trusts


accepted the findings of today's report. Many were saying they were


looking to increase nursing levels and would be talking more to


patients. Should people feel more reassured about the NHS tonight?


think they should be thinking that despite some of the findings that


we made that we have a fantastic NHS, it is a big organisation,


there are some areas which do less well an others, but in the


hospitals we have visited and we have found serious cause for


concern we have dealt with them quickly. The issues that these


hospitals have to address now are about improvement, not immediate


The 14 Hospital Trusts were put under scrutiny because they had


higher than expected death rates over the last two years, but the


review team is sceptical about such data. Statistic kal estimate of


unexpected deaths can't be described as needlessly lost lives.


Personally I don't set much store about the hospital mortality


standardised ratio. The good news is we need to look at mortality,


and there is a way of doing it, that is by case note review. We


look in great depth at each and every death in a hospital. We get


clinicians, physicians to do this who have been specially trained,


using all the standardised techniques. From that we can


determine what proportion of deaths are avoidable. Isn't that a very


time-consuming process? It is a time-consuming process, but there


is immediate benefits to the clinicians because they learn


things about their own hospital and care. The author of today's report


described this as a difficult day, but one he hoped would be a turning


point for patient. It may well be a turning point for politics too, as


the battle over who loves the NHS the most begins a new chapter.


A little earlier I spoke to the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt. This


is a major report today into an issue of major concern for the


entire country. Why would you choose to make such blatant


political capital out of it? not. Actually as Health Secretary


it is a very difficult day for me today, it is very difficult for any


serving Health Secretary to come to the House of Commons and to say you


are putting 11 hospitals into special measures that is nearly 10%


of all acute trusts. The last thing you want to be responsible for is a


service where there are failures. But the difference about today and


it is a very big moment for the NHS. The difference is that because we


are now being completely transparent about where there are


problems, that means that people like me are now going to be held to


account for turning round those failing hospitals. Why would you go


to the Commons and accuse Andy Burnham of silencing


whistleblowerers, and being to blame, and tweets from backbenchers


all over the weekend pointing the finger at Burnham saying he should


lose his job, where does that get you on this? The fact is one of the


big changes we have had to make is overhaul the entire regulatory


system that was set up by Labour. So you think he was to blame for


this? Well the issue about not confronting failure, I absolutely


do think that Labour are squarely to blame. David Cameron, your own


leader, quoting the Francis Report said that they were not to blame,


he did not want to see scapegoats and it was not the fault of the


previous Secretary of State. Why is this different and why are you


different to your leader? Well, what David Cameron was reflecting


was what was in the Francis Report about the specific issues at Mid


Staffs. What we are talking about here is a whole series of problems


in hospitals that the NHS tried to solve behind closed doors and they


weren't fixed. And the way that we are going to restore confidence and


for me as Health Secretary, what I have to do now, is to deliver


improved hospitals. Where these were failing hospitals I have to


make sure they are now improved. How many more people died as a


result of these failings in care do you think? It is very difficult to


put an exact number on T it is hotly debated by academics.


think it is thousands, that is what you said today, you said thousands


more people may have died? I said they may have died. What happened


with Mid Staffs was that excess mortality rates. What does that


mean? You must let me answer the question. What does "may" have died,


did they die as a result of these failings? I think people did die


avoidably, yes. There is an argument between academics about


precisely how many, but what we do know is that excess mortality rates


are a lead indicator for problems in care. What Bruce Keogh looked at


was the 14 hospitals can excess mortality rates, and in all 14 he


found serious problems in care. Those sorts of figures people are


saying are clinically meaningless and academically reckless.


Academically reckless, you have said thousands may have died as a


result? You are putting words into my mouth. You said that, you said


thousands may have died as a result of this? You said may have died, we


don't know how many. Let me say this, they may have died. Why isn't


that academically reckless, why isn't it clinically meaningless?


said to put a number on it. I didn't put a number on it. But he


would agree with me that there may be thousands of people who died.


But many people living in these areas particularly, and more widely


afield, will be very concerned at what they found. When do you think


they can rest easy that things rup to scratch, that things are


medically safe. Let me make a general point about


confidence in the NHS. Give me a time frame? All the hospitals will


be inspected within the next 12 months by the new Chief Inspector


of hospitals, who starts work today. This is a brand-new Ofsted-style


regime. We will be able to see. You can invite me back and we will see


the progress that has been made. How long do you think that will be?


