31/01/2014 Newsnight

Just when you thought it was safe to come out of the house, guess what,

there is more of this to come. Ruined crops stranded communities

who is to blame? Before radio was invented a reporter

could only speak to as many people as could hear him shout and then...

. Why has a century-old medium not

just survived but thrived in the new era.

As the football transfer window slams shut in 28 minutes, only one

show will carry it life... Newsnight! ?

Hello, if you have just realised how much the animal kingdom chooses to

hibernate this time of year look away now. More rain heading our way

with high tides and gale force winds. Two flood alerts put in

place, and even what the Environment Agency is calling "threat to life".

Those worst hit have seen homes ruined and livelihoods wrecked.

Environmentalists are blaming the farmers and the farmers the

agencies, then the odd lone voice blaming the gays.

There is nothing unusual about the Somerset Levels flooding, much of it

is under sea level, but not this long. The land is under water a

month. The county might have had the wettest January on record, but many

think this disaster is man made. Once upon time it was only really

God who got it in the neck for causing flooding. These days it is a

case of take your pick, farmers, sheep, birds, bureaucrats, climate

change, rich people, apparently they are now all to blame. Unless of

course you are one certain UKIP councillor, for him things have

really come full circle, this is collective punishment by God for gay

marriage. First in the dock the Government, including the

Environment Agency and minister Owen Patterson, who Labour has now

decided to call "the fool of the floods". Why wasn't it done ages

ago, why only now? Many of the locals don't seem impressed either,

they are angry about lack of flood defences, a slowness to pump the

rivers and a lack of dredging. I have been campaigning for years to

have this river dredged for years along with the local residents, I'm

a councillor for 14 years, you are a councillor for 20 years and they

don't listen. If they weren't listening before they are now. The

Government is saying dredging will start as soon as is practicable. It

might seem unlikely but the RSPB is charged with helping to cause the

floods. They manage large parts of the Somerset levels for the benefit

of wading birds, and they along with other conservation groups have

opposed dredging. I'm sorry about the birds and voles, we have to

defend ourselves, birds can fly and voles get away. It is hard for us to

lift up homes adisappear. Next up farmers and landowners. This takes

the argument in a some what different direction, to what is

going on upstream. Even the sheep are guilty. Because, the accusation

goes, in order to give them land to graze on, farmers have been ripping

up threes and scrub which would normally soak up the waterfalling on

the hills. No-one is saying that flood-hit

residents deserve their faith, but some think it is time they moved. In

Somerset the argument goes the 1,000-year history of keeping sea

water out of the area has to end. While across the country it is

argued the practices of draining wetlands, reclaiming salt marshes,

and walling in rivers are being overwhelmed by the forces of climate

change. What we have to think about is perhaps areas that are less

heavily populated, areas where we have built on by the coast. Some of

these areas it is just not possible to continue to defend at all costs.

