:00:00. > :00:12.You wouldn't imagine things could get much better for UKIP, but then
:00:13. > :00:16.tonight they did. A Conservative MP discredited by sleaze stepped down,
:00:17. > :00:22.forcing a by-election, the party reckons it might be able to win. I'm
:00:23. > :00:27.an ex-soldier, I believe when I get something wrong you have to fess up
:00:28. > :00:32.and get on with it. No point in shelly shallying and trying to avoid
:00:33. > :00:37.it. We will ask if that ex-soldier just stuck a bayonet in the guts of
:00:38. > :00:42.his own party. Our chances of treating many forms of cancer have
:00:43. > :00:46.improved hugely. Is the emphasis on defeating the disease though
:00:47. > :00:50.starving other illnesses of resources? This shows one single
:00:51. > :00:56.stock market share being traded right around the world in half a
:00:57. > :01:01.second by a computer. Will we look back soon fondly on the mere greed
:01:02. > :01:04.of the City trader. Instead of the bottom of the class at Oxford and
:01:05. > :01:09.Cambridge going to work in the City, it is the top of the class. And the
:01:10. > :01:14.top of the class is capable of doing unlimited damage to everybody else.
:01:15. > :01:28.And this: Unsex me here and fill me from the crown to the toe, top full
:01:29. > :01:32.of diarist cruelty. They are here, they are there, they
:01:33. > :01:36.are everywhere, the United Kingdom Independence Party have achieved
:01:37. > :01:40.quite a feat considering they don't have a single MP in parliament. In
:01:41. > :01:43.just over three weeks' time at the European elections, we shall see
:01:44. > :01:48.whether the anxiety of the big parties which do have MPs is
:01:49. > :01:52.justified. And tonight, with the resignation of the disgraced Tory
:01:53. > :01:56.MP, Patrick Mercer, there is even the chance of the UKIP leader
:01:57. > :02:01.running for parliament himself. In the meantime there is the question
:02:02. > :02:05.of whether UKIP is racist? The UKIP council candidate who said that the
:02:06. > :02:10.black comedian Lenny Henry ought to emirate to what he called a "Black
:02:11. > :02:12.Country", and he didn't mean the West Midlands, which actually is
:02:13. > :02:18.where Lenny Henry comes from any way, resigned from the party today.
:02:19. > :02:23.But all the other parties, the older parties, continue to assert that
:02:24. > :02:30.UKIP is racist. # So while you work... Dads Army is
:02:31. > :02:38.coming back. Your name will also go on the list. What is it? Don't tell
:02:39. > :02:44.him Pike! 45 years after it was first seen on TV, it is about to hit
:02:45. > :02:50.the big screen as a feature film. The reworking, this time with Bill
:02:51. > :02:55.Nighy and Toby Jones, look impossible to fail. But the timing
:02:56. > :02:59.of the venture play be superb. Half a century on the story of a small
:03:00. > :03:03.island alone and under siege still seems to have enduring appeal. A
:03:04. > :03:08.small Band of Brothers, led by the local bank manager, waiting with
:03:09. > :03:13.baited breath for the invasion of an impending force, energy occupied
:03:14. > :03:17.Europe. Sound familiar? Not war but quite possibly a sentiment that goes
:03:18. > :03:24.straight to the heart of the UKIP message. That seems to be garnering
:03:25. > :03:28.support. Tonight news from an ex-soldier that may well blast a
:03:29. > :03:32.hole in the Tory battleship. Patrick Mercer, an MP suspended for six
:03:33. > :03:38.months over "cash for questions" allegations, has announced he had a
:03:39. > :03:42.stand -- will stand down, triggering a by-election. I believe when you
:03:43. > :03:48.get something wrong you have to fess up and get on with it, no point in
:03:49. > :03:52.shilly shallying and avoiding it, I'm ashamed of it. I will do what I
:03:53. > :03:55.can to put it right for the constituency of Newark. Bad enough
:03:56. > :04:00.for the Conservatives if it ended there, reminders of more financial
:04:01. > :04:03.sleaze, so soon after the Maria Miller affair, will do nothing to
:04:04. > :04:08.cheer the troops, weeks before voters held to the polls. But within
:04:09. > :04:15.minutes of the Mercer resignation came reports that Nigel Farage, or
:04:16. > :04:19.to give him the full title "the man who scares the living daylights out
:04:20. > :04:25.of the Conservatives" may try to stand in the seat that is vacant.