I would expect to see progress by the time of the first inspection


they do. But. Which is?Within the next year. I don't want to give the


time scale for every single problem to be pointed out. Within a year


would that be too long if they were still in special measures in a


year's time, pick a time frame? want to answer, it is very


important, the point about confidence is you don't restore


confidence for the people who use these hospitals and live near these


hospitals by minimising the problem. You restore confidence by showing


them that you are doing something to sort it out. We need a system


whereby people like me can't get off the hook. It is so public, we


have 1 hospitals in special measures. If we don't get the


hospitals out of special measures soon. You will be the person coming


to me and saying why haven't you succeeded in turning this around


and I will be accountable for it. When? I want it as soon as possible,


but some of these problems are deeply entrenched. Are you


comfortable as Health Secretary that the PM spokesman has a company


that lobbies on behalf of big tobacco? Are you talking about


Lynton Crosby. Lynton Crosby's work is for the Conservative Party and


...He Has a company that also lobbies on behalf of Big Toe bab


co-? He hasn't lobbied me or the Prime Minister on issues to do with


public health. There is also transparency. Does he never help


the PM or advice on issues of policy and public health? No.So


that is a whole area he's not allowed to touch? Yes. Are there


any other issues he's not allowed to touch? I have given you a


straight answer to the question you asked about public health, I don't


know where you want to take it. Don't you think it is odd to have


somebody who is your election co- ordinator that can't touch a whole


area of issues? It is right that he shouldn't. His company has clients


in that area. Would you like to bring in this plain packaging for


cigarettes now? I want to wait and see what the evidence says, but I'm


very sympathetic to measures that stop young people taking up smoking,


it is our number one killer. not be brave and just do it.


Ireland has set the pace, why not do it? These are very hot low-


fought legal issues and we need it make sure if we are doing it that -


- hotly fought legal issues and we need to make sure we have the ducks


in the row. Why not be a world leader? We have to have the


evidence there. When you have a country like Australia that


introduced it in January, it won't be too long before we know the


impact in terms of the amount of young people it has stopped taking


up smoking. And when you have that evidence that's the time, it is a


big decision, but that's the time to make your decision. Jeremy Hunt


thank you. So there you go, clarification from the Health


Secretary that Lynton Crosby, the Conservative election co-ordinator


never advises on issues of policy in public health, it is a whole


area that he's not allowed to touch. Well tomorrow that question of, if


you like, undue influence in lobbying comes to a head, or may do.


Proposed reforms to the lobbying industry will attempt to do what


Leveson tried to do with the press and Ipsa is trying to do for MPs'


expenses. Will it be more successful, or does influence flow


where money is happy to pay. In a moment we will hear from James


Woolsey and Tim Bell. Central Lobby can be an


intimidating place, with queens, prime ministers and saints. Yet it


is meant to be for the common man, a place to drop in and lobby your


MP. Lobbying doesn't have to be a dirty word. But it is. It is the


next big scandal waiting to happen. David Cameron almost got it right,


first came phone hacking then lobbying. The latest furore over


why the Government decided not to introduce plain packaging for


cigarettes and whether that might have something to do with the fact


that their Aussie election strategist, Lynton Crosby's


lobbying firm is employed by the tobacco industry. Labour certainly


sees a connection. Now we know that Lynton Crosby's company had a


contract with Big Tobacco. And at the same time Lynton Crosby was


advising the Prime Minister on what should be in his Queen's Speech and


we know that the Prime Minister dropped his bill on tobacco


packaging, I think that is a clear conflict of interest. David Cameron


has to come clean and explain why once again he's standing up for the


wrong people. It was this footage of Conservative MP, Patrick Mercier,


apparently offering Fiji to reenter the Commonwealth in exchange for


�4,000 that brought "cash for questions" back into the headlines.


I don't charge a great deal of money for these things.