If the blame game is getting on your nerves, last night's Question Time

showed you are not alone. Every time we have a disaster, and I have no

doubt this is a terrible disaster for the people living there, they

must be having a nightmare time for the last few week, somebody has to

be blamed. I think the present furore about Somerset, who is to

blame, somebody has to be summoned, this lynch mob stuff is slightly

irrelevant to the suffering of the people there. Southern England, the

south west and west Wales may feel they have suffered quite enough

already. But more misery is coming, high tides, strong winds and yet

more heavy rain is on its way. And there are nearly 150 flood warnings

in place. That was Zoe, joining us is the environmental campaigner and

the nationa farmers' representative Steven Watkins. I will start with

you, you are the man who has currently 300 acres or so under

water, do you think anything could have stopped that? Yes, I'm great

believer in dredging of the rivers, the reason for that is historically

it was done and that was to, in my case, the River Severn to allow

larger vessels to travel up to deliver oil much further north on

the river. But we have a situation really where building over the

years, and that is not necessarily on the flood plain, we are talking

general building, has increased the speed at which water runs off. And

what's happened is that I have been given the considerable amount of

money by the Government and Europe to manage low-lying grassland to

maintain it in an environmental low-sensitive area. Because the

rivers are not taking the water away I'm actually losing these

environmentally sensitive areas. When you say the rivers aren't

taking the water away, what should have happened? If the dredging was

continuously happening we would have a situation where the water is get

out to sea. In the uplands the water needs to be held. In the lowlands

the water needs to get away. I guess you have to listen to the people who

work the land and say that is what they are pointing to, a lack of

dredging? Of course they are pointing to that. I completely

understand the pain they are going through. But there is absolutely no

point in coming up with the wrong solution. What we are looking at now

is a sort of reprisal of the badger UK the farmers are very upset,

rightly, for very obvious reasons they are upset. They want action,

they want to see something dramatic and muscular and eye-catching done.

That is what the Government wants to deliver, and so it is giving them

something which is not just useless, but in many cases actually

counter-productive. And what dredging does so often is it

actually causes more floods, more dangerous floods than were there

already. So you have just been accused of watching eye-catching

muscular policies that do nothing? That is absolute rubbish, we have a

balanced society, and a balanced needs of society. We need

environmental features and if the rivers are not being cleaned, I have

got trees that are in a major river, the River Severn is a major river,

we have trees falling down there and not cleared, and holding up the

water. It is holding it further upstream and the Government spending

more money on defences it is an ever-decreasing circle of spending

more money on defences and we need to maintain what we have got. What

is your solution, what should the farmers be doing? It is the same

solution as the Environment Agency is advocating. It has been very

clear about this. When talking about the Somerset levels it says dredging

is not the answer. If it is the answer it is a tiny part of it. What

we have to look at is the whole catchment, what is going on in the

hills, we need more vegetation in the hills to help trap and slow down

the water. We have to reconnect the rivers with the flood plains in

places where it is safe to do so. More vegetation means what, fewer

sheep, crops or what? Fewer sheep in the hills. When you are looking at

land which is extremely unproductive and interfile it is crazy to keep

that land there. That is not the cause of it. The best thing to do on

the land is get trees back and some deep vegetation back to hold the

water. The cause of the problem is the fact we have had no forestry in

the hills for hundreds of years and the sheep farming has been going on

perfectly acceptably. The problem is we have been building more and more

houses, more and more roads, as society develops, but we have not

been maintaining the drainage system, if we don't maintain the

drains. If you have your sink and your sink gets blocked you unblock

it. The Environment Agency and experts all over the country who

have been clear about this, that just dredging and dredging, all you

are doing there, you are not increasing Compatties of the flood

main -- capacity of any flood main substantially at all. You are

increasing the rate of flow. That means you are increasing the chances

of dangerous floods to the towns downstream. People could be

listening to you saying fine, but it is cook can you land, you can't --

cuckoo hand, you can't ask people to re-think their livelihoods? We are

paying ?3.6 billion in farm subsidies, a lot of those subsidies

are delivering social harm like the flooding at the moment. It is a good

example. We should rejig the farming subsidies, we should pay farmers in

places where it is safe to store the water on their land. We should pay

them to plant for trees and deep vegetation to slow down the flow,

dredging is not the answer. I have received a lot of money from the

Government and Europe to create and protect these very areas that you

are talking about. They are being killed because the water cannot get

away fast enough. My flood bank, I have 11 miles river frontage, four

miles close to my house, the EA spent a lot of money in 1995-96

repairing those. When we had the serious floods in 2007, Hillary Benn

and Lord Rocker came to the farm and I showed them, Barbara Young the

head of the Environment Agency said there was no reproduction in the

system. Bridgeing is not the answer, it is the upstream catchment

management we need to concentrate on. We appreciate that, thank you.

Janet Yellen was officially welcomed today in what may be the biggest job

in the world, as of the US Federal Reserve, she is responsible not nest

for decision making in the world's largest economy, the US, but also

for what happens everywhere else. As the Fed begins tapering quanative

easing, the free money it has been pumping in to buoy the system. There

are those who say it is moving too fast. We will ask what obligation

the US has to other countries in a moment.

