24/03/2014 Newsnight

In the end it was physicists not search missions that extinguished

the final hopes of relatives. Complex calculation of satellite

pings confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt that flight MH370 crashed into

the Southern Indian Ocean. The Malaysian authorities with the

deftness we have now come to expect informed some relatives by text

message. We now know the where but not the how or the why. The black

box flight recorder has two weeks of battery power left. An oceanographer

who knows the roaring 40s says it won't be easy to find in that time.

This one-time radical Islamist brought a storm down on his head by

not being offended by cartoons. He asks what's life like for Muslims

who go outside the mainstream? We all ourselves an ex-Muslim, it is

not enough to call myself an atheist, because the atheist in

Britain doesn't face the same problems I do, getting death threats

for leaving Islam. We will ask if this kind of portrayal is fair to

Islam? And the art and poetry of the young John Lennon. As you all know,

Harris won the general election with a very maul Marjorie over the

torture, putting the Labour partly back into power after a large

abscess, he couldn't have done that without the barking of the trade

onions! The many relatives of the 239 people on board the missing

millation airlines plane heard the news they never wanted to today,

that the aircraft has definitely crashed into the Southern Indian

Ocean. No wreckage has been recovered, but the end to hope does

not mean an end to questions. Some of which may now never be answered.

We have this report. Being told the worst this Chinese woman screams an

anguished prayer to her Government to help mind MH370. This was the

moment that the plane went from being officially missing to

officially lost. Shortly after the families were told in private the

Malaysian Prime Minister made the news public. Imnmauset has been able

to shed more light on MH370's flight path, according to this new data,

flight MH370 ended in the Southern Indian Ocean. The new information

came from here in London at the headquarters of the British

satellite company Inmarsat. What was the new information that you were

able to give to the Malaysian authorities? It was a refinement on

what we submitted on the 11th of March to the investigation. On the

11th of March we were only able to give a direction of travel and then

we had to whittle down the information to the north and south.

What we did in the intervening time was to look at the network

information, compare it with other Malaysian 777s that had flown and

been connected to our network, and compare the northern route pattern

with the southern route pattern. We discovered the southern route

matched the signals we got over the intervening six or seven hours that

we reported on the 11th and that narrowed down which direction you

should be looking. The frequency of a signal will move whether or not

you are moving towards the signal. This confirmed to Inmarsat that the

plane could only have gone south. Given the capabilities of satellite

technology, is it reasonable that planes don't routinely and regularly

broadcast their exact position. You could have it tomorrow, an aircraft

travelling at 470, 500 knots should be reporting every 15-minutes to

half an hour. They had there would be no question where the aircraft

was, even before it ran out of fuel. The sun is rising in western

Australia, search aircraft will set out again looking for wreckage.

