24/10/2013 Newsnight


University teachers' pensions, press self-regulation, Front Nationale's Marine Le Pen, billionaire Elon Musk, Antony Gormley on Robert Caro and a Syrian refugee's lethal journey.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 24/10/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Uh-oh. Just like any other private sector organisation they have to


look at how they get a grip on their pension costs. It is the biggest


pension fund in the country with the biggest black hole. Almost ?8


billion of a shortfall. It is the scheme for university teachers.


Balancing the books could result in higher tuition fees. We will try to


find out who will end up paying the bill. The death boats that lead some


of the wretched of the earth to perish on the sea in sight of


Europe. We tell one family's story. We called Allah hu Akbar. They fired


at the hull of the boat and left. Water began leaking into the boat.


And a blow for freedom or an act of desperation, newspaper publishers


apply for a judicial review, a politician's efforts to set up a new


press regulator. This matter was shaping up to be something


wonderful, but then... Jeremy Clarkson might not like the Tesla


electric car, but does the billionare behind it care. His two


pet peeves are American cars and electric cars, we are an American


electric car, we are in the worse possible situation for someone like


him. The death of Anthony Caro who changed the face of British


sculpture. Good evening, all kinds of pension


funds have been in trouble in recent years, at least in part, because


poor stock market performance has seen bad returns on investments. But


the problems of the university superannuation SKEERJS or USS,


dwarfs the rest. It faces a -- It faces a shortfall of billions. Using


the private companies used it would have been ?10. 5 billion. It


requires a rise in tuition fees of up to a thousand pounds a year.


Drinks and canapes to celebrate exactly 50 years since the


Government accepted the recommendations of this man, Lionel


Robin, before his 1963 report only 5% of people went to university.


After it university places trebled. With that went a big expansion in


teaching staff, and also the cost of the pensions they were promised. The


university superannuation scheme is now the biggest pension fund in the


country, with gaping deficit. Here is what the university pension


scheme told its 30003,000 -- 300,000 It has just 83% of the money it


needs. Critics of the US S, as the


university scheme is known, say its managers aren't doing anything like


what they must do to close that black hole. There is a whole degree


of denial, USS is in denial about its real financial position.


Universities are in denial about the cost of pension promise, we have


seen private sector pension schemes closing to new members and existing


members wholesale over the last few years. USS can't stand up and say


they have a real problem, they have been making too small contributions


over the last few years. They have been running a very risky investment


strategy, this is where it has got us and this is what we need to do.


There will be reprecussions for the university sector, if we don't have


the reprecussions now or over the next year years, we are giving a


very big problem to our children. The thing about FENGSs is they span


deck -- pensions is they span deck cautioused you are a member from the


start to the day you die. Acties act trees have to make assumptions, at


the stroke of an actuary's pen you can gain or win millions. What the


actuaries know is what they will pay in future and how much money they


have to pay the pensions. What they have to take a guess on is what the


money will be worth by the time it is needed. They wave their pen and


assume a growth rate. It will be either be enough to fulfil their


promises, if not they will have a black hole. Actuaries for private


firms have to follow a strict formula on working out the debt, FRS


17, you have to assume growth based on market rate interest rates. It


seems to me completely wrong, where as private sector KRNGS even public


sector schemes have to come up with their figures on an FRS 17 basis,


USS doesn't do that. That figure is picked out of the air. It is the


actuary's magic person. He calculates the deficit at ?10. 5


billion, and employers would have to throw a lot more money at the scheme


to fix it. There is ?5 00 million coming from the universities, it


needs to go up to ?1. 2 billion, the fees will have to go up by ?1,000,


it is a ?1 thousand each undergraduate will have to pay for


the next ten years. If tuition fees are forced up by that amount every


year, the minister who knows about it is the minister for education,


David Willetts, he has showed up at conference. Why don't I ask hi If


you use the same figures the companies have to use, the deficit


is ?10 billion. How do you react? I don't recognise the figure.