The story came as no surprise to many in Westminster. The Central


Lobby of the House of Commons and this place is infested with


lobbyists, and their tentacles stretch in every corner of the


building, every area of life in the House of Commons is full of


lobbyists. And they are there lurking, ready to persuade, ready


to corrupt politicians to do their bidding. And what they will do is


to bribe and bully and bamboozle politicians in the interests of


their rich paymasters. Tomorrow the Government is expected to try to


tighten the rules on lobbying by proposing a register of


professional lobbyists. For faith to be restored in this place people


need to believe that politicians are making decisions based on what


they think is right for the country, rather than on-lineing their own


pockets. A register of professional - on lining their own pockets. A


register of professional interests sounds like a good idea. The only


problem is only a fraction of people paid to meet MPs around


policy will end up signing up to it. What is the problem with the


register, is it that you don't want to be on it? I absolutely want to


be on a register, bring it on. The problem is I think it will just


include consultancies. We looked at Biz department figures, last year


988 departmental meetings were had with ministers, special advisers,


and a permanent secretary. Just two of those 988 meetings were with


people like me, the rest were with trade groups and in-house lobbyists


and lawyers. The Government's bill is expected to set up a register of


professional lobbyists. It is also likely to try to limit the amount


third-party organisations can spend on campaigning for political


parties. That will affect trade unions. But Labour's got other


ideas and has tabled amendments. It wants all paid lobbyists to end up


on the register, and it wants any lobbyist doing a senior job for


Government to be declared. Perhaps unsurprisingly people think that is


aimed at exposing the business affairs of Lynton Crosby. Forget


any idea that the political parties will reach consensus on this. Some


fear what will get lost is campaigning to make things better.


Lobby is not all bad. We exist to lob hey, I'm an MP and not an


expert in all fields, I rely on talking to others, NGOs, charities,


local businesses talking to me. You have to be open to lobbying. The


issue is it has to be transparent and no money should change hands.


If you dole with those two aspects lobbying doesn't have to be


negative. The Government's proposals is meant to decontaminate


lobbying, as long as they are points scoring against each other,


it is hard to see that happening soon.


Lord Bellamy bell is a Conservative peer and P -- Lord Tim Bell is a


Conservative peer, and runs one of the most successful lobbying


outfits. And Dr James Woolsey repeatedly has spoken out against


lobbying. Welcome both. I want to go back to the question of Lynton


Crosby, would that be usual to have whole policy areas completely off


limit like that? In my experience of advising political parties on


election campaigns is it is not about policy but how you get votes


and who you tafrgt your messages to, and how you deliver those drg


target your messages and now you different -- how you target your


messages and how you get them out. I worked for Margaret Thatcher for


15 years if I told her what policies to decide on she would


have thrown me out of the room. Jeremy Hunt was certain that those


lines should not be crossed? Jeremy Hunt speaks for himself, I don't


speak for him. I do know Lynton Crosby extremely well, I can


guarantee you that he did not persuade the Prime Minister to


change his position on plain packages. Are you convinced own


that? If you come in and say you want to scrape the barnacles off


the boat and one of those barnacles is entire public health policy you


don't need to have a conversation about smoking and tobacco because


it is disappeared. In the report we were hearing about...What Do you


mean the importance of disappeared? I think it has been removed. Two


very key public health measures are being removed. Just to reflect back


on today's events, NHS doctors and nurses all the time are being told


about the importance of reducing avoidable mortality. We have the


really big win in avoidable mortalties in public health, and


yet the two areas which could have made a real difference and the real


tools that could have been used to reduce smoking and reduce alcohol


abuse, they have been removed by the politicians for short-term


political expediency, in my view. By lobbyists? You could argue this


is one of the most spectacular examples of hidden lobbying. We


don't know. I think the point is that actually if you are also being


paid by major tobacco companies and internationally, but the point is


we don't know, by big alcohol, then of course, to make a statement that


can't influence the kind of advice you are giving is wrong. The public


have a right to know. It doesn't smell right? I don't care what it


smells like? You don't care what it smells like, extraordinary.


type around Big Tobacco and Big Alcohol, the same as small alcohol


and small tobacco. As it happens I'm a smoker and happy smoking, all


the stuff that Sarah talks about and the health Tsars and fascists


have gone on and on about smoking hasn't affected me. I did the very


first anti-smoking campaigns in this country when The Royal College


of Physician report came across with the linking of smoking with


cancer, and emphysema. We did all the anti-smoking advertising, later


on we took on a cigarette brand called Silk Cut, I don't take issue


with that I believe it should be free. I'm a real Conservative


Conservative I believe in the continued...If It doesn't work then


fine? The point is if it didn't work why would people pay vast sums


for it. It should include people giving high-level political advice


at the heart of Government. I think that's something that the public


would welcome. What position are you in at the moment, do you feel


comfortable with Lynton Crosby and the position he's in for your Prime


Minister? I would like to know who else is paying him. The public have


a right to know that as well. To see public health completely


removed from the political agenda at the same time as somebody is


advising about what policy should be in the lead up to the election.


