24/03/2014 Newsnight


The day's headlines with Jeremy Paxman. The search for MH370's black box, British Islam by its Muslim critics, Ed Miliband's opinion poll blues and John Lennon's poetry.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 24/03/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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,


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Jeremy Paxman. The search for MH370's black box, British Islam by its Muslim critics, Russia and G8, Ed Miliband's opinion poll blues and John Lennon's poetry.

Download Subtitles