Universities are autonomous bodies, and one of their financial


responsibility is STRAN behind pension -- stand behind pensions.


This will push up tuition fees by ?1,000, would you acknowledge these


pressures on pensions would make tuition fees more expensive. It


would be wrong to expect TU accidents to bail out pension --


students to bail out pensions that are much more generous than they


will enjoy when in work. If higher contributions are needed, how will


the universities recover that money? It is worrying for now and the


future. It would be an added cost which we would have to cover from


tuition fees or some other source, private philanthropy, earnings from


consulting or other enterprises. The man just appointed by the USS to run


its scheme was two months ago the man who ran the pensions regulator.


Is he comfortable with the size of this deficit. Let's be blunt you


will have to ask the employers sponsoring the scheme to put their


hands in their pockets? It is the normal course of deciding how to


fund a pension scheme. It is here for the long-term. Was that a yes?


We have to look at 80 years. Is that a yes? It is a normal process. It


was done in 2008 and 2011, we are looking at it again now. The members


of the scheme won't like to hear that. University staff are already


planning to strike next week over pay. If they are going to discuss to


pay more, one, we will want to know that the long-term future of the


fund is clearly one that's at risk. Two, we will want to make sure that


the employers themselves are making an equal and increased contribution


as well. The USS has three-quarters of its money in relatively risky


investment, shares, property and alternative investments like a stake


in Heathrow, unlike other funds who buy more safe Government bonds. The


hope is those investments will rise in value and close up that black


hole. That has been a strategy for years now. So far, at least, it


hasn't worked. Earlier I spoke to the chair of the


employers pension forum, and a pensions expert from Warwick


University's Institute for Employment Research, and a USS


pensions scheme member. I started by asking how universities ended up


running the biggest pension fund deficit in the country? It is not as


simple as that. A pension fund deficit can't just be measured on


one point in time. It is hugely volatile. One of the things that has


happened over the last couple of years, of course, is that bond


yields have fallen, because of quanative easing. And the fact it is


not the assets of the pension fund that have changed dramatically over


the past two years, but you have almost a day-to-day volatility in


the liabilities. That is true, everybody's pension fund is the


same. It is the worst in Britain and it is getting worse for years on


years. Those figures of ?7. 9 billion, at one point in time, we


have consulted people who say if you measured it the same way the private


industry did it would be ?10. 5 billion. The point is you cannot


measure it at a point in time, it can change from month to month and


go down as well as up. It is huge? It is large. What we are doing as


part of work as employers is to work with the USS, to work with the


unions in partnership to produce sustainable pensions. Are you


cheered up by that? No, I'm not. I find it rather ridiculous to blame


QE. OK it is true that QE has an impact upon bond yields. But QE also


has an impact upon bond prices, so any bonds that one has in one's


portfolio in increase in value. What do you think the problem is then? I


think the problem is a poor match of assets to LANLTS in general. If --


LABLTHS in liabilities in general. It is a relatively mature scheme,


half of the members are either retired people or deferred


pensioners, people who are no longer attributing and probably never will


again. If you have those kinds of liabilities you need to match them.


Do you see the force of that? Not entirely. I don't agree with all of


it. Of course you have to match liabilities and your assets. But in


fact what is happening with USS is it is a scheme that has done well in


terms of its asset base, it actually has grown. Do you understand anybody


watching this will say if I'm a student or my son or daughter is a


student we will end up paying for it, because the fees will inevitably


go up, because there is a huge shortfall? That is not right at all.


That is not the approach we are taking. Deficits of this type have


to be addressed through a recovery plan, which can take, ten, 15, 20


years. The covenant the USS employees have is extremely strong.