I'm afraid it isn't the case to say these things are unconnect. What


reforms do we need tomorrow? don't need any reforms. None at all,


you are happy with the position of Government? I have never known a


lobbyist that gave a politician money or gifts or took them on to


events to persuade them to change policies. If you want to define a


lobbyist, which the Government define as wishing to influence


public policy then every MP is a lobbyist, every journalist,


everybody who talks about politics is a lobbyist, every constituent


that comes to your surgery is a lobbyist. For God's sake this is


smearing a small group of people. You have no evidence for it


whatsoever apart from a few fraudulent activities. You don't


have the faintest idea what lobbyist gets paid. What does it


matter if they get big money or not? The public want transparency


about that. The public has never asked me for transparency. Jo it


should also be around things like think-tanks, for example, anybody


who lobbies for money. It couldn't do that. So everyone should sign up


to this register? I I think they would want to. You heard the guy in


the film there are only two people on it because they are transparent


about what they do? The APCC has every single one of the companies


to be named tomorrow, as I understand it, which is what you


call the professional lobbying companies, they are already members


of it. They already publish their client lists and how much they are


paid. It is published on a publicly available website. It is already


there. The head of the PRCA, the head of APPC have all said to the


Government you don't need to do this, but they completely ignore


you and what they are doing is smearing a lot of people who make a


considerable contribution to this life. All of us do things that make


a difference. They make a difference to people's lives. I


happen to to be a real Conservative, I believe people should be paid for


what they do. I don't believe there is anything wrong with being paid,


nor do I think everybody is corrupt. Do you find if big money changes


policy? That is where we are going to. Does it matter if that happens?


Not if the policy out of it is good. If somebody has a lot of money they


should be able to influence policy? That is not how it work, if you


look at what lobbyists get paid. The financial takeover company


decided to make financial companies pay fees in order to discover if


they were being overpaid for doing takeover bids. Lo and behold it


turned out they weren't paid millions but tens of thousands of


pounds. Are the public sophisticated enough to see through


the people that are trying too hard, if you like. Do we really need


regulation to sort this out? point is the public have an


absolute right to know who is behind, what is the big money


behind organisations that are advising at the heart of Government.


Isn't the worry that you paint the political classes as grubby,


corrupt, when we have one of the cleanest systems in the world?


do because people challenge, we should continue to challenge. It is


not unreasonable in my opinion. introduce absurd regulations that


have made no difference anywhere else. We are going to have to leave


that here. How do you get capitalism to work


in a communist state. Now 25 years ago the entire economy of Vietnam


was Government-controlled. The debate continues here. Today just a


third of it is, the country still calls itself commune is, but this


process of liberalisation is reckoned to be key to Vietnam's


rapid growth. We have gone in search of Vietnamese milk, bun of


the burgeoning industries flourishing in a country not used


to' free market. They still preserve a few remnants of war. But


Ho Chi Minh, the city normally known as Saigon, is almost


unrecoginsable as the place the Americans withdrew troops from 40


years ago. Vietnam's commercial centre sports all the Gaudi


accessories you would expect from a booming economy. The high class


hotels and cafe lifestyles. Just like this city, the communists who


won the American war, as the Vietnam War is known here, have had


a makover. One bonders what the communist hero,


Ho Chi Minh would make of the fact that the Stock Exchange is named


after him. This place is still run by the Communist Party, but


apparently Vietnam is now a socialist-orientated market economy.


What that really seems to mean is capitalist powerhouse. Over the


last 15 years the Communist Party has overseen a spectacular economic


boom. But now growth is lagging, in large


part because the boom has been based not on wealth, but on the


country's poverty. Look at the scale of this place? There must be


hundreds of people working here. It is like those dark Satanic mills,


and these guys make garments and clothes for all the big western


countries. It really is amazing. Vast workshops like this making


clothes and other manufactured goods for the west are the engine


driving Vietnam's boom, they flourished because they are so


cheap. And they are cheap because the workers get paid so little.