Yesterday both Australian and Chinese planes reported multiple

large objects in the sea. Surface vessels are on route. If wreckage is

confirmed there is a long way to go to find out what happened. When Air

France flight 447 crashed in 2009, the wreckage was found after five

days. The flight recorders weren't located for nearly another two

years. One factor in everyone's minds now, the sonar pingers

attached to the voice and flight data recorders only have around 30

days of battery life. In the case of the Malaysian Airlines flight it is

18 days since it disappeared. Time is voning out. There are multiple

phases to the search. It is finding the debris and tracking back to the

impact point. The 477 flight gave us a broad area that was the area where

the undersea search started. That involved using different types of

equipment to listen to the pingers attached to the black box. And to

stand the ocean bottom to finally find the debris field. Having been

told what happened, the relatives of the passengers then could be years

of finding out why they have lost so much. That is if they ever find out

for sure. We have with us someone who worked on the recovery of the

Air France wreckage in 2011. We have Steven Trimable from Flight

International magazine also. What are the chances of finding why this

plane came down? They are not good. Because first we have to find this

wreckage, that will be a monumental task. It will be far more difficult

than what we experienced with the Air France plane which up until that

time was one of the most difficult challenges in turn for solving why

an airliner crashed in the ocean. And this line that David Grossman

was mentioning there about the black box which isn't black at all, it is

orange. That's correct. Having only a couple of weeks battery life left

on its transmitter, does that make it almost impossible to find or

what? Virtually. We would have to be incredibly lucky to be able to

detect that black box with, it is actually an acoustic pinger attached

to the black box that is pinging, once a second for 30 days, nominally

before that runs out. And the problem is, you need to be virtually

right over the top of it, the detection range for a listening

device to hear the pinger is less than 2,000 ms. We have been talking

about searches of 10s of thousands of square nautical miles in the past

four to five days. To think we go from that level of uncertainty to a

spot in the ocean is improbable. The only thing that could come out is a

miraculous piece of detective work that no-one has ever known about

before. We had that today with Inmarsat. The techniques they tried

today to at least confirm the southern Hemisphere had never been

done before. So you know, we would need a miracle like that I think in

terms of detecting the blacks box. What's your estimate of the chances

of finding out what caused this tragedy?tragedy? This tragedy? Ed

Not good at all if we don't find the black box. What has come out is how

primitive communication devices are to locate plane in the sky, are you

surprised by that, you are probably not surprised, you are an expert. I

think a lot of passengers would be? You are asking me? Yeah? Yes. Well

I'm not surprised and we have known this has been an issue for a long

time. Air France 447 highlighted the issue. This particular one is sort

of extreme, it is the extreme case. We have never seen anything like it.

It was in a place where we thought it was being tracked. Then it

diverted off that path unseen after it turned off its transponder. And

that is, that sequence of events just has never happened. What do you

make of what we have learned about the technology? In terms of tracking

planes and in terms of detecting black boxes on the bottom of the

ocean it is wanting. It hasn't changed in my entire career. It

would give us a much better chance of finding it. And that's, we have

been lucky in the past. We have been very fortunate, most major air

disasters have been involved in terms of what actually happened and

we have been able to find the wreckage and find the black boxes,

we have been able to recover the data and hand it over to the

investigators for them to say what happened. But in this instance there

is a very real chance that this plane will never be located. What

are the technological advances ought to be incorporated as standard? For

this particular issue I think the thing that the regulators are going

to look at is what happened to cause those, all the systems on the

aeroplane to stop speaking to us and stop transmitting. If there is any

way to foolproof those systems, while still enabling the pilot to

have authority over any malfunctions in case they overheat or something

like that, that was the first line of defence that failed us. The

second thing is to get perhaps a system on board the aircraft that

can continuously transmit or at least transmit in short bursts if

something bad is happening to let us know where it is, and give us a

better idea of its location and what's happening on board the

aircraft so we can narrow the search zone to something within a few miles

of where the aircraft was crashed. Thank you both very much indeed

thank you. A spokesman for the Muslim community, how many times

have we heard those words and what do they mean? How do you get the

job? What exactly is the Muslim community and is there just one of

them? These questions arise every time there is a certain kind of

incident. Most recently reporters were sent scurrying to dig out

individuals who could be tagged this way in the latest row over cartoons

of the Prophet Mohammed. Such depictions are deeply offensive to

Muslims, but not to others. When a former Islamist radical Mr Nawaz,

who chairs the Quilliam Foundation and is standing as a Liberal

Democrat now. When he tweeted this apparently innocuous picture to the

world saying that it didn't offend him, he brought a storm down on his

head. We asked him to explain what it is about. Throughout my life

being a Muslim has been part of my identity, for a period it was the

defining part. I used to be an Islamist and a member of extremist

group. Islam is the religion of 80 million

Pakistanis and 40 million Indians and it is great world brotherhood.

Times have changed since the big wave of post-war immigration to the

UK, when my grandfather arrived here and so Muslims in Britain.

Traditionally Muslim communities voices have been relatively opaque

for the media. After 9/11 the question of who speaks for Muslims

became crucial. The media sought to hear from the Muslim voice, that

tended to be male, middle-aged and relatively conservative. This is the

star and writer of the comedy Citizen Khan. So you are a community

leader, what exactly do you do? Lead the community. Right, but what does

that entail? Community leading. The idea of Mr Khan initial it was a

satirical character, and there I was watching local news, it was post

9/11 watching local news and there was a habit of finding the guy with

the longest beard, placing him in front of the mosque and asking him

about something that's happening 5,000 miles away. It was funny. It

was funny but it is also quite a scary proposition, I kept looking

and thinking who is this guy. I insecured the wrath of some -- I

incurred the wrath of some of those claiming to speak for the community

when I retweeted a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed claiming I wasn't

offended, it prompted a huge reaction from some people, who

rejected the idea of a debate on the subject, and who seemed to think

they were speaking on behalf of all Muslims. This mosque was established

more than 16 years ago, we invite Muslims from any sect. This is an

Iman at south Woodford mosque, he recognises that those who shout

loudest can dominate the debate. The Muslims are used to discussing or to

respect the other opinion. It is either my way or the highway.