We can afford to manage it over a long period of time. It is about


constructing the right financial management plan, and more


importantly, it is about producing sustainable pensions that are right


not only for the employers but the employees. It is about working in


partnership with the employees to come up with a good plan. Do you


think it will inevitably fall on the students? Income comes to


universities on the basis of the number of students they have got,


the kind of courses that they are teaching them and on the amount of


research that they do and the excellence of their research. If you


have additional costs coming along, those additional costs, which are


over and above any additional costs which are to do with the fact you


want to improve the quality of the teaching and your facilities, all


those costs have got to come from somewhere. It is a bit like the


universities having to go along to the Government and say, I'm terribly


sorry but we have lost rather a lot of money because we went down to the


local casino and our money disappeared, can we have something


to match that hole. And the Government is likely to say, no. You


get your money under this formula for those purpose, we don't pay for


you to go off and engage in speculative practices. We will leave


it there, thank you both very much. Coming up:


Then MarineLePen, leader of the far right gets personal. As EU leaders


gathered in Brussels, the might of migrants risking their lives to


cross the sea is high on their agenda, the Civil War in Syria is


swelling numbers trying to reach EU outpost, such as Malta and Italian


islands. Attending the summit the President of Italy's Sicilian region


said the EU border management agency has failed completely to solve the


problem and had transformed the Mediterranean into a large cemetery.


Two weeks ago a boat crowded with refugees capsized after the boat was


riddled with boats. We spoke to a couple from Damascus who were thrown


into the sea. The voices are actors, and there are illustrations.


This is their story. I'm Palestinian, we lived in Damascus,


in the camp. Me, my wife, my sons, 20-year-old Mulham and ten-year-old


Mohammed. I was born there, I lived all my life there. Then the war


came. A big war. By plane they attacked us. My home was hit. I had


a shop, that too was damaged. Now there are no people there. No


people. My family set off for Lebanon. Then Egypt, and finally


Libya. I was given a telephone number, they wanted $1300 to take


every one of my family on the boat. So expensive. They told us to come


to a house, inside were 125 people. And one bathroom. We stayed there


for ten days. The conditions were very, very bad. But we are escaping


war, so what other choice is there. They told us it was a good boat, it


was not a good boat. It was old, very old. They wanted us to be


scared of them and not complain. They swore at us and said bad


things. They pushed us on. 300 adults and 100 children. After one


hour a boat caught up with us, they said they were Libyan police. But


maybe they were just militia, they told us to follow them. (Gunfire) at


first, they fired into the sky. Then into the water. Then they aimed at


the captain. The children cried, the women cried. I pushed my wife and


sons under me, to shield them. We called, Allah hu Akbar, Allah hu


Akbar. They fired at the hull of the boat and left. Water began leaking


into the boat. The captain told us it would be OK, I knew it wasn't


true. But I didn't want my wife to worry. I told her everything would


be OK. You have a life jacket, you will be safe. The waves were so big,


and the boat rocked from side to side. Then came a big wave. I saw


people falling into the water. My family went into the water. I could


not see them. Some cannot swim. One man came to me and tried to take my


life jacket. He pushed me down in the water. He was killing me. My


eldest son appeared, he pushed him away. He hit him. I can hear young


Mohammed, "babbab I'm here". I kissed him I took his hand. Where is


mamma. I told my son to go and bring her to us. He swim away through the


dead bodies, many dead bodies, he was swimming and crying. Swimming


and crying. I saw bodies floating, no movement. So many bodies. Then,


there is my wife. All life! She told me she never expected to survive.


She thought this would be the finish for her. Finally boats arrived to


rescue us. I'm lucky to have my family, everyone else lost someone.


Today my son said "I have nothing, I am empty, I have no money, no


clothes, nothing, no one helps us, no-one". I'm trying not to cry. The


story of one family trying to come to you It was said in French that


they would like to see an opposition member swinging from a tree that in


parliament. You might wonder why they are seeking an alliance with


UKIP in the next elections? What happened to give the National Front


so decisive a victory? And whatever it was, is it also now stirring


across France? Polite society has always regarded the party as,


TREEMist, racist even -- extremist, racist even, appealing only to the


fanatic, but the majority of the town backed them. Are they racist?


