13/12/2013 Newsnight


Can the government resist calls to expand Heathrow? Why was North Korea's second most powerful man executed? Cannabis legalisation in Colorado and Washington State.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 13/12/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Remember this? It is the right thing to do, not to go ahead with the


third runway at Heathrow. Except now Heathrow expansion is firmly back on


the cards. Well a report out next week give thepm cover for a U-turn?


When it comes to airport expansion it looks like the Government is


heading for a bit of political turbulence. Goldsmith is here.


Removed from office on Sunday, executed on Thursday, what is North


Korea telling us about the way it deals with dissent. We talk to


someone who spent years in the hermit kingdom. I expect to make


anywhere from ten to 100 times my money back on those if I'm


successful. So marijuana has been very good to me so far. If you're


over 21 marijuana is now legal in Colorado and Washington state, is it


also becoming a normal way to earn a living? So it is agreed we should


return? I don't know anything about the gold standard I'm afraid, but I


do love little kitten, they are so soft and furry. Is this the template


for a successful marriage afterall, we have someone willing to argue


that it could be. Hello and good evening, our goal is


to make Heathrow better not bigger, we will stop the third runway,


proclaimed the Conservative election manifesto of 2010, three years on


there is a strong chance that vote-winner of a pledge may be


quietly forgotten, this programme understands that expansion at


Heathrow Airport is looking increasingly likely, with a


publication of a report early next week. Three of the favoured option,


including construction, have a new runway in there. If true it will


prompt a fight between David Cameron and some of his MPs. We will talk to


one of them in a moment. First we have this. The captain has very


definitely put the seatbelt sign on, politically this could all get very


bumpy. Since the last election the Government's aviation policy has


been in something of a holding pattern, doing lazy figures of eight


across the skies of the south of England. Now, well it's about, if


not to come into land, at least give us an indication of where we might


be heading. With an eye perhaps on the precious marginal seats in west


London and beyond, in opposition the Conservatives campaigned hard


against expanding Heathrow. High-speed rail, said Mr Cameron


made it unnecessary. So when our economy is overheating in the


south-east, but investment is still required in the north, it is the


right thing to do not to go ahead with the third runway at Heathrow,


but instead to build a high-speed rail network. David Cameron has


little room to manoeuvre on this, not east because of pressure from


the London mayor, Boris Johnson. I think you have heard him today, hold


on, we will do this. I want to make one final point that is relevant to


this area. And there it is, you can hear it, I will not support, in fact


I will oppose a third runway... After the election, the coalition


agreement ruled out a third Heathrow runway. But there were still urgent


questions to answer on airport provision. To answer these the


Government appointed an expert commission under Sir Howard Davies.


Well there has been so much politics as far as concerns of airport


capacity, particularly hub airport capacity in the UK. There was a


White Paper under the Labour administration in 2003. The current


Government issued its own White Paper, but the discussion continued


at political level. Finally you could say common sense prevailed.


But an independent commission was set up with experts taking the


political sting out of it so that a neutral, well informed, well


researched conclusion could be reached. The commission was -- is


expected suggest next week that expanding Heathrow is a serious


option that should be considered. The huge expansion in the numbers of


people using air travel is testament to the fact that lots of people love


flying, they love going somewhere exciting. What they are less keen


on, of course, is having a runway or flight path near them. Boris


Johnson's solution, a Thames Estuary airport to replace Heathrow, it is


unlikely, believe commentators, to give Boris Island clearance for


take-off. There is to credibility in establishing a brand new airport in


the eyes of the airport community, those who operate the hub model,


because it takes too long. The complexity of running an airport,


the specialist skills in the work force at an airport, you can't close


the doors of one hub airport overnight and the next morning open


a brand new one elsewhere. According to Heathrow's owners this is what


the third runway option looks like, without the extra capacity London


and Britain could start losing business. Labour's position too is


politically tricky. As climate secretary, Ed Miliband, threatened


to resign from the Brown cabinet if a third Heathrow runway was


approved. Now, according to reports at least, he and Ed Balls are more


worried about economic growth. Whatever this review suggests next


week, well the Government isn't exactly going to be rushing towards


the final destination, this is only an interim report coming out. The


final report, when is that due again? Zac Goldsmith, the story MP


who has long campaigned against Heathrow expansion is here. That may


be the truth, we won't know what the final decision will be for some


time, if what we are hearing about Tuesday is correct there could be


several options on the table and most of these roads are now leading


towards Heathrow expansion? That was certainly the case a few days ago.