Because if I don't agree with you you are going to hit me you are

going to criticise me or belittle me or you are going to shun me

completely from the community I live in. Who do you think speaks on

behalf of Muslims in this country? This is a major issue that we

haven't got a unified or united or well respected body which would

address the concerns or the problems or the needs of the Muslims living

in Britain today. There is an increasing number of Muslims who use

their faith identity to advance a progressive agenda, yet we seldom

hear from them. Who are the minorities within a minority. This

man is a rarity in the UK, an openly gay practising Muslim, he feels his

voice is not heard. We are not represented for the simple fact that

we are excluded from our society because they classify us as haram,

my intertation as Muslim is it is an understanding - interpretation as a

Muslim is it is an understanding between me and God so I'm not a

haram. He believes there are far more like him but afraid to speak

out. The population is 70 million of which 2. 7 million are Muslim, on a

conservative figure of any society is ranging between 6-10% who happen

to be LGBT, which would make 162,000 people who are LGBT who are Muslim.

Why do we not have a voice. We do count, we are a percentage of our

society. Debates about veil wearing and segregation dominate discussion

of women in Islam. Sara runs a human rights charity and doesn't believe

feminism and Islam are incompatible. We know there were woman at the time

of the prophet actively participating on the battlefield as

soldiers. Throughout time women have par Ahtisaari patiented as leaders,

scholars, teachers, a lot of the time that history is hidden away, it

is covered up, many times by Muslim preachers who try to argue that

women are confined to the private sphere. Although their faith offers

protection in a new hard world, they might easily outgrow it as they

begin to feel more at home. A very old fashioned way of looking

at it, but some Muslims who moved to the UK did leave the faith. I

believe this is more common than people realise because many who have

lost their belief are too afraid to speak openly about it. Matter qualm,

-- Mariam you call yourself the Council of Ex-Muslims? It is not

enough to call myself an atheist, th don't face the same problems I do,

getting death threats for leaving Islam, it is an important aspect of

who we are, this challenge against laws that ask for apostates to face

death. Insisting Muslim as only identity in countless individuals is

part and parcel of the effort to hand them over to the Islamist

movement. The idea that community leaders can represent all UK Muslims

belongs in the past. We already have a system for representation,

parliament and local councils. I want Muslims living in this country

to be free to speak their mind like everyone else. And most of all to

speak for themselves. A number of Muslim commentators declined to take

part in this debate as they didn't want to share a platform with the

author of the piece who joins me now, along with the political

director of the Huffington Post UK, and the Muslim community activist Mo

Ansar. You are not going to sit there and say you didn't expect

people to be offended when you tweeted that cartoon? The point I

was making is I wasn't offended, and that is on my personal Twitter time,

I think that is a very fair point to make. But you knew people would be

offended when it went out there? I think some people would be offended,

I can't speak for the 2. 7 Muslims that are in the UK. Nor can I speak

for the 1. 5 billion Muslims across the world. The petition set up only

gained 1% of Muslims' in this country's signatures. You knew what

you did was offensive to many people? Some. 1% of this country's

Muslims signed a petition asking for my deselection in Hamstead and

Kilburn. There are 1. 5 billion Muslims in the world, it was sent

out across the world and only gained 20,000 signatures it is not a

majority. Some Muslims were owe end iffed, but as Muslim I have the

right to say I wasn't offended. They were offended by my lack of offence!

You knew people would be offended by it? Some people, yes. What could you

find anything to be offensive? I didn't find it offensive, I don't

know. I think the fact that people found his lack of offence offensive

I think is absurd, it is palpably absurd. He has been for many years

somebody who the Government has used as a community leader and someone

who speaks on behalf of Muslim commune toes the important thing is

this though, although I didn't find it particularly offensive there were

always gob to be lots of people who did. This is an very interesting

distinction, you are saying you didn't find it offensive? Not

really. But you found the identity of the tweeter offensive? No, I

found the idea that a potential parliamentary candidate would take

steps which he knew, either knowingly or recklessly would offend

lots of people and took that risk on purpose to offend those people shows

a grave lack of judgment. And we hold our parliamentary candidates to

account. He said it didn't offend him? But linking to a website which

depicts prophets in bed together or doing that. Sorry there was no link

to a website. There was no link to any website, let's be clear. What I

was attempting to do was simply speak up on principle for the

minorities within the minorities, for example those we saw in this

film who feel they cannot speak because they are silenced by voices

that claim to speak in the name of authenticity and tradition and say

you are not allowed to express a divergent opinion. It is odd to

attack community leaders, I don't too many community leaders only

those who work in their sphere of expertise, but to paint yourself in

the guise you are attacking. You said you are speaking for them. I

said I'm not. You represent the Liberal Democrats. Because I have

been elected by them. As a Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate you

knew tweeting things that might have been seen as gratuitously offensive.