:04:26. > :04:29.Under by-election rules it can't be fought until after next month's
:04:30. > :04:35.European elections, when UKIP might be riding high. Today there were
:04:36. > :04:41.predictions for next week's European elections, they predict UKIP with 20
:04:42. > :04:44.seats up by 13 last time, beating the Conservatives into third place,
:04:45. > :04:49.and second to Labour who they are putting on 28 seats. It looks as if
:04:50. > :04:51.the UKIP gains will be disproportionately at the Tories'
:04:52. > :04:56.expense. But interesting to note that last year 4% of the Labour vote
:04:57. > :05:02.of 2010 was heading to UKIP, this year that number has almost doubled.
:05:03. > :05:08.UKIP is becoming an issue for all the main parties. The question now
:05:09. > :05:12.is how they choose to tackle it. Last week when UKIP launched their
:05:13. > :05:18.campaign, these posters were labelled racist by a Labour MP.
:05:19. > :05:24.Possibly the wrong approach, John WoodAlcock tells me, the mainstream
:05:25. > :05:28.parties can't afford the "fruitcakes, racist and loonies"
:05:29. > :05:33.line any more without isolating their own voters. Those posters
:05:34. > :05:37.might time with people, if we label the party racist, the worry is
:05:38. > :05:42.everyone who looks at those posters and is stirred in some way by them
:05:43. > :05:46.feels like we are calling them racist. They are not, they are
:05:47. > :05:51.concerned about their jobs and their livelihood. This week a cross-party
:05:52. > :05:58.group, Migration Mars, has launched the fightback, has accused UKIP of
:05:59. > :06:09.eur-racism, and some are not frayed to hit where it hurts. We need to
:06:10. > :06:14.expose the activists in UKIP who are the BNP in blazers. They are saying
:06:15. > :06:18.the same thing about foreigners and people of a different coloured
:06:19. > :06:22.different. As the National Front used to say before them. We need to
:06:23. > :06:26.show that these are not the charming, reasonable, normal people
:06:27. > :06:34.they pretend to be. Why do the main parties ause UKIP of being racist or
:06:35. > :06:48.zenophobic, but refuse to believe that could be applicable to those
:06:49. > :06:52.who vote UKIPble to those who vote UKIP. A party's leader and the
:06:53. > :06:58.people who vote for them are not always the same. The people who tap
:06:59. > :07:02.into the "the country is going to the dogs" sentiment. They talk about
:07:03. > :07:05.issues which have little to do with politics. They talk about the
:07:06. > :07:09.teacher killed yesterday in her own school. Or much more prosaically
:07:10. > :07:14.about the difficulty of finding a human voice when you call your local
:07:15. > :07:18.bank. They say that the three main parties have stopped listening,
:07:19. > :07:22.stopped caring, given up on Britain, now that is much harder for them to
:07:23. > :07:27.tackle than any one underlying policy. Tomorrow Nigel Farage has
:07:28. > :07:31.promised to announce if he will stand in Newark, place your bets
:07:32. > :07:47.now. The Conservatives have a 16,000 majority there, that could be hard
:07:48. > :07:50.to shift. Now Newark is not warm -- Warmington-on-sea, the fictional
:07:51. > :07:59.down in dads' army, but it may be the place where they go to war.