This review we have just heard about was always supposed to be an


independent, arms length review. It seems very clear now it is nothing


of the sort. It looks very much like George Osborne, in particular, has


been knocking it about in the last few days, so that what finally


emerges on Tuesday will not just be about Heathrow expansion, and we


will have a few synthetic options thrown in to allow the Government to


maintain ambiguity, cynically until after the election I believe. Why do


you think that? We will have to wait and see onture, but very, very


compelling sources are saying that there has been massive activity in


the last few days. And the three options you have identified, which


are absolutely in the report, will be supplemented by a few extra


non-Heathrow-based options as well. The idea of that is this is not


genuinely to expand the choice, this is about enabling, I think, all


three party leaders to defer any kind of decision making until after


the election. None of them, frankly, have the courage to front up the


voters before the election when it really matters. It could just be


that the case is now overwhelming, that Heathrow expansion is looking


commercially like the most sensible thing to do. Your argument is


bluntly discredited? I think there are a growing number of voices, I


would say majority voice, both from within business, and I'm not just


talking about people like myself who could be described as him in bees,


-- NIMBYs. The idea is not to double the size of Heathrow, there is


congestion nobody has looked at, 50 million extra passenger journeys


every year backwards and forwards from Heathrow, it is impossible to


look at that working out. People say it is impossible to create a


foreign-owned monopoly on the edge of the city. It would create a


monopoly, when we see competition has liberated Gatwick, it is a good


airport and doing things we were told it couldn't. Stanstead is a


good airport. Why not have a multicompetitive and ait delivers


more choice every time for customers. Will we not know this


until after the general election? Because we know what was in the


original first draft of the report. Irrespective of what is produced on


Tuesday, we know if the parties accept this report in general they


are accepting Heathrow expansion, they need to come clean about that.


What will you do if that is the case? I have always said to my


constituents if the Government changes its position, which it


hasn't yet, if it changes its position on Heathrow expansion I


would trigger a by-election. If it happens in the manifesto in the next


election, I wouldn't stand as a Conservative. This is a massive


issue for people in my parish. You have always talked about the need


for this to be this positive tension between backbenchers and the


Government. Why don't you stay around to enact that now? David


Cameron himself has to take, has to really think very carefully about


this, politically a U-turn on this issue would be catastrophic for him.


You have to remember it wasn't just a few party speech, David Cameron


went to every single constituency effected, he stood up and said no


ifs, buts, there will be no Heathrow expansion. It was not a throwaway


line at the end of a speech, he went to places like Richmond and


delivered that one line. People voted for him on the back of it to


give him a chance. If he does a U-turn on this, it will be an off


the scale betrayal, he will never be forgiven in west London, people


outside west London, even if you don't care about Heathrow, they will


take note, they will wonder how many promises can be trusted, how much


can the Prime Minister himself be trusted if he's willing to break a


promise so crystal clear. It is a big deal for David Cameron, he will


have to think about this. This is close to your heart, when you became


an MP, the green dream was all the rage for the Tories. I'm wondering


if you feel slightly used? I think there are a lot of things said by


all parties before elections that turn out to be synthetic, it is one


of the reasons people don't like politicians or attach a lot of


significance or importance to manifesto promises because they are


broken so easily. I do think in certain respects the things that


were promised in our manifesto in relation to energy, for example, we


are more or less delivering, I think the language that has been used by


the Prime Minister, reported low, and other people at the top of the


Government, has been very loose and has done some harm in terms of


investor confidence. In signalling a potential change of policy. What


about the green side of energy, any of the green issues? I'm not sure,


if you want to criticise the Government in terms of its green


energy issues, which is what you are talking about, you don't look at the


policies. In terms of policy we are doing what we said we would do. We


are, it stands up to scrutiny, we are not doing enough, some of our


policies haven't worked as well as they should have done. Green Deal


could have been boosted in my view, we are doing what we said we would


do. The problem is the language, when you have loose talk between the


Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition and you hear reports in