But racism is offensive to some people. Telling people to F-off on

your Twitter timeline. I'm standing for parliament and you are. Is it

offensive to you that I tweeted the cartoon? I did. I find cartoons

about the Prophet Mohammed offensive. Please explain what is

offensive? Let me speak you have had a six-minute film can I speak. I

don't care about the cartoons. You just said you do. They were

attention-seeking provocative whatever it is, can I finish the

point. My point is as Mo pointed out and a lot of journalists don't point

out, you have a long history of upsetting people in the Muslim

community in a gratuitous manner. What do you find the offensive?

Because in Islam you don't depict the prophet and you don't depict him

in bed with another prophet. You depicted a cartoon from a series.

What was offensive about the one that people saw? If you tweet one

cartoon (all speak at once) You two are in the same boat, I was going to

say bed, but that would I offend you. You don't object to the cartoon

but the identity of the tweeter? I do object to the cartoon, I have a

right to be offended just as he has the right to be offensive, he has a

right to tweet the cartoon, I defend his right to do, violent threats are

outrageous. The point is it wasn't a/another tweeting it. What was

offensive about the cartoon I tweeted? It was one of a series of

cartoon. What was offensive about that particular one? Just because I

have a page of the book doesn't mean I don't represent the whole book. Do

you believe in every single view of everyone you ever quote? I'm not

here to debate the cartoon I don't care about it. You clearly do you

find it offensive. I do find it offensive, I think it was a mistake

for them to go after you for the cartoons. Its because your

organisation has demonised and tried to descredit Islam organisations.

Let me finish the point, he talks about community leaders in the film.

There was an important point he made about community leaders? He says

they don't speak on behalf of Muslims, I agree. You think I have a

right to tweet the cartoon and the agreeing with the film, what is the

debate? It is straw men, saying you are a dissenter and speaking out for

Muslims. The reason Newsnight invited you on to give that

impression. There are people with grassroots support in the Muslim

communities, fighting against gender rights and extremism, he doesn't

speak for them. He has zero credibility in the Muslim commune

tie and is loathed by many Muslims because he demoniseds mainstream

organisations as supporters of Al-Qaeda, he goes around promoting

the Government line on extremism and the EDL, that is the problem. You

are one of these community leaders aren't you? I don't know, am I, I

have never professed to be a community leader or bought or sold a

community leader, I won't parrot George Galloway, I never said I'm a

community leader, than him and his group of sycophants like painting it

in black and white. He has always had extremist standpoint and never

moved away from it. The electorate will be looking towards someone who

is saying I'm the Gate Keeper of Islam in this country and defining

it. And you are? I have never said I am, and I'm not standing for

parliament. However somebody who has been rejected by every mainstream

Muslim civil society organisation and has no credibility and issues

threats and harassment to other people, I think people will, you

want to make yourself a martyr of free speech, having had a six-minute

film you want to make yourself a martyr of free speech and you are

not. Neither of you have a problem with me tweeting the cartoon. (All

speaking at once) Both of you agree I have the right to, and neither of

you have a problem with the film. I have many problems with the film.

There is sweeping generalisations about Muslims. Should you be

depending. Can I speak? As a political candidate should you be

defending large parts of the community. This is playing the man

and not the ball, it is what this film is about was the idea that I

don't sit here to claim... You are invited on to make these films. I

don't claim I'm speaking here for everybody. You do. You said you have

speaking for minorities. People who are actually fighting for

minorities. Why is it we don't see a broader range of Muslim spokesmen?

