19/11/2013 Newsnight

Eye It's not just one man in trouble, it is not just one bank in

chaos, it is an entire political and social movement in disarray. How do

you get from this: Come shop at Newcastle Co-Op. To

this! The Labour politician who tried to clean up banking spent his

life in the co-operative movement. He's furious. From Manchester to

Aleppo. We travel with the group bringing aid to the wounded at the

Syrian simple war. And... Four score and seven years ago our fathers

brought forth from this continent a new nation. It took be a Hamlin done

a few hundred words to lay out a vision which 150 years on isn't

realised even though. We are here for you in good and bad times, we

are here for life. The Co-Op's claim it is ethical and community-owned

and above the usual tawdry concerns of business has always been its

unique selling point. The discovery that its bank was being run by a

Methodist minister, with taste for pornography and crystal meth wasn't

exactly expected. It forced out the chairman of the entire group today.

He was in charge of the board that appointed the bank boss.

Come shop at Newcastle Co-Op. The old fashioned image of the Co-Op, a

little dull, perhaps, but dependable, respectable. Today,

well, it certainly isn't dull. The Sun Newspaper published more

allegations about former Co-Op bank chair, Paul Flowers private life,

leading to the resignation of the whole Co-operative group, who said:

I think that's ?300. Paul Flowers was filmed, apparently buying

cocaine from 2009 to June of this year he was responsible for a little

more money than the ?300 he was seen handing over here. As chairman of

the Co-Op Bank, with assets of ?47 billion. Someone who has known him

for 40 years and a fellow method minister said he was always

completely unsuitable to run a bank. There has been times when Paul has

come up with grandiose proposals and promises and they have turned to

ashes. That has happened more than once. This crash is a repeat of some

earlier crashes that we have seen over the years. He's a very gifted

character, lots of abilities, very generous in many ways, but he does

seem to have this fatal lack of judgment at some crucial moments.

Almost a kind of recklessness. The Co-Op, of course, has a long, proud

history as a mutual organisation owned by the people who use it. But

is this friendly rather perhaps unbusiness-like structure to blame

for this scandal, allowing unqualified people to rise too high.

In most organisations broadly speaking good people do better at

their jobs and they get promoted to the top as a result. That's

certainly true in most business, I think it is probably also true in

most banks. What we have seen in the Co-Op is that the Reverend Flowers

has been able to get to the top, essentially through political

processes of internal committee work and machinery, and the result of

that has been that someone who had virtually no understanding of the

financial sector, or indeed business generally has been able to come the

chairman of a clearing bank. Stand by this scandal, the new chair of

the Co-Op group says their whole governance is now under review. We

determined to come through it, even stronger than we came in. This is an

opportunity for us to change and modernise, for us to refresh and

really re-think what it is that the people of this country want from us

in the future. We are really prepared to be radical, to be

dramatic and to make those changes, which are necessary. Questions too

for Labour, Paul Flowers was a councillor in Bradford until around

a decade until he resigned suddenly in August 2011, at the time he said

it was to concentrate on his Co-Op bank work. Today we heard the real

reason. Bradford council said in a statement:

The question is how high up in the Labour Party did the knowledge of

the real reason behind Paul Flowers resignation go. Afterall, he wasn't

simply just another Labour councillor, he was chairman of a

major bank, he was subsequently appointed by Ed Miliband as a

business adviser. And it was part of an organisation that is a huge donor

to the Labour Party. Including giving ?50,000 to the office of Ed

Balls the Shadow Chancellor. Tonight the Conservative Party chairman has

written to Ed Miliband demanding who in Labour knew what and when. But

perhaps the biggest questions of all are for the bank regulators. Paul

Flowers was cleared to head a major UK clearing bank, despite having no

relevant business or banking experience. I think the regulators

have done much better since the crash, but they should still have

asked themselves the question whether or not this person with no

banking experience or virtually no banking experience and no other

business experience should have been in charge of one of our largest

financial institutions. Without good quality service we are nothing. We

are our reputation. More than a bank, more than just a supermarket,

the Co-Op is also the nation's biggest funeral director. Whilst

this scandal will not bury this cherished and important institution,

it has ensured that it will change. Joining us now from Glasgow is the

Labour Co-operative Party peer, Lord McFall, a former member of the

Treasury select committee. As man who has been intimately bound up

with this movement, what did you feel when you heard today? I feel

great personal disappointment at this situation that the Co-Op

movement has found itself in as a member of the Co-Op. But secondly as

chairman of the Treasury Committee during the time of the financial

crisis I'm absolutely gobsmacked that these revelations have come

out. If you look at the record of the hearings that we undertook

during the crisis, we were very clear with the FSA that, first of

all, people had to have qualifications if they were going to

be chairman or chief executives of banks. They came up with New York

that neither -- Northern Rock that neither of those people had the

qualifications and they had to have them. The second thing that came out

is the fit and personal regime of the FSA, both Lord Turner and the

chief executive acknowledged very publicly that it was nothing more

than box ticking exercise. And they had to make sure that there was

integrity in those appointed. Nothing has happened since then. The

appointment was made by this movement of which you are a proud

representative, it wasn't made by the FSA, you can question whether

they should say is this bloke appropriate. The appointment was

made by your movement. Listen there is no way out of that. That was a

serious, serious error on behalf of the Co-Op party. What the Co-Op

needs to do now is to be open and transparent about how we arrived

here and how we are going to take it forward. But the second issue Jeremy

is, if anyone is going to be a chairman or indeed a non-executive

director of a financial institution then they have to be passed a test

by the Financial Services Authority. And that was obviously a paper

exercise, nothing else. So the Co-Op have got a serious responsibility

here, but so has the regulator, and indeed so has the Government, when

you consider that Co-Op were in for 600-odd branches of Lloyd's thank

process went on for two years. Were you surprised that man like this

could have been made boss of your bank? I'm surprised, particularly in

the hearing or in the evidence that came out today, regarding Bradford,

I would like to know who knew that and did Bradford communicate that to

the Co-Op group. And in terms of being chairman of a bank one has to

have not just persuasive powers, but also has to be school and rational

and understanding about the business, and it is obvious that

Paul Flowers from what you have heard in that little episode there

had none of these qualities. Doesn't is also question the judgment of

your party leader, Ed Miliband, in appointing him to this function

advisory committee when he's such a dodgy bloke. Who knew he was dodgy.

Let me tell you both as chairman of the Treasury Committee and a member

of the parliamentary banking standards commission, sadly in terms

of culture and ethics in the banking set up, nothing surprises me very

much now. We were asked by the Government to look at culture and

standards. We have found culture which was a rotten culture and we

found standards which were abysmally low. We are right at the foot hills

in terms of rebuilding the trust and the culture and ethics in banking

and financial services. This again, sadly, in the Co-Op of all areas,

that has been proved the case today again. Thank you very much for

joining us, thank you. Coming up: From Manchester to Aleppo, with the

aid convoy. A blueprint for restoring trust in the NHS was how

Jeremy Hunt described his response today to the Francis Inquiry, not

everyone agreed. The inquiry into the rot at Mid Staffordshire NHS

Foundation Trust reported in February. It identified a failure at

every level of the NHS and called for a real change in culture, a

re-focussing and recommitment of all who work in the NHS on putting

patients first. It put forward 290 recommendations to that end.

Secretary Jeremy Hunt. Today the Health Secretary Jeremy hunt issued

the Government's response to the inquiry and claimed to have accepted

all but nine of those emDAGSs. He -- recommendations. He announced a

statutory candour on investigations, a new safety website and mandatory

reporting of numbers on hospital wards. He didn't impose the national

minimum staffing called for by the report. The chairman of the report,

Robert Francis, has welcomed what he calls a comprehensive response, but

Labour and several patients' groups say the recommendations don't go far

enough. Earlier I spoke to Jeremy Hunt at the Department of Health. I

put to him that this was just the top-down of the NHS that they

pledged not to embark upon. This is not a structural reform, it is about

changing the culture in the NHS to address the strategy we had in Mid

Staffs. I think the people in this country and who use the NHS will be

very disappointed if in response to something as horrific as that, we

didn't come out with a plan that was actually designed to encourage the

openness and the transparency that will hopefully mean these things

can't happen again. When you say you are going to introduce a new

criminal offence of willful neglect, can you give us an example of the

sort of person who might fall foul of such a law? There are 1. 3

million people in the NHS and the vast majority of them do a brilliant

job, but you will have, in any large organisation, one or two people who

do the wrong thing, and that's why we want to have criminal sanctions

for those extreme cases. But I think it would be wrong to say that the

thrust of what we are doing today is about those criminal sanctions.