This is definitely not for the local market. Hi is pretty typical


of Vietnam's new urban work force, he has migrated from the


countryside and works long hours for what is, by international


standards, very low pay. So how hard is it working here? Not hard


He heads home as soon as his long day shift is over. This is your


place? But almost immediately's back in front of a sewing machine.


What time do you think you will It is a long day for you Hi. The


Vietnamese Government recognises that piece work is never going to


make people like Hi or Vietnam rich. So it has been encouraging the


development of new industries, which generate higher profits and


can pay workers more. Dairy products have never been a big part


of the Vietnamese diet. Vinamilk is hoping to change that. It has grown


rapidly to become one of the biggest companies listed on the Ho


Chi Minh Stock Exchange, valued at over $5 million. The architect of


Vinamilk as success is its formidable former communist boss,


Madame Lien. Do you like cows? So what are your plans for the


A multinational, an ambitious woman, very ambitious? Yes.Vinamilk is a


poster child for the success of the communist Government's


privatisation programme. Just over 25 years ago the entire economy was


controlled by the state. Now it is just a third. So this factory is


all powered milk products? children. That process of


liberalisation is reckoned to be the key to Vietnam's rapid growth.


Madame Lien says she sees no contradiction between the country's


Apology for the loss of subtitles for 43 seconds


growing private sector and its Which sounds rather like capitalism.


And the problem with capitalism is that capitalists tend to do what's


best for the bottom line. Not what is best for workers. Despite the


boss's -- bosses' minimalist sympathies, just a few people can


run this vast milk powder factory and the dairy in the Highlands has


the latest labour-saving equipment. The state still keeps a very tight


grip on other aspects of society, here is the minder who accompanied


the Newsnight team wherever we went. Can innovations and enterprise


thrive while the state keeps such a close watch. Many investors seem to


think so, this is a software engineer who works for a country


that looks to borrow ideas from leading companies in the best like


Google and Ebay, and tailor them for the Vietnamese market. Once


again this is not labour-intensive work. Do you think this is a bit


like business? Man, you are a tough competitor. Is this what you feel


like when you are planning your business? No!He lives the kind of


modern urban lifestyle that many young Vietnamese aspire to, he's


optimistic about the future. Actually I'm lucky now because I


was born in the peaceful town -- peaceful time, not only me but many


students have the space to study and work, not only in our country


but in developed countries like the US and Europe. Not everyone shares


his optimisim. Hoong is one of Vietnam's army of new graduates,


Vietnam's universities have almost two million students, a seven-fold


increase in just 15 years. It is another arm of the Government's


strategy to upgrade the economy. You are selling these mobile


phones? Yes.You are not working in what you want to do? Yeah. I really


want to have a job in suitable with my degree. But I can't find a job


like that. But Hoong's experience is typical. She graduated two years


ago with a degree in hotel management. But she can't find work


in the hotel industry. Are there many of your friend from university


What do your parents think of the situation. It must be quite


difficult for them? The problem is that in vet nam it is not -- is


that if Vietnam is not using its brightest and best it will find


itself in the middle income trap. Rising wages will price it out of


bottom end manufacturing, yet it doesn't seem ready to break into


the more lucrative higher value markets quite yet.


I think that the BBC chief Tony Hall remarked today "muttering is


something we could look at". If you are in any way hard of hearing


muttering is something you you have to look at. The announcement was


greeted with more whoops of joy than a reduction in the license fee.


Has the quiet man had his time? Or have we a mix of kitchen sink


realisim. (quietly) it is very beautiful here. Yet all around such


decay. The children are starving. Did you think this was just a


fairness dispute, a little bit of nothing. A wife did she hang?No


Jeggers was for her. Perhaps he should. He must want more.


(quietly) then what? Then, picnics. So now that he's started. It is


hard to stop even if he wanted to. He thinks they are weak and all day


he is making table legs and side boards. (inaudible) with my dresses.