Let me answer that question for you, let's talk about the role of the

media, tonight you have a Muslim debate with three male Muslim

panellists where is the woman, where is the Muslim woman, she was dropped

before the show began. So your viewers at home think there are no

women who can speak within the British community. As Sara said

women are active in the Muslim community for centuries, where are

they tonight, this is the media's discussion. There were two women in

that film? One of them was an ex-Muslim. The woman was dropped. I

think that was a mistake to not have a Muslim woman on the panel. It

speaks volume about the media role. I would be happy to see a more

diverse section of Muslims and opinions. You ask a very important

question a mainstream media commentator attacked me this weekend

on Twitter because he believed me to have homophobic views without

checking that I have been standing for gay rights and working with the

transgender community for over 15 years, I wonder had he seen my

profile picture and when I complained about it he insulted me.

You can't get away with this. And he said I would never come on his show

again. If that is how we abuse the Muslim voice in this country.

Answering the main question Muslims speak for Muslims. I wish the media

would understand that rather than picking to people on their behalf.

Western political leaders arranged to meet tonight and in the

Netherlands to discuss nuclear matters, all that is put to one side

as they try to find further ways of showing their disapproval of Russia.

They know for all their huffing and puffing over the Russian seizure of

Crimea, President Putin has got what he wanted and there is precious

little anyone can do about it. We will talk about where the crisis

goes from here in a moment. First we're in the Hague. . Me, as you

say, a big -- Jeremy, as you say, a big diplomatic occasion, all sorts

of things on the margins. Earlier this evening a meeting between the

Russian and Ukrainian foreign ministers very interesting. But what

does it represent, a first crack in Moscow's rejection of that interim

Government in the Ukraine, perhaps. That a cunning ploy to take the

Ukrainians, to confuse them, if you like, before some further move, or a

response to western sanctions. In the old days we would have said

let's get a Kremlinologist to try to analyse this. And the fact that

Kremlinology seems to be back in fashion is a measure of how changed

these times are, and how we are once again at a moment of east-west

tension. It wasn't meant to be like this, the Dutch summit is a

long-arranged event on nuclear security. But instead of peddling

sedately towards a safer future, it has become a telling lesson in how

things are going backwards. The crisis in relations with Russia has

produced clear threats of what lies in store if they go further in

Ukraine. These reports are concerning and we need to send a

very clear message to the Russian Government and to President Putin,

that it will be completely unacceptable to go further into

Ukraine and that would trigger a sanction from the EU, from the US,

from other countries as well and we need to be very, very clear about

that. So when the G7 leaders met this evening, in a hastily arranged

session on the margins of this summit, it was to snub Russia and to

agree concerted action. The sanctions they will take to hurt

Russia's economy if President Putin goes further. Faced with this, the

Russian leader side-stepped any humiliation, sending his Foreign

Minister instead, to talk about nuclear, and to insist that the west

turning what was G8 into G7 didn't matter any way. TRANSLATION: G8 is

an informal club, nobody can oust anyone out of there. G8 has played

its part, G20 makes all the significant decision. By and large

there are other platforms to discuss the big issues. If western partners

believe the format has defeated itself, we don't cling to it. But

this is serious for Russia, because it emerged tonight that the leaders

will now use the G7 forum to pile further pressure on the Kremlin. We

are going to have officials and ministers meeting in the weeks to

come to examine not just how we can continue to co-ordinate our

sanctions but how we can look at options to increase those if

necessary in particular we're task our energy ministers to meet, so

they can, that's a very sensitive area as you know. But we can example

with the options are available to use long-term to continue the

pressure on the Putin Government. With that warning brandished,

President Obama and the others returned as it were to the scheduled

programme. Dinner with the King and Queen of the Netherland. A message

has been sent of a western willingness to damage Russia and of

the Kremlin's defiance over Crimea. These mark this summit out as a

milestone in the deterioration of the east-west relationship. There

have been ructions before, of course, like after Russia's brief

war with Georgia in 2008 but it is different this time. Russian actions

in Crimea call into question the whole basis upon which European

peace has been kept since 1945, and it is very hard to see quite how

things can go right back to normal. There are still questions about

western resolve, and their willingness to take economic Payne.