First we have this, a stiff drink in one hand and party for one. Too

fast. We will ask what obligation the US has to other countries in a

moment. First we have this, a stiff drink in

one hand and party for one. Emerging markets are in trouble, interest

rates and stock markets plunging. What has that got to do with the US

Federal Reserve. There is an old saying about the Fed it is supposed

to take the drinks away just as the party is getting started, a few can

get things going, but it is easy to overdo things. I consider it

imperative that we do what we can to promote a very strong recovery. The

Fed's way of livening up the economy is to create new money. Janet Yellen

has an unusual relationship with the Fed's bank balance, she can type in

any money she likes. That is what it means to be a Central Bank, you can

create money out of nothing. Miss Yellen's predecessor has been doing

plenty of that since the financial crisis of 2008. Spending the money

on things such as US Government debt. But there is a spill-over and

it is quite deliberate. Private investors don't want to outbid the

Fed by investing in US Government debt, because the Fed has all the

money in the world. So they look elsewhere to invest. In mortgages,

or corporations, that makes borrowing cheaper, and it pushes up

share prices. But, then, the spill-over continues. Investors have

been looking further and further afield, putting their money in

India, South Africa and Turkey. And just as the previous head of the fed

put the pun into the markets, Janet Yellen will help to pull it out. The

Fed is still printing money but it is slowing down. By the end of the

year it is on course to stop buying new assets. Investors are suddenly

telling themselves that if the Fed is going to stop buying assets in

the United States, it might be easier and safer to make money there

instead. And they are pulling out of emerging markets. You might wonder

why, if the Fed is slowing things down so gradually, the trouble has

arrived so abruptly. That is one of those things about markets. When

things turn sour they turn sour in a hurry. Professor Nyree Woods, a

former adviser to the IMF joins me, and former economic adviser to

George W Bush, Eliaquim Mangala are with me. This policy was called

selfish today, would you call it that? I think it is ill-advised, you

can wonder why they think they should only look at the United

States. But the fact is the United States' set of policies are having

real effects on all other economies in the system. Those economies, like

India, and this is why the Indian governor came out so strongly, are

exactly the economies that the United States asked for help from in

2007. As the IMF's manage -- managing director keeps saying, when

it changes direction it should do so carefully and with consultation. It

is talking about tapering for a year now, how much slower could have it

have been? There has been no clarity. By floating the balloon

that tapering would happen at some point, they have injected a whole

load of precarious and fee broil tension into the markets. By not

consulting with major economies and pulling the G20 together and making

sure it is done in concert, it is creating chaos. It would have been

so easy to do that, creating the goodwill from including people it

depended on? I totally disagree I have to say. The fed has broadcast

as loudly as it can, it has told the world what they are going to do. It

is hard to have more clarity than what they have delivered. But what

you can't do is deliver to policy makers around the world, we are

going to do this on Tuesday, because then it is out in the market, right?

It is still a board, and they still have to meet and make a decision.

They don't make the decision before they arrive, and then broadcast what

it is going to be. They actually go to the meeting and that's where they

decide. The bigger question is do you think America has a

responsibility to these countries, or should it just be looking to what

it needs to do? The way every Government is structured is monetary

policy answers to domestic populations. Nowhere in the world do

you have central banks that are responsible for the impact of their

monetary policy elsewhere. That is not the way the game works. However,

having said that, what I think should be more in place is an

wariness by the Federal Reserve of what is happening in the markets

generally. And, what the specific impact is so they can understand

where their partners around the world are. This is not well

understood. A load of people will be sympathetic with that, America has

to put itself first. These countries can be tiger economies, they can

boom when they boom, why should they not be able to stand on their own

two feet now? Two things, so the United States has spent decades

persuading economies whether Brazil or independentia or Indonesian or

Turkey to open up their financial systems and admit US investors and

banks into their economies. It is those countries most affected by

changes in US policy. If the US doesn't start taking responsibility

for that, those countries are going to become much more nationalistic in

their finance, and should the door and not let those investors in. You

think that will happen? That is the risk, not trade, I'm talking those

countries putting up what they would call Prudential barriers to stop hot

money flying out and flooding i They should have done that initially.