:08:00. > :08:03.My guests are with me. Doesn't the very formation of a cross-party
:08:04. > :08:07.campaign from all vested interests like you and your colleagues and
:08:08. > :08:11.other parties demonstrate precisely why UKIP is successful. That you are
:08:12. > :08:14.out-of-touch with public opinion and they are not? No I don't think it
:08:15. > :08:18.does at all. I think it is the mainstream parties saying there are
:08:19. > :08:21.very real differences about Europe, there are very real differences
:08:22. > :08:26.about immigration and let as discuss them. But don't let's have it in the
:08:27. > :08:30.way where we pander to the lowest common denominator, where we have a
:08:31. > :08:33.campaign in which if we were talking about black people or Asian people,
:08:34. > :08:38.people would be up in arms, but it is OK to talk about people from
:08:39. > :08:41.Europe, 26 million of them apparently, are coming over here
:08:42. > :08:46.looking for jobs. Let's look at the poster here, you tell us why this
:08:47. > :08:50.poster, 26 million people in Europe are looking for work, whose jobs are
:08:51. > :08:55.they after, why is that racist? Because it is an absolute nonsense.
:08:56. > :08:59.It may be nonsense, that doesn't mean it is racist? There are 26
:09:00. > :09:03.million people, alarmist in Europe. That wasn't your accusation, your
:09:04. > :09:08.accusation it was racist, why? If you substituted for the word
:09:09. > :09:14."Europe", you substituted "people from Africa" or "people from Asia"
:09:15. > :09:18.are coming here for work, everybody would think that is racist. There is
:09:19. > :09:23.no reason why it says Europe that isn't racist in exactly the same
:09:24. > :09:28.way. It is alarmist, it is nonsense, as Nicholas Soames says it is
:09:29. > :09:31.completely devisive. Where does your party appeal to racists? I don't
:09:32. > :09:35.think it does any more than the other parties. I think we are under
:09:36. > :09:41.enormous media scrutiny, which I don't complain about, as ming
:09:42. > :09:46.Campbell said to me yesterday, "welcome to Test Match cricket",
:09:47. > :09:49.where there are people who have expressed racist sentiments we root
:09:50. > :09:55.them out and take disciplinary action. You don't accept the poster
:09:56. > :09:59.is racist? Of course it isn't. We in UKIP are proposing an immigration
:10:00. > :10:02.policy which would be a level playing field with every country in
:10:03. > :10:06.the world. A points-based system so the migrants who can benefit Britain
:10:07. > :10:10.can come here. What we have at the moment is open-door migration from
:10:11. > :10:14.more than two dozen neighbouring countries and the absurd situation
:10:15. > :10:17.where an Indian engineer or New Zealand brain surgeon would struggle
:10:18. > :10:20.to get in, but an eastern European a very grant has a complete right to
:10:21. > :10:26.come. That is the double standard, and it is crazy. Why are you raising
:10:27. > :10:33.your eyebrows? I think Patrick doesn't quite appreciate that we
:10:34. > :10:40.have a system at the moment which is points-based. Not for the EU. Anyone
:10:41. > :10:43.can come from the EU? We have the level playing field. It is not
:10:44. > :10:46.level, that is the point. There are a lot of British people, as you
:10:47. > :10:50.know, working and living in Europe and you give them no thought. But
:10:51. > :10:57.the question is this isn't it, we hear almost on a daily basis about
:10:58. > :11:06.extreme candidates. If they are not attacking Lenny Henry, you have
:11:07. > :11:09.these UKIP candidates now, today, attacking Mo MoFarah for not being
:11:10. > :11:12.British enough, and talking about banning Islam. Isn't it enough when
:11:13. > :11:16.you have the leader of your party saying to the Guardian on Saturday
:11:17. > :11:21.when asked should people be worried about Romanian families living in
:11:22. > :11:25.their street? He says yes. Is it any wonder that you are encouraging
:11:26. > :11:29.racists of this kind. I completely refute that accusation. Quite rank
:11:30. > :11:33.frankly, let's be real about this, people value their sense of
:11:34. > :11:37.community. When any people come from another community or nationality,
:11:38. > :11:41.that causes them to worry about their community cohesion. So you
:11:42. > :11:47.disagree with your leader on this subject? You would be happy to have