You turn it down to the bank tomorrow, we don't want any


criminals thieving off you. Nothing like making a point with a


bit of choice editing, but to discuss the mumable is Michael


Simkins a RADA-trained actor who has performed on the stage and TV


dramas and big screen and the Sunday Mirror's TV critic is with


us. Is it about not wanting to be ham, is that the biggest worry?


can blame the bloke behind me, Marlon brand dough, before him


whether it was actors who were positively sup pine like Gary


Cooper, who people who delivered it stucatto like Edward Robinson, you


could always hear what they said. Brand dough broke the mould and


started the trend for a more realistic style. That has been


exemplfied by the cultural change, everything is spartan and dialogue


understated. That is how a lot of people communicate. Like the


younger generation today. We are not goinging to lose that are we?


don't recognise this as a prevalent problem. Tony Hall was honest


enough to admit he's 62 and was perhaps talking to his own


generation. I think a lot of the complaints are actually, we saw


Eddy Redmain there, and an absurd example. You have soundtrack,


actors speaking perfectly normally against the backdrop of pounding


rock music because that is groovy and MoD he were, and people of a


certain age can't hear what is being said. It is this kind of urge


towards modernism that possibly gets in the way of clarity. When


you are training and you are a RADA man, is the emphasis on projection


and on the kind of acting that speaks to a 1,000-seat theatre?


emphasis is less now. When I was training back in the primevil days


back in the 1970s, actors cut their teeth in great big theetures where


you were playing to 800 seats. When Donald Syndon opened his mouth on


the first night he blew me into the orchestra pit, I couldn't believe


anyone could deliver 70-80 yards without raising his voice. That has


changed. Following on from your point the poor old beleaguered


actor, however well they do it on set it is overlaid often with


soundtracks and ambient noises which gives it a nice theme.


are not told to mumable? No actor it is told to mumable. If you are


trying to do the love scene with the royal Philharmonic orchestra


behind you, I defy Brian Blessed to do that. The actors are being


unfairly accused, they might deliver the line well and they turn


the music down to make it moody. What about the rest of the


technology, flat-screen TVs, this is mooted as one reason why you


can't hear anything, there is no sound bar? I hadn't thought of that,


but I think Michael and I agree we don't see this as a prevalent


problem. It may be, as Tony said I'm sorry if I sound like a grumpy


old man, it may be a grumpy old man complaining about something he


personally find irritating. Programmes like The Wire are cool


because you can't quite understand them? There is a lot of copying of


the Wire, that could have done with subtitles. I thought you could get


it? Hi to get subtitles watching it. Follow on from that technology has


moved on hugely, when you are filming, the boom operator, the


sound man, they can pick up the tick of your wristwatch but also


your gurgling digestive system doing last night's curry. The actor


sometimes inadvertantly hands over the mechanics of his performance to


technology. You are often in the thrall of people who are expert,


however much they may be, it is not you judging the performance I in


more. That must make you feel impotent? As an actor. A lot of


things make me pole impotent! It does mean there is so much


technology around the actor can forget they are the person


delivering the part. Thank you very much indeed. We hope you heard


every word of that, we will take you through a mumbled paper review


Apology for the loss of subtitles for 43 seconds


now. The Times has a picture of a That's all from us tonight, it is


not just the mumbling that is going, it is also the pesky squished up


credits at the BBC programme, you (continuity announcement mumble


about the next programme). Good evening, more sunshine and more


heat, just about sums up the forecast for the British Isles in


the next few days. Today we still have some cloud across Northern


Ireland and Scotland, a bit more cloud for northern England than


early on in the week. For Northern Ireland with sunny spells through


the afternoon, a few spot temperatures will get close to the


mid-20s, the same can be said for southern and eastern Scotland. The


North West plaged with the remnants of a weather front. Shetland should


brighten through the afternoon. Northern England should have long


spells of sunshine in the mid-20s, across the south-east of England we


may get close to 30 degrees. With that kind of heat we may spark off


a very isolated thunderstorm. If we see any showers developing they


could be lively, but they will be few and far between. Further west


more sunshine, of course, and again widely in the 20s. Very little


changes in that story as we look at the later part of the week. Just


ever so slightly subtle changes, temperatures coming down on


Thursday and Friday picking up a more Eastleigh fetch to our weather.


Who is to blame for the 11 hospital trusts that failed? Plus, new laws to stop lobbying, north Vietnam finds capitalism and muttering thespians. With Emily Maitlis.

Download Subtitles