Because actually what we are trying to do is support people on the

frontline who want to do the right thing and make it easy for them to

speak out about mistakes and it is really important, and I need to make

this point because it is very important. There is a very big

difference between making a mistake and willfully neglecting someone.

Can you give us an example? I think an example might be someone who was

responsible for caring for a dementia patient who didn't give

them food when they needed it and when they knew they needed it. That

would be the kind of thing I'm thinking about. It is people who

deliberately neglect people. It is a very small minority of people. I

think that they should face the full force of the law. You say you want

to get people to speak out, how is that going to make people more

likely to speak out when they know that the consequence of doing so may

well be to send one of their colleagues to jail? Well, what we

have said today is we are changing the incentives in the system so that

for the vast majority of decent doctors and nurse, who want to do

the right thing, the overwhelming incentive they have is to make out

about those things. We are doing that in two ways, the first is we

are changing their professional codes of conduct. They say it is

your professional duty as a doctor and nurse to speak about things you

see that are wrong. And f you do, you will get protection if there is

any subsequent professional contact here. The second thing they are

doing, which is as importants and perhaps the single most significant

thing that I announce today is that we're saying that if a hospital

loses a litigation case, and it transpires that the hospital was not

open and traps parent about something that went -- transparent

about something that went wrong, then they risk paying for the

litigation case themselves. They don't have to do that at the moment.

The purpose of that is to get every chief executive and hospital board

to send out a message loud and clear to all their staff, if in any doubt,

if you think you saw something that may have been a mistake, you are not

sure, report it. Write it down. Thank's the culture they have --

that's the culture they have in the airline industry which has led to a

dramatic improvement in their safety record, we can do that in the NHS.

You are also going to require hospitals to publish staffing levels

on wards. What will happen if they consistently publish reports which

suggest that there aren't enough staff on? The CQC, the new Chief

Inspector of hospitals which we reported this year for the first

time, modelled on Ofsted, will look at all the data on an on going

basis, if they think when they look at the staffing data that indicates

calls for concerns, they will inspect that hospital. There are

very severe consequence, one of the things we introduced early this year

is a new failure regime for hospital, which means the management

of the hospital lose their jobs. We have 13 hospitals now in special

measures this year, it is the first time in the history of the NHS that

has happened. There are real questions for the managers of

hospitals who fail their CQC inspection. As the royal nursing

college says, is there 30,000 unfilled nursing posts? I don't know

where where they get their figures, from I do know across the system we

are going to be recruiting nearly 4,000 more nurses this year. The

number of hospital nurses in the country has actually gone up over

the last three years. I think this is just the start. Because I think

this whole change in culture in the NHS has meant that, where as before,

if you wanted to be a good hospital you really had to meet your waiting

times targets and make sure you balanced your books. Now, to get a

good grade from the Chief Inspector Of hospitals you have to be

delivering good quality care and you need the right number of nurses.

People are predicting a winter of crisis in the NHS, can you guarantee

there won't be a cry sis in the NHS this -- crisis in the NHS this

winter? You can't say anything about something which you don't have

direct control. Staff in our departments have never been better

prepared, we have made preparations earlier than in previous years. We

have an ageing population. There is a million more people going through

the A system every year than just three years ago. We are doing

everything we can to cope with the pressure. People are working hard

and we are doing what we can to support staff on the frontline. One

final point on this question of resources, is it right that people

who should have been, who were moved on as a consequence of

reorganisation should have been given very large amounts of public

money. Hundreds of thousands of pounds, in the case of one couple

nearly a million pounds and then reemployed by the NHS. No, and that

is why we are changing the system. Why did you do that? You solve one

problem at a time, this exists because of the contracts they sign.

Sometimes contracts that have been in existence for a very long time.