:11:48. > :11:57.Romanians living next to you, unlike your leader. What we know about the
:11:58. > :12:00.Romanian influx is there is cashpoint fraud, and begging in the
:12:01. > :12:04.streets. That is a whole country. You have an amazing thing of putting
:12:05. > :12:08.words in my mouth, if you let me finish. There are many Romanians who
:12:09. > :12:13.work extremely hard, and Romanians who, with those values coming to
:12:14. > :12:17.live in your street fine, once you get to know them. If it is a
:12:18. > :12:20.Romanian running a cashpoint skimming gang you have every right
:12:21. > :12:27.to be concerned and sustain that concern. The question wasn't are you
:12:28. > :12:32.happy to have people indulging in criminal activity living next to
:12:33. > :12:36.you. It was Romanians in general. To make the whole statement about a
:12:37. > :12:39.whole country strikes me as extraordinary, is it any wonder you
:12:40. > :12:42.have people aligning themselves with you with this view. It is great
:12:43. > :12:46.pity, there are very, very many decent people who have voted for
:12:47. > :12:51.UKIP in the past. How sweet of you to say so. And who will vote for
:12:52. > :12:55.UKIP in the future. They will. It is a great shame that some of their
:12:56. > :13:02.representatives and candidates have these extreme views. Two things we
:13:03. > :13:05.know, 70% plus of the British public don't want open-door, unlimited
:13:06. > :13:11.immigration from the rest of the European Union. The second thing we
:13:12. > :13:14.know is there is an extraordinary degree of antipathy towards the
:13:15. > :13:18.Westminster political class represented by you today. You are a
:13:19. > :13:22.lovely person but with enemies like you who needs friends, that would be
:13:23. > :13:28.UKIP's analysis of today. We will stop this before it gets personal.
:13:29. > :13:32.Thank you both. For anyone, if any of us is unlucky enough to be
:13:33. > :13:36.diagnosed with cancer figures published today give some comfort.
:13:37. > :13:40.An average of half of us could expect to still be alive in ten
:13:41. > :13:46.years' time, the survival rate is much better for some cancers than
:13:47. > :13:53.others, but the advances in treament treatment have been so impressive
:13:54. > :13:59.that the picture is quite changed. Cancer one of Britain's biggest
:14:00. > :14:03.fears. Partly because as recently as the 1970s, treatment was very
:14:04. > :14:15.ineffective. People thought of it as a death sentence. It is certainly
:14:16. > :14:19.still common, in 2011, 330,000 people were diagnosed with a form of
:14:20. > :14:26.the disease. In the same year, 160,000 people died. But there is
:14:27. > :14:30.good news. Back in the 1970s, around one half of people diagnosed with
:14:31. > :14:36.cancer died within a year. But survival rates have been rising and
:14:37. > :14:40.rising. The latest estimates imply that around one half of people
:14:41. > :14:46.diagnosed with cancer will survive a decade. That's because we have got
:14:47. > :14:51.better at all parts of the treatment process. We are spotting diseases
:14:52. > :15:01.earlier and treatments are much better. But the progress hides some
:15:02. > :15:06.major variation. Ten -year survival rates for breast cancer are 78%. For
:15:07. > :15:15.bladder cancer they are 50%, for lung capser they are 5%, and for
:15:16. > :15:21.pancreatic cancer they are just 1%. More common cancers tend to attract
:15:22. > :15:24.more research time. But, even some relatively prevalent cancers like
:15:25. > :15:28.lung cancer have just proved difficult to crack. Differences in
:15:29. > :15:32.survival rates also reflect things like how quickly the cancers tend to
:15:33. > :15:37.get found and diagnosed. That is an important reason why survival rates
:15:38. > :15:42.for pancreatic cancer have barely moved in 40 years. Still there has
:15:43. > :15:46.been improvements, it is of course great thing. But we should also
:15:47. > :15:52.remember that Britain could do much better. A recent study found that 9%
:15:53. > :16:00.of British people with lung cancer survived for five years. In Norway
:16:01. > :16:06.it was 14%. In Australia 17%. And in Canada it was 18%. So we should
:16:07. > :16:13.celebrate the recent improvements in care, cancer is, in many cases, now
:16:14. > :16:20.a manageable condition. But, there is still a long way to go.