the Sun of words I'm not allowed to use on this programme in terms of


green policies, I think the investors out there are beginning to


panic. If it is the case we need ?120 billion just to get our energy


infrastructure up to scratch. You won't achieve that creating the


uncertainty when you use the loose language we have heard. A lot of it


is politic rather than policy and I think, I hope the Prime Minister has


taken that on board. ??FORCEDWHI. Perhaps it was the speed rather than


the event itself that shocked the world fours days after North Korea's


second-most powerful politician was removed from his post. He was, we


ups, machine gunned to death, for state treachery. It mark as


humiliating fall from grace It mark as humiliating fall from grace. It


was an announcement that was in keeping with the flour I had --


florid language used in Korean state media. A man has been executed,


described as a dog, despicable scum, words used to describe South Korean


leaders. No-one, not even family has immunity against the leader's wrath.


Found guilty of a military coup, Jang Song Thaek was accused of


trying to overthrow, Kim Jong Un, it is a far cry from when he was at the


side of his nephew, not just at state events, but also guiding him


when in power. He was considered the chief architect of economic policy,


focussing on partnering his country with its neighbour and ally, China.


He ascended to a post that put him second in power only to Kim. His


Petersburg is being watched by allies and those with serious


concerns. Already removed from official document TREESHGS either


the message of no mercy is being sent, or some analysts believe


serious instability may be around the corner.


My guest was in North Korea for ten years and worked to produce


sanctions against the country. Even by North Korea's standard this is


pretty extreme, isn't it, do you understand what has gone on? They


have never done this before. They have purged people in the past, but


purging people in public like this, with state television showing his


removal from a party meeting and then we see him absolutely at the


tribunal on the front page of the paper. North Koreans must be aghast


at what is going on. They are calling this reverse perestroika, a


buttoning, a battening down maybe of the hatches. Was this a show for the


outside world rather than North Korea itself? I think it was a show


for both. It was a show for North Koreans so THAEFSH knows, not just


Jang Song Thaek the man is dead, but also the vision he stood for, of a


less closed North Korea, of a North Korea that earned some money by


trading rather than trying to manufacture everything by itself,


which he was severely criticised in the indictments. He was what we


might call a moderate in North Korean terms? He was less


conservative than many of his colleagues, let's put it that way. I


wouldn't paint him as a saint everythings an unpleasant man, but


he believed the best interests lay in a more open economy. This put him


on a foothold with the Chinese. He was the closest that China had to an


ally in the Government. The Chinese regarded Jang Song Thaek as their


man at Kim's court. Their reaction after his sudden purge has been very


telling. Firstly you had a stunned silence, then a statement and then


military exercises on the border of North Korea. Maybe nervous about a


flood of refugees. What about this submission to his alleged crimes. Is


there any truth in the kind of things they were accusing him about?


Parts of it may well be true. We know for a fact that some of the


trade referred to there did indeed take place. They did, for example,


sell the Chinese a five-year lease on parts of the zone. That is not a


crime, but he did it. It is rare for show trials in North Korea that


people convicted are found to be plotting against the Government. How


far any of that is true we really don't know. But interestingly, and


importantly, he is accused not just of plotting against Kim Jong Un, but


of doing so in contact with senior military officers who were appointed


by Kim Jong Un's father and grandfather. They are not going to


sleep now? Not for a long time. You think essentially a purge is on the


way for anyone who he has talked to? How does it work, the language, the


handshake of the banquets, how do you have the conversations and


taking people aside? People purged in North Korea find their friends


desert them, nobody answers their phone calls and their e-mails are


scrubbed. And people cross the street to avoid them, when it


happens you know you are in deep trouble. I suspect that is precisely


what is happening to a lot of Jang Song Thaek's former confidents. They


will be blacklisted? Yes and eventually court martials by the


military, and made just disappear. A lot of people will be very


frightened right now. We look at this country with something like


purance, trying to get a sense of what it is about. Does anything that


has happened bear any relation to our own safety or our own position.