It is wrong they get those payments, that is why we have chang the system

so if you are reemployed by the NHS within 12 months then you have to

pay back your redundancy payment on a pro rata basis, it is a much

better system. Can you recoup any of the money paid out? This is to do

with contracts people have signed. We have to follow the law in that

respect. I want to make absolutely sure for future contracts this new

system is in place. Thank you. The former speak -- Speaker of the House

of Commons called for the creation of a corridor into Syria so

humanitarian can be delivered to casualties of the Civil War. The

problem, as pointed out by other members of the House of Lords is who

could protect such a thing. Even without a corridor some people are

taking aid into Syria. BBC Asian Network reporter has travelled with

one of the British aid convoys making the journey to bring help to

the wounded. We are going through sniper alley, basically we have to

go at a fast speed to stop getting hit by a sniper basically. This is

one of the most dangerous places on earth. A sniper-lined street in

Aleppo, Syria. This brother has been shot by a sniper. And we follow this

charity's journey there. Five ambulances through nine countries.

Pushing into areas most other charities don't go. This is the

future, look at this smile. Let's get going, we are going. Late night

in Manchester, these ambulances are packed with medical supplies and

food collected by the volunteers. This is a 35-year-old taxi driver

and family man, and this is the only woman, and a credit adviser from

Leicester, and we have a 25-year-old pharmacies from Halifax. Any nerves

at all? All fairly relaxed it is nice to have a break from work and

do something real with your life. It sounds crazy you are not nervous

that this is a break? What defines crazy, is everyone else crazy who is

living 9-5 paying mortgages and not worried about 70% of the rest of the

population living in dire poverty, that is crazy. This is one of a

number of smaller charities missions going to Syria, independent of the

big aid agencies. They had first to Dover, but they face an early

setback. Are you still getting searched. Unambulance is stopped by

counter terrorism officers. The police are just searching the

vehicle and now they are searching the individuals. The group do face

suspicion that they are going to Syria to fight. It is in terms of

your religion it is names, it is where you are going. When it happens

all the time it could feel like harassment, you can understand if

they are doing their checks that is fine. But taking your phones off

you, taking your e-mails off you. What can you do? It is estimated

more than 100 Britons could be fighting with the opposition in

Syria, and the evidence suggests many get there under the cover of

charity mission s. How do you make sure everybody who is coming is

coming in the right way? They have to know someone we know, they have

an interview, a Facebook and Twitter check. Nothing is 100% foolproof, as

long as we do our checks and are satisfied, everyone is vetteded. So

it is day 3 of the journey, we are in Switzerland, this is one of the

ambulances on the convoy. It is packed all down this side with

medical supplies, you have got needles, boxes and boxes of

painkillers, down here. This is where four people are sleeping, so

it is very cramped. If I just take you through to another one of the

ambulances on the convoy. This is number two 2, at the back here you

have more medical supplies, dried food, Magid and Adul are sleeping

here, it is very cramped. This is the last leg before the real journey

starts. The group are all British, of Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Indian