The mayor thinks not. A The winning candidate is a local


hero here now, he believes Marine Le Pen, who has replaced her father


Jean Marie Le Pen as leader has transformed their fortunes.


The light is beginning to go now, the town is tipping into evening. We


have spent most of the day here, we have spoken to quite a few people


who have told us they voted for the National Front and explained why,


privately, not one of them could be persuaded to go on camera. Which


suggests there is still a public stigma attached to it. Their reasons


for voting that way can be easily distilled into a powerful


combination of disaffection, immigration, people living on


benefit, the fear of crime, a national political elite in both


main parties that seems unresponsive to the public mood. And about power


in the European Union, which seems now simply unaccountable. This is


about people in a democracy who feel they have been disempowered. And so


Marine Le Pen believes her time has come. She now claims to lead a


party, not of the extreme right, but of patriotism, that transcends


left-right politics. She says she has partners growing in strength, in


the netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Finland, Sweden, as the time of


anti-EU sentiment rises everywhere. Do you expect to be the biggest


party in France at next year's What about the UK Independence


Party, UKIP, do you see them as potential allies?


Do you have natural allies in this movement, inside the British


Conservative Party as well. Are you talking to them too?


While her father once railed against communism, she now attacks global


capitalism. And the European Union. Outflanking the left, she hopes, on


social justice, and the right on the question of national sovereignty.


She believes the EU and what she sees as its vast unelected


bureaucracy is doomed to collapse. This is how she described Britain's


Katherine Ashton. The head of the EU's foreign affairs service.


You think Baroness Ashton's presence in her job helps your cause because


it makes everybody more euro-sceptic?


Let me ask you about immigration. That's a very powerful issue for


you, but to many people who oppose you, it sounds like old fashioned


European anti-Muslim zenophobia. But the Europe you want is a Europe


of national fortresses, borders, barriers. Limiting trade, limiting


economic activity. You want to retreat to national silos?


If they succeed in building this pan-European alliance, it could have


an immediate impact on the whole edifice of European Government. For


one thing this institution, the parliament, always strongly


pro-federalist in the past will have, for the first time in its


history, at its heart, a strong and coherent group dedicated to


dismantling much of the post-war European project. Second and more


decisive will be the impact that group has on Governments back home.


Mainstream pro-European parties will be under greater populist pressure


than ever before to demonstrate that they can stand up for national


interest against those of the European Union.


There was a very peculiar car launch in Britain today, it is the Tesla S,


electric car, which claims to be able to reach 60 miles an hour in


just over four seconds. Finally putting an end to the idea that


electric cars are basically milk floats without the power but of a


lawn power engine. The creator made his fortune in PayPal and other


ventures and is spending it on the Tesla project and sending rockets


into space. What we tried to achieve with the model S was to create a


compelling electric car, something really different from people's prior


experience. The last time they drove an electric car was a golf cart or


milk float. They are used to, their idea of an electric car is something


that doesn't look good, isn't fast, doesn't have high performance and


has low range. We wanted to break the MOULD of all of that. Produce


something brilliant with high acceleration, incredible handling.


Tonnes of capability, lots of room. And really was better than any


gasoline car. That is what we sought to achieve. This is the front trunk.


With nothing? With nothing in it. If somebody buys this car in the UK


now, how many places are there where you can plug it in? Anywhere there's


an electrical outle Anywhere, there is nothing special about the


electric applicators? The charger can be plugged in wherever you go,


if you are travelling somewhere, in a cottage, at a hotel. In addition


to that however we are going to be KRATH supercharge locations


throughout the UK. You will be able to charge anywhere at a Tesla


supercharger location and one of the things that we do, with these


supercharge locations is they are free. If you buy a Tesla you will be


able to travel for free anywhere in children. And it is free forever.