All the west cares about is nuclear might? It does affect the rest of


the world. We ament what the North Korean Government does to its own


people, but there is a serious risk that in trying to cover up his own


weakness, and clearly a purge this weak shows a big split in the North


Korean regime. But North Korean will seek a foreign diversion. We have to


remember that in 2010 North Korean sank a South Korean cor vet, and an


island. We have been watching the helicopters fly to the southern sea


board. There is a risk, I think that we may be in for further


provocation, we can't be sure that South Korea will treat them with the


patience th did in 2010! . A year ago this week in two of


America's United States marijuana was legalised for the over 21, the


change has meant not simply that authorities are burning a blind eye


to those using it but that many in Colorado and Washington are looking


to this new found freedom as a business opportunity to make a


livelihood. We have been to Seattle to see how the state has ponded


responded a year on and whether it means the war on drugs is dead.


Public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse. In


order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a


new, all-out offensive. How things are changing in America. For more


than 40 years the only answer to drugs has been declaring war on


them. And then, all of a sudden, legalisation came along. It


literally happened overnight, for us dinosaurs it takes a lot more to get


our mind around it than the brand-new younger officers. With the


new law comes a lot of new opportunities. I'm no crusade e I'm


in it for the money. I view it as buying distilleries and breweries


right before prohibition ended. The last time I was in a room like this


it was on a police raid. But the growing of marijuana is emerging


from the shadows. It has been legalised, not just for medicinal,


but recreational use, in Colorado and in Washington state where a huge


experiment is going on and a multibillion dollar industry is


blooming. This particular strain is great for variety of things,


headaches, cramps, anything with pain. Can you make comparison


between this and let's say alcohol in terms of strength? Yes, so these


are going to be more like a light beer, OK this is going to be more


like a whiskey. Angel is in the medical marijuana business, as soon


as her license comes through she will sell it for recreational use.


She used to be avid anti-cannabis, her daughter had lifelong digestion


problems, but it only improved when her college friend gave her hash


cookies. I was very upset, explaining her how horrible an idea


it was, she would lose our scholarship and all the wonderful


things in life. The plant was not nearly as lethal as I was led to


believe. Legalisation of cannabis means people know how strong the


dose is, however they take it. There will be licensed producers and


retailers, it will be taxed heavily, 25% at every level. And this is what


legalised recreational cannabis looks like. A career to the day


since voters backed a ballot measure, proposed by marijuana


activists, they hosted party. The first time they were ever given a


permit to smoke dope in public. Well, in a big tent, out of view and


a long way from the nearest school. There have been many challenges for


those tasked with creating a legal industry without of something that


was illegal. And as far as the federal Government is concerned it


is still a category I controlled substance, like heroin or cocaine.


It is a crime under US federal law to lawneder money and introduce the


proceeds of criminal activity into the banking system. Since cannabis


growing is a criminal offence under federal law, banks are refusing to


open accounts for cannabis stores. It means the customers can't use


credit cards, and the store can't deposit receipts at the end of the


day. Washington State has had a liberal approach to marijuana for a


decade, as the police reclassified it as the lowest priority. In the


city where the first ever Starbucks opened, there are now twice as many


outlets for dope. Loopholes around its legality is attracted all sorts


of entrepeneurs and investors. We used to fly planes. Jim used to fly


for the Navy, chasing drug shipments across America, he never touched


drugs and voted against legalisation. Then realised there


was money in it. It never occurred to me that I would be an investor at


this industry at the time when we were trying to put the people in


jail. The irony of that, the supreme irony of that cannot be missed.


Security systems, software to help businesses keep track of tax,


Jimmy's found a whole variety of new investment opportunities.. When I


earn money it is at least 18% return, and my bank is paying me 1%.