Pain, that very debate has shown how par things have gone over the past

few weeks. We have our guests. How genuinely dangerous do you judge

this occupation to be? It is extremely dangerous, on a number of

levels, it shows that Russia now intends to defy and undermine the

system of the, the legal system and the political system created in

Europe after the war. They have reached a new level of challenging

the norms of truth and honesty and diplomacy. It is signalling a change

and a watershed moment. Putin read pretty accurately precisely how far

or how not very far western opinion was prepared to go He read the fact

that if he took over Crimea nobody would do anything about it. I don't

agree that it is a real watershed moment. Russia's breaking all the

stable rules of European order. I think Russia is doing something

which it usually does reacting to a situation in a fairly improvised

way. Although the actual takeover plans were contingent ones taken off

the shelf and worked very well. It is trying to prevent what it sees as

the creeping influence of both EU and NATO together eroding its core

of its notional your racial Eurasian union. There will have to be a

recalibration between west and east and their relationship, how do you

suggest it is done? We have gone from having someone we thought was a

partner and we now have an adversary. That means that we have

got to give some pretty clear, unequivocal guarantees to NATO

members who border Russia. If you are in the Baltics you are scared

and anxious. We have got to reassure them, we have got to make sure that

the Ukrainian transition to democracy gets sustained with some

serious economic help, and if we do that and we adopt, I think, a cool

judicious temperament that makes clear that Russia cannot proceed a

step further, I think we're going to be OK. But, I agree with Anne, I

think it really is one of the first moments in the new world that's

begun with 2014. There is no question this is a new moment. He

sound a little more sanguine than you doesn't he? He's using nicer

language, maybe because he's Canadian. May I comment on the

language. I do think it is unhelpful, although not so

inaccurate to use zero sum game language. Too many of us on all

sides are saying what our loss is your gain, your gain is our loss. I

don't think we need to use zero sum language. I actually agree with

Michael that the need to be calm and cool and to begin to think long-term

is really important at this point. Sanctions might make people feel

better and maybe there will be some bad guys who should have been

excluded from the international banking system any way who will be

chucked out so I'm not worried about them. I think in the long-term we

need to think very stragically about what is our relationship with

Russia, as Michael says, it has been changed. There have to be at least

three parts of it, we mentioned one part. Which is the re-thinking of

the role of NATO, probably repositioning NATO bases and forces

which are almost entirely concentrated in western Europe now,

in order to reassure the eastern countries. But there is also a

re-thinking its energy structure of Europe. Perhaps allowing the US

really to allow the shipping of gas to Europe. Re-thinking, and

re-thinking the role of Russian finance and Russian money in

European politics and in Europe. We have to understand that Russia uses

money and it uses its western, its companies, which are not fully

private companies, in order to affect and change and corrupt

European politics. And we need to have some reaction to. That we need

to be thinking about that. Alex you are sitting next to her and shaking

your head? We need strategic vision and a long-term plan, but the

long-term plan you laid out is basically about creating a new

divide between Russia and a slightly bigger Europe. No? Yes. Extending

NATO bases reassuring, the reassurance is already there for the

Baltic states. Russia knows what would happen if it struck against a

NATO country. We have to think about fashioning a new political

relationship with Russia, which is part of a greater Europe, the

mistake made all along for the last 20 years, we haven't been

imaginative enough to have led a process by which we reconfigure the

security structure of Europe to make Russia feel it is at least a

co-author of that system rather than just a subject or object of it. Do

you think if that is an ambition worth having? I would like to

believe that Alex is right, but I think it was a mistake all along to

think that a KGB-led Russia could really be a partner here. I

understand the point that Alex is making about not wanting everything

to be zero sum. I definitely don't want to go out to the Cold War, I

don't want Cold War language. Going back to his actions in Georgia, the

constant provocation of ethnic Russians in post-soviet states, the

constant acts of provocation here are not things that can really, that

we can deal with. I think we are dealing with an adversary here, not

a partner. It doesn't require us to set our hair on fire or to take

provocative steps backwards, but I think we're dealing with someone who

has a very different structural strategic vision of order and of

Russia's place in the international system. I think Alex wants to

integrate Russia into a system and I don't think that's the game Putin is

playing. The key point I would just add is on two issues, we actually

need Russia. We need them in relation to Iran, to a possible

nuclear deal there and eventually we are going to need them on Syria. So

we are dealing with an adversary with whom we have to maintain a

disciplined strategic relationship. But we have lost a partnership, and

I think any possibility of rebuilding one is gone. OK thank you

all very much indeed thank you. Now there are no indications y how

many pensioners are hoping to be able to blow their savings on a

Lambourghini, and anyone the changes won't come into effect next year.