One more thing to that, we are installing solar panel at the


supercharger locations intended to generate more electricity in the


course of the year than the cars consume that charge there. So the


net result is you will not only be able to travel for free forever but


on pure sunlight. On this question of our energy bills, that is a huge


political topic here and now. Have we got it wrong in terms of where


we're sourcing our energy? Mark my words, solar will be the single


largest producer in the UK long-term. You may say isn't it


rather cloudy around here. I was going to say, have you ever been


outside? Yes, even though it is cloudy, you still get 80-90% of the


energy coming through the clouds. You don't have that bright point


source of a sun. Way to appreciate this perhaps is to look at the fact


that plants are essentially a solar-powered chemical


resatisfaction and the UK is a very green country. You live in


California and travel to San Francisco, you are interested in


whether it is possible to travel by a hyperloop, you go at 8 HUP MIELGS


an house on the ground, like a train from Los Angeles to San Francisco.


Do we suffer from a low-level of ambition, should we think bigger


than HS 2 and think about something like this? I think so. For reasons


beyond the objective of getting there faster. You want to do


projects that are inspiring and make people excited about the future.


Life's got to be about more than just solving problems. When I get up


in the morning and say yes, I'm looking forward to that thing


happening. I guess that was my central disappointment with the


California called high-speed rail. I was looking at that and think they


did better things in Japan 30 years ago. They have got something way


better in China, why are we doing this? And spending so much money on


it? It is going to take 20 years and by that time we will be 50 years


behind what they have in Japan, I mean? This just doesn't make sense.


That was my reaction. That was your reaction to what is happening in


California, we are behind California? Oh my good, really!


Difficult though it may be to imagine? Wow! That is brutal! Most


unfortunate. The other big part of his life is with his company SpaceX,


which is committed to improving rocket technology and even getting


the human race to other planets. Do you see really the future must be in


space for the human race, you really see this, this is not science


fiction this is going to be a fact? History fundamental bifucats, either


this, we are either a multiplanet species, or a single species waiting


for extinction. It is that I find more motivating, which is you are


going and setting up a base on Mars would be the greatest adventure


ever. Not everyone is a fan, back on earth Tesla sued the programme top


gear, after it -- top Gear after it rubbished the Tesla roadster, it


lost, what does he think about Jeremy Clarkson? Clarkson's show is


much more about entertainment than truth. Most people realised that but


not everyone. I have actually enjoyed a lot of his show. It is not


as though I hate Top Gear or anything, he can be very funny and


irref rent, but he -- irref rent, he has a problem with electric cars and


Americans. His two pet peeves are American cars and electric cars, we


are an American electric car, we are in the worst possible situation for


someone like Clarkson. Do you see this as missionary activity, you are


over here trying to convert Jeremy Clarkson? I don't think there will


be any converting of Jeremy Clarkson. That seems quite unlikely.