heritage, they see it as a duty to help other Muslims like those in

Syria. Have you thought about the prospect of people getting hurt or

killed? I think every humanitarian thinks of the worst, especially when

they are going into Syria. At the end of the day you take precautions,

nobody is going in there to get hurt. You could argue that if you

were going to die that could happen quite as easily else where I would

rather it be something meaningful. This Islamic song is played

throughout the trip. It is calleds I Weep For Syria and details the

country's suffering. There are eight days of travel,

driving in shifts. Keeping spirits up at endless service stations. And

one member of the group is turned away by police before they enter

Turkey. Come on guys, Syria is calling. Finally they reach the

Syrian border. This is where they enter a warzone. The convoy heads on

without us, they are about to take huge risks and we could put them in

further danger. They head first just over the border and they are filming

everything on mobile phones. Priceless, it is priceless. We get

out of the vehicle, we are just handing the sweets out and they were

just loving it. You could see the smiles on their faces. They are

coming up to us and trying to be our friends, little children, what is

your name, thank you for the sweets. Really appreciate it. You know they

appreciate it. Four of the group then push into Aleppo. The dangers

are so severe here that few foreign aid agencies are operating. This

final journey takes them to the frontline. We went out with one of

the hospital ambulance drivers, he knows the entire area, some parts

were a bit hairy. More than a bit hairy? Yeah. (Gunfire) We ended up

not very far from some of the frontlines where there were snipers

that were sat. Come back, come back. (Gunfire) To actually be in the

thick of T it was a little closer than I would have liked to have

been. (Explosions) We have ended up in the back street where there are

snipers on every side street, every junction in the road. And if I just

turn this around there are huge sheets that have been put up to try

to avoid snipers being able to see past. Survival instinct is get

through the situation and get back to what we were trying to do. The Dr

Is stitching up a young child. We managed to deliver the aid to the

hospitals that were receiving a lot of casualties to the frontline. This

brother has been shot via a sniper, the sniper bullet has exploded

inside him and caused a lot of pieces of his bone to snap and

break. The team tear through sniper-lined streets to get between

hospitals. (Gunfire) You are kind of going in a calm KASy fashion --

kamakazi fashion. S it is for me to die there that is how it is. I have

got children, it is not what I want. If the world was doing what it

should I wouldn't have to risk my life. The whole nation is a risk

from the start. There is no point getting all the way into Syria and

giving stuff where it is not needed, for example in Aleppo where we went

this time they have not had aid for such a long time. Nothing but total

carnage. In one hospital they find seven-year-old Mohammed. There is a

tank that went and blew his house up, his mum passed away and his

brother passed away, he had both his legs blown off. His new family are

the doctors. Really he hasn't done nothing, these people inside Syria

they live through that every single day. We really need to help these

people big time. We need to help them. We have to help them. Everyone

makes it home safely. The convoy plan to return to Syria next month.

You can hear her 30-minute radio documentary, A Road Trip To War on

the BBC Asian Network website. Now the Prime Minister picked up the

telephone to the President of Iran today, the first such call for a

decade or more. Tomorrow in Geneva the talks between Iran and

representatives of the half-a-dozen world powers will resume. And while

they didn't come to the talk and a dramatic conclusion, but there is

something in the air. What did David Cameron talk to the Iranian

President about? We know this because Downing Street has provided

us a menu of their conversation. They tacked about repairing

relations between the two countries, let's remember the embassies in both

countries have been closed for two years following Iranian students'

raid on the British Embassy in Tehran in November 2011. We know the

two men discussed Syria, bearing in mind that Iran and Britain are on

opposite sides of the Syrian conflict and we also know that they

discussed the prospects for success at these talks which will be held

here in Geneva. Realistically is there likely to be any sort of

success in those talks? There may be, in recent months Iran and the

west have crossed so many rubicons that they may want to consider

buying a row boat and some oars to help them get across the next few

crossings. Essentially a lot has changed in the last few months. The

phone conversation, and between the US President and the Iranian

President conversation, that has created a different atmosphere in

the talks. Ten days ago here they didn't reach a deal, they didn't

reach a deal possibly because Iran insisted on the west recognising

Iran's right to enrich uranium, a right that the west says does not

exist. But two days ago Iran's Prime Minister said you know what we will

keep that right but the west doesn't necessarily have to recognise it.

That may open up and clear the way for a possible deal in the next few

days. It would only be a first step and interim deal, even if it is

signed it will be strongly opposed by Israel. More rubicons to come.

Thank you very much. Another bunch of bankers are up

before the breaks in parliament tomorrow. This time it is the people

who advise the Government on the selling off of Royal Mail. Judging

by the price shares are changing hands in the market was knocked down

for a song. Trades unions are throwing about words like "gross

incompetence" to describe the bankers who advised the Government,

or even theft, they are demanding that no more money be given to what

the offenders ausingly called, "professional advice". The first

privatisation in eight years put a special strain on the Royal Mail

sorting office, applications came in from 700,000 individuals for stake

in a business they bout was bargain agains. Their shares was capped the

?750, who ended up owning it. Here is the top share Holder in --

shareholders in Royal Mai The first is a hedge fund. The next one is

GIC, the next is a huge sovereign wealth fund investing oil money on

behalf of Kuwait, with 1. 4%, behind them with more modest stakes the big

city Standard Life, and Threadneedle Street. For the Government it is a

mixed bag, they have got some of what they wanted but also some of

what they didn't want, which could produce political problems in the

future for them. At least 20 city institutions got in at the ground

floor, taking in half a billion shares at a price of ?3.30, as soon

as trading started the price dropped by a third. Today they closed ?5.