Protectionist measures? It doesn't have to be, if they were that

worried about the hot money when it came in, the Federal Reserve's

position is you should have raised interest rates at that time if your

economy couldn't handle it and allow your currency to appreciate. If you

didn't do those things you forfeit your right to complain now. That is

speaking without a consideration of what a big economic power America

is? I ace agree -- I disagree, the US is not the only one in

quantitative easing, it is the combination of Britain, the United

States and Europe will lean in that direction as much as the Germans

will they let them. This is a different world than one Government.

At the end of the day it still is our currency and everybody else's

problem. This is a question for both of you, I will start you with

Professor Woods, does it look at this point whether quaying has been

a successful solution to a major world problem? I think so,

quantitative easing was partly about repairing financial systems that

were broken and stimulating economies. It is not a good way of

stimulating economies, and you have to have an exit strategy and nobody

could come up with a good one. It was the wrong exit strategy at the

wrong time? Nobody knows the exit strategy, on the other hand it is

hard to say they shouldn't have done it at the time, we were on the brink

of quite a disaster. What is really interesting is it is working if the

purpose of QE is to generate inflation, it is just generating it

in the emerging markets. When MTV launched the first video was Radio

Star, the intention was the channel would kill off radio. It is not the

only thing, everything from the talkies and the Internet is billed

as its them circumstance all have failed. Listening figures are

holding up remarkably well. Is this the inevitable decline with

technology, but there is big investment going into radio's

future. For thousands of years spreading the spoken word was

limited to how far someone could shout, and then 100 years ago... .

SOMETHING CHANGED. THE INVENTION The invention of radio is still going on

around the world. In San Francisco on 997 Now is Let It Be. Energy all

over the bay today, it is so awesome. She is playing music and

using technology that would have been unrecoginsable to the radio

pioneer, she still sees herself as part of that tradition. We keep it

local, we live here, I live here, I go through the same things, if there

is an accident on the way to work that people are stuck in. Most

likely they will know what I'm talking about, something happens on

Bart on the train here. And it helps that I can relate and live the life

they are living. News at the speed of life, your life. For years people

have been predicting the death of radio, but radio definitely ain't

dead. In the US, like the UK, over 90% of adults listen every week. You

might think that good old steam-age railway is the antithesis of the

computer and internet age as in Silicon Valley. However there are

many internet entrepeneurs who are betting big that the radio has a

loud and bright future. We are looking at two companies with very

different approaches to how radio can evolve. The first would be a

God-send if you ever wake up say wanting to hear a Nigerian hip hop

station or all-hits radio from Malaysia. Tunein says it can deliver

100,000 radio statis streamed to all your devices anywhere in the world.

The last mass market medium moving on-line, as a result what is

happening is the proliferation of these connected devices are meaning

people from around the world can consume any radio station from

anywhere. It used to be you could only consume a radio station if you

were within 30-40 miles within the terrestrial tower. Now on your

smartphone, instead of 70 options locally, you have 100,000 options

from around the world. Tunein is backed by venture capital companies

including Google. They are seeking to mash the traditional model of

radio, which is local sales to local businesses. In Paolo at toe -- Alto,

let as say I'm listening to a station in the UK, but the ads won't

be relative to me. There is a local station here that could sell those

ads and we revenue share that with the broadcaster and some place else,

no matter where they are. But what if the future of radio isn't

internet-based audio streaming. At the moment most modern smartphones

contain a chip in them that allows you to receive an FM radio signal.

The same signal you get in your house or car, it is just most

carriers disable that chip. Change that and suddenly most people are

walking around with a radio in their pockets that is free to use and

don't require gobbling up your expensive data allowance. That is

the idea behind Nextradio, a new service launched in the United

States. The signal comes over FM, extra data like interactive ads,

special offers and information comes over the Internet. One of the US

carriers, Sprint, is promoting the idea. Where we step off and make it

more compelling is to use the FM, what the audio is for FM, to trigger

events that make it more interactive. As the song is playing

we might display artist or album information, offering the listener a

chance to give feedback, do you like it or dislike it, would you like to

share it with your friends what you are listening to on which station.