Can you swim? You al bought the James Bond Lotus? I did from Spy Who


Loved Me. I can see the fun in that? That is the reason. There is no


grand project. We're not going to mass produce you know cars that turn


into submarines. What I'm going to try to do, it is a low priority


project, I have my day jobs. We want to see if we can make it do what it


appears to do in the movie for real. I don't know if it will be


successful, but we will try. Thank you very much. Now there have been


two big developments on attempts to regulate newspapers and magazines


tonight. Some of the publishers are now applying to the High Court for a


judicial review of the decision by politicians to reject the


newspapers' ideas on a regulator, they call it IP sow, we have also


learned a lot more about how this new newspaper-driven regulator could


operate. I'm joined by my guests in a moment. This new newspaper-driven


regulator could operate. I'm joined by my guests in a moment. So will


this happen?. Leveson said there would be a regular traitor that


could fine, and have an arbitary service, and fundamentally it would


be independent of press interests, and critically politicians. However,


in order to stop history PREETing itself. This had all been said


before. He said we have had decades of this and there is a common


pattern. There is a scandal and outrage, a commission and agreement


and nothing happens. There is a crisis, commission and history


repeating itself. In order to stop this happening, in order to make


sure in five years time a regulator is up for the job. We will set up


another body to play a policing role, give it an occasional once


over to the self-regulator. This is all about how this recognition body,


called, is to be established. Now, David Cameron said he didn't want it


to be done by statute, nobody wanted statute, because statute means MPs,


parliament, and political interference. They came up with a


wheeze, which was a royal charter, it has official standing but not


technically a statute. The problem with royal charters is nobody really


knows very much about how they work, it is a medieval process and it is


very, very unclear. Around every corner it is producing unintended


consequences. So, the Government produced a cross-party charter to


establish the recognition body, the press didn't like it for a variety


of reasons, mainly that it could only be changed by politicians, by


two thirds majorities in both Houses of Parliament. So the press put in


their own royal charter, the rules of the Privy Council means you can't


have two, one had to be rejected. At Privy Council committee eight


current serving ministers rejected the press's version. What has


happened today is the press have said they are now going to try to


challenge that decision to reject their charter by the eight members


of the Privy Council with a judicial review. Two things, first it is not


even clear that it is legally possible to challenge, to judicially


review the Privy Council. What the press is doing here and they are


open about it is try to put a spanner in the works and slow down


the process. Judicial review slows down the process, meanwhile their


own self-regulator gets started, they hope with time their own


self-regulator will see the pressure to do more reduced. There is a


number of points there? I quite enjoyed that, it is quite good. The


main point is, David Cameron doesn't accept what you are doing, the three


parties don't accept what you are doing, the victims don't accept what


you are doing. The public according to the opinion polls don't accept


what you are doing. Whatever the good faith it is not acceptable? I


don't think that is entirely the case. If you see the various opinion


polls the public say on the one hand they want to make sure there is an


independent self-regulator with proper independence built into it.


The other hand they say they don't want the sticky fingers of


politicians in it either. In many ways it is an exercise in


pragmatisim, there is a moral imperative. Leveson has said create


a self-regulator. Leveson said there should be a back stop and something


to stop the circle Steve was talking about, good faith is all great for a


few years then the bad old days? Even the newspapers in the version


announced today the recognition part of that has a great deal of


independent built into it. The Government started talking about


voluntary self-regulation, the newspaper industry is saying we will


try to create something that is voluntary, that is tougher than what


went before, better than what went before and actual legal we will


hopefully be able to command it. This is most of what you want. It


will be up and running, is it really worth continuing the fight when you


have got virtually everything? There are several, the main points are


what Leveson wanted to put in place, was to have a structure that


couldn't be changed. Otherwise the press go back to their old trick,


exactly what they did in 1990. What is happening now with the press, you


have three very rich people living outside the UK, don't pay tax, who


run the Telegraph, the Mail and the Sun/Times group. Those people are


putting two fingers up to parliament and the public in this country. And


they have got no respect for democracy, they have no respect for


the rule of law. They are trying now to push the whole thing into the


long grass. They might have all the papers with them in the end. The


Guardian the Independent and the FT have been some what sniffy about it,


but there are signs they might join it. None of the papers wants what


you want? I don't think that is entirely right. The fundamental


thing for me is access to justice. At the moment unless you are a


millionaire you can't sue for breach of briefcy or defamation. That must


be wrong. You need an arbitary body. That is missing from the press


prososals but very much in Leveson I think you will find that despite


what the press are doing, there will be a regulator, it will appear and


the respectable press, the ones who have regard to law and rule and so


on, they will join it. It will happen the way he wants it is, in


the end and the respectable press will join? I'm counted by that, I


will be excluded from that. We could be positive for fraction of a


second, there will be a new regulator with considerable powers


that the previous institution the PCC didn't have. That is going to


happen. But your judicial review is just a way of delaying things that


the Government wants so you can get this up and running? The judicial


review is a theological point. A view that the industry holds dearly,


but for 300 years we have not had the politicians with the direct


means of interfering. We haven't got direct means, there is no direct


means for a politician to interfere under Leveson. You have first of all


a supervisory body and that supervisor is a regulator also


independent. Two independent bodies between you and the politicians.