50, up 67% on the float price. Their gain, the tax-payers' loss, the

initial floatation was ?1.7 billion, if priced at today's level it would

have fetched ?2. 8 billion. The taxpayer have has lost out, who did

make money is the banks advising on the deal, they have commissions of

millions to be paid out. Some small investors who had applied for a lot

more shares than they got sold quickly and they made a little money

out of it. It seems to be the two biggest investors are two hedge

funds, the Singapore Sovereign Wealth Fund, is one, and there seems

to be a lot of money made at the expense of the taxpayer. The

Government is left with a 30% stake and serious questions to answer.

City players from Citibank to JP Morgan had said Royal Mail could be

worth upwards of ?6 million. Why did Vincent Cable choose Goldman

satisfaction and UBS who valued it at ?3 billion. His critics say it

was natural given how down he had been on Royal Mail over the years.

The Government were down on the business saying the traditional

source revenues were haemorrhaging and could fall off the CLICHLT

saying the business was short of cash and had severe industrial

relations problems. This isn't a promising prospectus to take the

business forward. It is like trying to sell a car by announcing it is

failing its MOT and the engines are going to fall out. You will not get

a good price, and people will say it is not running for long I will give

you a few quid. What happened to this dusty old building not far from

Tottenham Court Road is one piece of evidence that suggests Royal Mail's

important portfolio is worth more than previously estimated. Its

owners Great Portland Estates have celebrated getting planning

permission to turn it into offices, shops and retail, turning it into a

half a billion. For cities agencies they say it was massively

undervalued. Thousands of investors, with ?750 to invest, made a bit of

soft with hedge funders the buyers. The shares yielded 5% in the second

market price, people found that attractive. You have many people

finding that attractive and buying, yet many speculators taking their

profit on the first day. The called stags taking their money out making

that short-term profit, the quick buck. Who was buying? Long-term

investors, people who want the dividend, people who see the

attraction in in the assets. Just in Bond Street off the West End are the

Children's Investment Fund Management, despite the name it is

called one of the most aggressive hed funds in the country. It has a

stake in Royal Mail worth ?300 million. The reason I wanted to

speak to this man so much, the man who runs the hedge fund is known as

a corporate activist, he takes big stakes in companies and tries to

make changes happen. I wanted to know his intentions at the Royal

Mail, he wasn't available for interview and hedge funds like to be

discreet. Vincent Cable initially said Royal Mail's high price was

froth. He also revealed something else. We now know that at the last

minute the Business Secretary, Vincent Cable did consider setting a

higher price for Royal Mail, but the institutional investors who he so

wanted on board said that in that case they might not buy as much of

the stock. And UBS and Goldman Sachs advised against it. Mr McCabe said

that in sticking -- Mr Cable said in ticking with the advice he was

following advice from Goldman Sachs and UBS. Tomorrow MPs will ask them

if they were giving firmly held opinions or telling their client

what he wanted to hear. Now on an old Civil War battlefield in the

state of Pennsylvania 271 words were read out today. Even 150 years after

they were first delivered they retain the capacity to send a shiver

down the spine. The Gettysburg address was intended by Abraham

Lyndon to end one of the -- Lincoln, to end one of the cruellest wars of

all time. It took a few minutes to deliver but it has taken much longer

to deliver on the promise of the birth of freedom of a nation under

God. At Gettysburg in 1863, 51,000 men

were killed or injured in three days of battle. It was a fight between a

conservative slave-holding south and a north determined to impose change.

To honour the dead Abraham Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address, the

most important speech in American history. The Civil War reaches into

our own age, the divisions it exposed are still part of the

American political discourse. On these damp autumnal fields in 229

brief blistering words Lincoln rededicate the -- rededicated the

Republic. "Four score and 20 years our fathers brought forth a new

nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that

all men are created equal. We here highly resolve the Government of the

people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the

earth." For them the American revolution was unfinished what he

called "a work only thus far advanced". Well 150 years on, it is

still unfinished. Americans are still arguing about how to live the

ideals that their Republic is founded on. Still bitterly divided

about precisely what "Government for the people by the people and of the

people". It is uncanny that the anniversary of John F Kennedy and

the address are connecte Both are connected, both sought to use the

power of federal Government to enforce change on federal states.