My investments in these two start-up companies, I expect to make anywhere


from one to ten-times my money if I'm successful. -- 10-100-times my


money, marijuana has been very good to you. For somebody who knows


nothing about marijuana, it has been very good to me. It has been a huge


change for the police to deal with, both in the mind set of officers,


and also the public. As many people still believe cannabis should be


illegal. We are, whether we want to be or not, on the forefront of some


what of a, if not a revolution, at least a pretty quick low-moving


evolution. We don't know where we're going to be in a year let alone five


years. Do you think this marks an indicator that the war on drugs has


been a failure? The way we have addressed it, yes. The majority of


the people that we have addressed are people who are addicted. In the


old war on drugs it was only how many people have we put in prison,


how many pounds or kilos have we seized. That did nothing towards the


prevention side and nothing towards the addiction. The green revolution


is accelerating fast, but there are still things to iron out F it is too


cheap or too expensive, it could spark illegal trade over state


borders. Medical users want to keep growing their own, and tax dollars


have to be spent properly on keeping it out of the hands of the under


21s. The big challenge remaining is how to prevent a big increase in


drug abuse, given that you are making a drug cheaper and easily


available and taking awhat the legal end and social stigma. That's going


to have to be addressed. How is that done? Maintaining price, limiting


marketing, providing consumer information that will help people


behave reasonably. In the extreme that is not something either state


has considered yet, I would urge them to consider it. Require every


consumer to register as a consumer and to set a personal quota. There


is a lot more to this than just people who have been smoking dope


for years doing it legally. It costs a huge amount of money to put and


keep tens of thousands of people in prison because of marijuana


offences. Over half of America supports legalisation, which state


wouldn't want the tax, like booze there is a lot of money in


marijuana. This is one battle the war on drugs has lost. A new book


about submission between the sexes has hit the best seller list. It has


nothing to do with Fifty Shades of Grey. Casate y Se Sumisa, Marry and


Submit Yourself is proving to be a hit in Spain and Italy where it sold


more than 100,000 copies. It is a how-to manual for newly-married


women, teaching them to accept criticism of their cooking and house


keeping and how to keep the peace in the marital home. What to make of


it, the author joins me now. Explain to us submission, it is a


provocative word in English, what do you mean by that? First of all I'm


sorry for my English. I'm just starting with my four children I'm


at lesson number two, so the English is not great. I don't know the


colouring the word has in English but I don't use it in a negative


way. It is a word taken from the letters to St Paul to Ephesian, it


is not to be a dormat for your husband. It is about being


underneath, providing the support like a column supports a roof.


Because we as women we are stronger, we are able to put people in


relation, St Paul wrote the woman has the genius and the talent of the


relationship. We are able to be the head, the heart, not the head, the


heart of the family and submission is something very, very good for a


woman. Why then has the Spanish Health Minister tried to ban your


book? She wants it withdrawn? I really don't know because I thought


it was because of the word "submission", but I found that there


are many books with the word "submission" in the title sold in


Spanish shops. Like (titles in Italian) I think the problem is with


the word "marry", because I think that being submitted to a husband is


felt like something terrible. I don't know why, because I think


that, I have to say that I have also written a book for the men we can


translate "marry her and die for her", I think that the main flow,


the main temptation for women is to subjugate men and dominate. Do you


understand why the book has made so many women around the world angry? I


think because maybe we are not free from the need to be recognised from


an outer eye. I think that when a woman is completely at peace with


herself, is completely fulfilled, she doesn't need to be recognised


and she can make a step back, not in the sense of being a doormat, but of


being completely able to be the column. Is the thrust of your book


that feminism, that freedom of work, has damaged marriage? I'm a worker,


I work as a journalist during the day, and I write books during the


night. And I have four children. I think that women who ask the same


rights as men are lacking in imagination and in ambition, because


we are so different from men. We don't need to ask the same rights,


we need different rights. Because we can have all, but in a different


way. And we can also say that in some periods... Of our life. I'm


sorry we have to end it there I'm very impressed with lesson two,


thank you very much indeed. Just before we go we will take you


through the front pages of tomorrow's


That's just about it from us this evening. We don't on this programme


pay lip service to mumbo jumbo superstition about Friday 13th,


indeed we urge people out there to take a leap out of our book, but it


is reassuring to know we got to the end of the day without any


catastrophes, from all of you, we wish you good night!


Can the government resist calls to expand Heathrow? Why was North Korea's second most powerful man executed? Cannabis legalisation in Colorado and Washington State. And is marital submission a recipe for success?

Download Subtitles