Ultimately two thirds majority of parliament, what is the one issue


you can unite parliamentarians on and disdain and disagreement with


the press, they can influence the body. You were on the PCC when Siena


Miller was harassed and the McCanns, whatever the good faith the


regulators of the past have all failed? If I were here arguing for


the status quo that would be a powerful argument. In a pragmatic


attempt to get this morning and get something created that people can


rely on the industry is putting up something that could possibly work.


One of the most important sculptures -- sculptors of the last century has


died, Anthony Caro, studied engineering at Cambridge and then


studied as part-time assistant to Moore. He used steals, lead, wood


and paper. He was an inspiration for many. Anthony Gormley joins me, he


was an inspiration to you? It is extraordinary, in the late 50s there


was Anthony Caro trying to think how to engage with the body not as


appearance, not as a narrative figure in some kind of tableau, but


actually how it feels to be inside a body. And he made a series of works,


Man Taking His Shirt Off, Woman Waking Up. They were completely


revolutionly, and three years later he goes to America and he has this


Paul line conversion, comes back with colour and GIRDers as his


PROOIF primary material and -- as his primary material and liberates


himself from the body, he never forgets the body, and he never


forgets the way cullpure acts on the body of the viewer. Taking things


off the plinth and bringing them down literally and metaphorically to


our level. Does that changes obviously the way you look at t you


are not looking at something the way you worship it? It is no longer a


heroic or exemplary thing. Some how it comes to be a piece of mental


furniture in our world. I think he liberated, he liberated cullpure


into a kind of -- sculpture into a kind of freedom of making for its


own sake that changed it absolutely and forever. And we all owe him an


enormous debt. He owed a debt to Moore, he was critical of the late


Henry Moore. He then founded his own school at St Martins and spawned a


whole other generation that in a sense rejected him and started the


Richard Long, bare Flanagan and other concept actual schools. The


other things that are quite inspirational about him, he was 89,


the last exhibition opening in the summer in Venice, he wanted to work


until he was 100, he was constantly creating, he couldn't stop? He was a


great and permanent sort of example and inspiration that you live to


work, the work is itself intensely engaging and enjoyable. You can see


it in all of these works behind us. That sense of in a way making


something that didn't exist before for the sake of seeing how it felt


when it was made, and that idea of change, of impermanence and yet


making something like this fixed, that invites you to look around,


walk around, and some how intergreat that into your mental and feeling


kind of yeah extended body experience. He did another show in


London, Gagosian, which wasn't his gallery, called the Park Lane


Series, he was invited to do this amazing idea of a sequence of


sculptures down Park Lane in New York. That didn't happen but he made


them any way and he showed them in a sequence of rooms. That was


absolutely fantastic. That was earlier this year, it was a tour de


force. These extraordinary work that is for the first time he used


circular round bar and hung on to these onsistently horizontal bars


bits of old plough share. The tank of a compressor, bits of steel that


had come off a rolling mill and then sort of dropped on to the floor. And


some how he used these heavy objects as if they were music. We will leave


it there thank you very much. We wanted to remember Karadzic through


some of his work and some of his own words. I'm back tomorrow, good


night. I wanted them to be special enough to be sculptures, but not to


be stuck up there away from us, they had to have a real character, and if


they didn't have that they would just be decoration, bits of railway


equipment or something. But no, they had to carry their emotional


meaning. Sculpture is food for the eyes and food for the soul. And


these are just things that human beings do, they chance, they make


music, they carve little pebbles or they take little bits of clay and


stick them together. That is just a natural MUM thing. Animals don't do


The black hole in university teachers' pensions. The press goes it alone on self-regulation. An interview with Front Nationale's Marine Le Pen, and one with billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk. Antony Gormley on Robert Caro. And a Syrian refugee's lethal journey to Europe.

Download Subtitles