Whether they are good for society or even necessarily the best thing for

all pensioners has been rather eclipsed by, for many, by the

problems the budget caused the Labour Party. Ed Miliband's response

wasn't seen as electrifying, and it took a while for the party to work

out whether it supported the policy at all. In the meantime the opinion

polls seemed to show the Conservatives making ground. Here is

our political editor. There is an old rule in politics, Ronald Regan

once said. If you are explaining you are losing. There is a feeling out

there in the Labour Party that perhaps the Labour leader himself is

having to do a little bit too much explaining of their direction of

travel. First it was the response to the budget, he looked, one MP told

me, like a man in a rush to jump off a bus who couldn't wait to get out

of his seat. His former best friend, they like don't to hear it. Here is

what his best friend... Then there was delayed reaction to the pensions

announcement, Labour seemed for a while like a party going round in

circles. Then the weekend polls not one, two, three, all pointing in the

same direction, and then this Monday morning present, a letter from

think-tanks on all sides warning the Labour leader not to be risk-averse.

It is not about the polls, but clearly you have to take some of

that into consideration. And we don't want to see Labour lose, we

want to see Labour win, maybe with others, and form a different kind of

Government, so it is about making sure that happens. But when they win

having power for a purpose. And that means transforming the way in which

we think politics is now done. There is a rejection in the letter of a

safety-first approach, which is pretty ironic, it is hard to think

of more radical policies than some of those the Labour leader has come

up with in the last six months. Whether it is about regrouping the

energy markets, breaking up the banks, a good two fringers up to the

Murdoch empire and other press barons, but there is a growing

criticism that they shouldn't be trying to win points on the basis of

the Conservatives unpopularity. And an acceptance perhaps that the

Tories might not be so unpopular going into the next election. The

policy on welfare, for example, has hit a nerve with the public, the

vote on the welfare cap bill this Wednesday has been seen as a

political trap for Labour MPs who say they will vote against it. I

understand why they are, but I also make a plea for them to really

engage with the wider electorate. Who are appalled by the global sum

we spend and also some individual payments. But all of us should know

that we can't actually win on this debate the Tories could run this

lowering the cap from now until the election and we're actually going to

be following them. Polls any politician will tell you only matter

when they are going in the right direction. If you are Labourite now

these aren't. Three polls done after the budget have shown the two top

parties almost neck and neck, one poll put Labour's lead over the

Conservatives at 1%. When dealing with the deficit the coalition has a

13-point lead on Labour. At a more personal level fewer people think

this year's budget is bad for them. Two years ago 50% of people thought

George Osborne's measures would dent their living towards. This year it

is just 22. It used to be said Labour could target just 35% of the

voters and still win, although without a thumping defeat. But more

recently it is not looking quite so cosy against a resurgent Tory Party.

When we asked the British public what matters in a political leader,

they said three THINLS things, understanding the problems facing

Britain, score draw between Ed Miliband and David Cameron. But

there are two key factor its, being good in a crisis and capable leader.

On both of those Ed Miliband really has some work to do. Against David

Cameron. Prime ministers look prime ministerial, Ed Miliband's advisers

tell me, they travel in Jaguars and talk at EU summits, Ed Miliband

doesn't have to swagger down a corridor in Whitehall to prove he's

powerful. He's a politician with big ideas, they say. Tonight Ed Miliband

hinted of more big ideas to come. He spoke of the need to be radical on

tuition fees, making repayments more progressive. The next clear

direction of travel or a few sweets to shut up the noisy kids in the

back of the war on what's turning into quite a long journey? With us

now is the former Labour Party chair, Hazel Blears. How widely

shared is this anxiety about how the party is coming across? I think when

you have got polls coming out obviously people get a big concerned

about that. But we are a year out from the election. I think there is

quite a long way for us to go yet, we have to get on with the job.

Meaning what? Getting on with the job? Coming out with policies that

are directly addressing the problems people are experiencing, talking in

normal human language. I have seen the letter from the think tanks in

the Guardian. Actually the sentiments they express I have to

own up, I wrote a Fabian pamphlet in 2002, and a White Paper in 2009

called Communities in Control with all their principles in it. The

challenge for a political party is to turn the big ideas and principles

into practical policies about jobs, transport, energy, you know, Ed

Miliband caught the imagination of the nation last year when he talked

about the energy freeze. And he didn't just talk about an energy

freeze, what is interesting is that was to give space to get more

competition into a market. I think there are some big themes here, but

we do need to make a bit faster progress on turning them into real

things people can relate to. When you go around on people's doorsteps,

what do they say about Ed Miliband, do they say he has the common touch?