:16:21. > :16:25.Here now is the Medical Director of Cancer Partners UK. And Chris, who
:16:26. > :16:34.has lived with breast cancer for five years and set up the cancer
:16:35. > :16:37.awareness cancer charity, Coppafeel. And a member of the Alzheimer's
:16:38. > :16:44.Society. This changing experience of cancer, how is it altering the way
:16:45. > :16:49.we look at the disease? I think cancer is rapidly becoming a chronic
:16:50. > :16:53.illness, like diabetes and high blood pressure. That is a long-term
:16:54. > :16:59.illness? A long-term illness. When I began as a consultant 25 35 years
:17:00. > :17:04.ago, 25% of patients would survive ten years, now it is 50%, and in the
:17:05. > :17:07.next 20 years it will be 75%. The fear goes with the statistics. So
:17:08. > :17:12.that changes the way people think about it? It does, people come to
:17:13. > :17:19.the clinic, telling someone they have cancer no longer has that
:17:20. > :17:22.dreadful conotation it did when I started. Having said that there are
:17:23. > :17:26.still sad situations and people are still going to die of cancer. So we
:17:27. > :17:29.could do much better if we put more effort into it. Tell me if the
:17:30. > :17:33.terminology is wrong, you have lived with cancer now, you were diagnosed
:17:34. > :17:38.how long ago? Five years ago. Breast cancer? Yeah. And you have lived
:17:39. > :17:42.with it since then? Yes, I was already diagnosed with secondaries
:17:43. > :17:46.when I was first told I had cancer. So I didn't go through a stage of
:17:47. > :17:50.being diagnosed and thinking I was going to be OK. It was already stage
:17:51. > :17:58.four breast cancer when it was found. And do you recall what the
:17:59. > :18:01.impact of that news was and can you contrast it with how you feel about
:18:02. > :18:06.the disease now? I knew very little about it. And I actually didn't know
:18:07. > :18:09.what the conotations were of it, being the secondary compared to it
:18:10. > :18:15.being primary. So I just, I didn't also know anything positive about it
:18:16. > :18:18.either, so I knew it was bad. But I didn't really think I would be here
:18:19. > :18:25.five years on. What do you think about it now? I am very much veering
:18:26. > :18:29.towards the side of it being more of a chronic illness. Because I'm
:18:30. > :18:32.living with it. And I have an identical twin sister and you
:18:33. > :18:36.wouldn't be able to tell I'm the one who has cancer. And I know so many
:18:37. > :18:42.other people living with the disease as well. So surely that's when we're
:18:43. > :18:46.starting to think it is a manageable disease. This is a great advance
:18:47. > :18:51.isn't it? Absolutely. I think it is really great news for cancer and for
:18:52. > :18:54.people with cancer, but it is also a great news story for medical
:18:55. > :18:59.research in general. Because it shows that by putting the right
:19:00. > :19:04.investment in medical research, we can realise a discovery as new
:19:05. > :19:07.treatments and cures for medical conditions. It is great news for
:19:08. > :19:11.cancer, we need to see the same happening for dementia and
:19:12. > :19:15.Alzheimer's and other diseases. I want to clear up one point with the
:19:16. > :19:20.professor here, why is it there is a huge discrepancy between the
:19:21. > :19:26.survival rate in some cannisters and others? -- cancers and others?
:19:27. > :19:31.Pancreatic is the worst, 3% 40 yearsing and 3% now. It is partly
:19:32. > :19:40.because of late diagnosis, but also because there is something about the
:19:41. > :19:45.cells of the pan crease of the pancreas that we don't understand.
:19:46. > :19:49.We are hoping to discover it through molecular analysis, so what applies
:19:50. > :19:56.to cancer will apply to dementia. It is about reducing a reductionist
:19:57. > :20:00.interpretation of what makes it cancerous. Clearly it would be
:20:01. > :20:04.better if we had survival rates of the kind that exist in Norway or
:20:05. > :20:09.Estonia, I think that is another one, or Australia. How do you
:20:10. > :20:13.improve those? You need some money and you need to change the system.