Both trying to force America to live up to its founding ideals as they

saw them. Both made fierce enemies as a result. What the war was doing

was preserving this unique system of democracy, of republican rule, you

see. It is testing whether this can survive and Kennedy, the parallel

is, what does he speak of in his inaugural address? And focus during

his administration? It is the struggle for freedom, for liberty,

to preserve the democracy that we have here and around the globe. But

black America was excluded from the Gettysburg promise. The post slavery

south upheld segregation for a century. That century separates

Lincoln from John F Kennedy. When Kennedy began to challenge white

supremacy, the white south revolted. That revolt is what brought John

Kennedy that fateful day 50 years ago, when he drove past the Texas

Book DePOSry. In the 1960 presidential election Kennedy lost

Dallas by the largest majority of any constituent in the United

States. He was not particularly popular here. Mainstream

conservatism had long since be Dallas's reality, but the activities

of fringe, right-wing extremists dominated the political atmosphere

of the city at that time. The sixth floor of the Book DePOSry, is now a

you -- dePOSry, Kennedy was a year away from the election, he had to

win text Sarks but his supporters were deserting him. His challenge

had re-opened the fault line in America. Conservative fears over a

federal Government. Right-wing extremists did not kill Kennedy, but

his visit to Dallas to try to appease them did. It appears

something has happened in the motorcade route. There has been a

shooting. The hospital has been advised to stand by for a severe

gunshot wound. The presidential car coming up now, we know it is the

presidential car, we can see Mrs Kennedy, there is a Secret

Serviceman spread eagled over the car. We understand that the

President and Mrs Kennedy is in the car, apparently something is wrong

here, something is terribly wrong. At this point it looks like it could

have been one or two or all of the people in the car, they have been

the victim, they have been struck by shots. We don't know. It was

definitely the President's car. The violent shock of it echos down the

decades even now. It is easy to forget that in life Kennedy, like

Lincoln, was a highly devisive figure. Both men perceived by

conservative Southerners to be imposing an unwanted and alien

northern liberalism. They begin with lines such as "the first remark that

I heard after hearing about the shooting of the President was "he

asked for it" ". Another person said why was he seeking admiration and

not in Washington where he belongs. This extraordinary collection of

letters written to the Mayor of Dallas in the days after the

assassination, is helped by the library in the city. They reveal the

simmering intensity of public sentiment. What was the nature of

the anti-Kennedy sentiment in the south? It is better to understand it

less as anti-Kennedy sentiment than anti-Washington and federal

Government sentiment. The two driving elements of American

political history, going all the way back to the revolution s how are we

going to deal with race and what roles Governments should play in

telling individuals how to live their lives. This was the exact

cause of the Civil War, it is the same argument that animates civil

rights throughout the 60s and actually it is really one of the

tensions I think that drives American politics today. Public

sentiment still simplers in Dallas, at this RUP - simplers in Dallas.

This is the latest manifestation of the long American argument. Today it

is about federal healthcare reforms, but it points to the same enduring

themes, individual LIB toe and the I will legitimacy of state intrusion.

As the pendulum swings to a more statist point of view, where the

Government is in control, then they are approaching a time of tyranny.

That is a really strong word, the rest of the world sees this as the

most securely entrenched democracy in history, and yet you use the word

"tyranny" is it really that bad? I see what our Government is doing in

the redistribution of wealth that it is exercising. As only perhaps

semantically different than if I were to put a revolver at your head

and tell me to give me your wallet. There is an unbroken line of

continuity that runs from Gettysburg to Dallas and on into our own age.

It is a struggle for ascendancy between two Americas, conservative

America, that seeks to champion the sovereignty of the individual

citizen against the state. And another America, that claims to

speak for progress and seeks to harness the power of the state to

impose it. It is an argument about what it means to be a true American.

What it means to be a true American was the issue at Gettysburg, who was

embraced by the founding ideals, and who was excluded? Does the politics

of race still shape the country's discourse? Americans remain divided

about what it really means to be a new nation conceived in liberty. And

how to advance that proposition that all men are created equal. That's

all for tonight. We learned today that the surviving members of Monty

Python are to reform for a new stage show. We couldn't bear to play you

the dead parrot sketch yet again, instead here is the most obscure

thing we could find, Monty Python, a German television programme from

1972 and an interview in the finest Newsnight tradition with man who

claims to have written all the works of Shakespeare.