I think what they say is the things he's talking about are the things

that matter to emthis, which is cost of living, it is energy prices and

getting young people into work. It is also about trying to have an

economy that isn't just about London but the rest of the country as well.

Do they think he speaks their language? I think they do. I think

they think the Labour Party speaks their language, it is tough and neck

and neck out there. What about Ed Miliband that is who we are talking

about here? When he talks about freezing energy prices, taking on

vested interests, getting more competition, the people out there

see it reflects their lives. He doesn't do that enough? We have to

do an awful lot more. 12 months from an election, you need a good long

period to campaign on your pledge card, the five promises you want to

talk to the nation about and we need to make faster programme. You should

already have a clear sense of the policies you are going into the

election with and that you will win with? They are starting to emerge,

whether we have energy prices with a good offer on child cautious we have

talked about building more homes for people. And young people getting

into work. We need to turn that into a narrative that says the Labour

Party understands your life, we are on your side and we will have

practical policies that will make a difference. Why don't people

understand that already? You have to go out there and face-to-face, dare

I say it the media have never done the Labour Party's job. The way the

Labour Party does its job is it knocks on doors, it does

face-to-face talking to the public. Thank you very much. Just as

hobbyists with metal detogetherers continue to stumble on Roman

coinage, it seems the John Lennon hoard is never exhausted. Now a pile

of his drawings and skits from hissout will be going under the

hammer in -- his youth will be going under the hammer in south bees. --

Sothebys. There is hope the former Beatle will be appreciated for his

art. Smilie Hello, this is John speaking with his voice. As you all

know Harris won the general erection with a very small Marjorie over the

tortures, thus putting the partly back into power after a large

abscess, he couldn't have done that without span the barking of trade

onions. That is S I call a late night current affairs show. Tonight

with John Lennon, and his nonsense people about the 1964 general

erection, election! How did it come out that you wanted to be a poet and

your first book was published? Some American was called Michael Brown, I

showed him the stuff and he took it to the publisher and they published

it, that was it. One day he came in with a whole lot of pieces of paper.

They were many handwritten things, and there were drawings and there

were peoples and Poems and letters. I said what I think they are

wonderful and brilliant, I said who are they by, he said John Lennon.

Fainting teeny boppers and police escorts, these were things the

London book scene hadn't previously thrown at Tom on the left here with

writers Elizabeth Jane Howard and Kingsley Amos and Lennon himself now

he found himself working with a Beatle in the flat where the Fab

Four all seemed to live. There was the odd bed or mattress, I got the

feeling that they slept there. This is pretty weird. And outside which

is even weirder we have 100 or 200 fans clamouring trying to get in. He

liked typing didn't he? He liked typing and he had his own

typewriter. He did it in his spare time. He said to me, I just did this

for my own amusement. I never thought it might be published. He

loved drawing. He started drawing when he was about seven or eight as

a kid. And he loved writing. And he had always done it, and I suppose he

just went into a corner and, he wrote quite quickly and he drew

quickly too. And now another poem, Good Dog Nigel "nice dog, good boy,

wage tail, we're putting you to sleep Nigel". Lennon's verse owns

something to the Goons, in his lifetime it was compared to Edward

Lear and Hillar Belock. The longest thing I have written is in this book

about Sherlock Holmes, it seemed like a novel to me, it was only six

pages. I couldn't do it now, I get fed up, I brought so many characters

in I forgot who they were. With these original sketches going under

the hammer later in New York this year, at estimates ranging from ?300

to more than ?40,000, Lennon's publisher said it is time John's art

was appreciated. The artwork nobody talked about or reviewed it. It is

very difficult to pinpoint it. I think he's a serious artist. I think

he's a really good artist. And if he hadn't been a Beatle I'm suspecting

he would have had an art show. But it is some how it was actually a

disadvantage being a Beatle in terms of being taken seriously. If you

really look at them you get an idea about John that even if you knew him

very well you might not have. Reading him, so to speak, from the

drawings, is pleasurable and fascinating. This here he surpassed

himself by getting a wrestling dog. But who would fight this wonderous

beast, I wouldn't for a kick-off, you wouldn't get me past Dudley.

That's all for tonight. I will be back tomorrow until then good night.

Not as cold out there tonight, there is more cloud around,