We are offering promotional things like awe -- automating the call. We

are liking live radio stations and automating them and presenting to

the consumer. And FM has its advantages. It is far more robust in

the case of an emergency than internet streaming, making it pretty

useful in earthquake-prone San Francisco. In the UK the Government

is looking to kill off FM in favour of DAB. Although how soon and how in

total we don't yet know. But this is just a debate about the delivery

platforms, however they listen, radio survives because audiences

value it. The audience will always want to connect with local radio

personalities. Can you get music anywhere. You have lot of different

devices to get it, it is inbetween the records that radio makes the

connection with the audience. It is the personal connection, people want

to be connected with other people, they want to be part of a tribe.

They want to know that they are in a group with other people, they want

to be accepted and that is what radio brings. Radio has survived a

century of supposedly fatal challenges, from the movies, then

television, then tapes, CDs and MP three players, it is now surviving

the Internet and streaming music services. There are plenty of people

betting plenty of money it will survive another century or two.

If you haven't seen your teenager for the last six hours you should

understand the football world in overdrive now less than four minutes

to go before the January transfer window shuts. Tonight has been

unusually quiet, but it is normally a frenzy of highly fought battles

over glamorous signings from exotic clubs. At heart it is simple, the

more you pay for the players the more you expect to win. Joining me

now from the Football Focus studio in Salford is the show's presenter,

Dan Walker and former Liverpool midfielder, Danny Murphy, who will

be on in a few minutes. Tell us what's happening, first of all with

Liverpool, Danny, is it Pilanka, sealed yet and what about the other

signings? That is an on going saga. One thing for sure if it is sealed

he's terrific, he could be a real boost for Liverpool pushing for the

top four spots. I can tell you some of the other things that have gone

through, Fulham have signed a Greek striker for ?11 mill I don't know,

Chelsea have -- million, Chelsea have spent ?12 million on a player.

It is not a big deadline day bid. The biggest was Juan Mata to Chelsea

which is a few days ago. The teams at the bottom now are so desperate

to stay in the Premiership because of the money involved. The top

squads can't get the quality of player they want, so will wait for

the summer. We see at the bottom with Fulham and Palace making ten

signings how crucial it is for them to stay in the Premier League. How

much do you say a club's fortunes rely on what happens on this kind of

night? I mean it is interesting as a question. You do get this panic

buying and in this country, in England they spend much more than

some of the other to be leagues across Europe combined. It is an

awful lot of cash. Sometimes it doesn't make too much of a

difference. You have the likes of Torres and Carol, spent a lot of

money on those, but without the big impact. You have Suarez, signed on

deadline day, he does make a difference. In this window, it has

been the likes of Crystal Palace and Fulham at the wrong end of the table

who have spent quite a bit of cash and brought in a lot of players. If

it keeps them in the Premier League it is money worth spending. We are

seeing the financial fair play act, which makes club if you like offset

the money they buy with the, the money they spend and the money that

they bring in. Do you think that's quietened down the market? I don't

think it has had as much of an impact as perhaps UEFA hoped it

would do. You take a club like Manchester City, whose losses are

far above what they should be by UEFA rules. They are reducing losses

and taking action to do that. UEFA will look on them positively. I'm

told the window has closed, it is 11.00, anything happened? Anything

happened? I'm sitting here I don't know! The financial fair plaything

is interesting, with what the top clubs are doing is finding ways and

loopholes to get round it, naming rights of the stadium and using

sister clubs in different countries. The window never closes, it always

slams, it never closes. You can tell I'm Newsnight can't you! Thank you

very much indeed! We're going it take you quickly through the front

pages, the independent: That's all this week, we leave you

with the Internet footage apparent from Turkish television of a police

SWAT team in action, see if you can spot the fake sound effect we added.

# Ooh # Ooh

# Ooh (DOORBELL) February's about to start, where

January left off. With plenty of flood and weather warnings, one of

the problems on Saturday, the strength of the wind, coupled with

high tides around western