:20:14. > :20:18.You need to get better earlier diagnosis. What Chris is doing
:20:19. > :20:22.through her charity is raising awareness of breast abnormalities,
:20:23. > :20:26.persisting through an often negative system, general practitioners, going
:20:27. > :20:32.to clinics, getting through that there is something wrong with you. I
:20:33. > :20:38.guess the name explains what your charity is about Coppafeel, feel
:20:39. > :20:42.your breasts, and that is a step towards early diagnosis? And not
:20:43. > :20:46.ignoring symptoms, having the confidence to say to your GP, I have
:20:47. > :20:51.noticed these changes, they are not right for me, it needs to be
:20:52. > :20:55.investigated. Is there some sort of measurable result? Awareness is very
:20:56. > :20:58.hard to measure, but we are seeing more stories come through, case
:20:59. > :21:02.studies of people saying it was because of your message that I went
:21:03. > :21:05.back to my GP and it was taken more seriously and I asked to be referred
:21:06. > :21:10.and I was subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer and it was found
:21:11. > :21:13.early. We need to make shower that breast cancers are found early, that
:21:14. > :21:19.is when you are more likely to survive it. You have already
:21:20. > :21:26.referred to the difference between the sort of resource that is are
:21:27. > :21:32.available in cancer care. And the sort of resources, Alzheimer's is
:21:33. > :21:39.your field, dementia. Do you resent the attention that cancer gets?
:21:40. > :21:41.Absolutely not. The amount going into Cancer Research is fantastic,
:21:42. > :21:45.even though today's news is good news, there is still a lot more that
:21:46. > :21:52.needs to be done in cancer. What we can do in the dementia field is
:21:53. > :21:59.learn a lot from Cancer Research colleagues about awareness raising.
:22:00. > :22:03.We can bring new money in to dementia to make progress. The
:22:04. > :22:08.Government have doubled its spend on dementia, and the Alzheimer's
:22:09. > :22:13.Society will spend extra over the next ten years. That is a step in
:22:14. > :22:17.the right direction, we need to keep the momentum going. The political
:22:18. > :22:24.spotlight we have on dementia but seeing a big increase in research.
:22:25. > :22:28.Do you feel because cancer has a particular talismanic, terrifying
:22:29. > :22:31.impression upon people, that you some how have an unfair share of the
:22:32. > :22:35.cake? I do feel that sometimes. I have been a great campaigner and I
:22:36. > :22:39.think maybe I'm taking it away from someone. But I think the great thing
:22:40. > :22:45.I know about Cancer Research, the lessons we are learning there will
:22:46. > :22:51.alie right across the board of many different diseases. The epidemics of
:22:52. > :22:55.our time are not the plague and infection, they are non-communable
:22:56. > :23:01.conditions, chronic diseases. In all of them the molecular basis of them,
:23:02. > :23:07.and how we treat them better, comes down to an analysis of the genes and
:23:08. > :23:12.DNA, where it has gone wrong. The social implications of dementia and
:23:13. > :23:16.older people especially living with cancer there is a lot of commonalty.
:23:17. > :23:21.And cancer patients have other diseases as they get older. Do you
:23:22. > :23:30.feel you are slightly jeopardising funding for other areas of medicine?
:23:31. > :23:34.No. Not at all. If anything awareness is quite different to
:23:35. > :23:40.buying items needed for research. I can still go out on the street to
:23:41. > :23:44.tell someone to check their breasts without money in my pocket. That is
:23:45. > :23:47.not to say we don't need money because we need it to do the
:23:48. > :23:51.projects we are talking about. We are about taking the message early
:23:52. > :23:54.and educating young people, so they don't start learning the fear of
:23:55. > :23:59.cancer and get anything there before they even start doing that. Thank
:24:00. > :24:02.you all very much. President Obama rounded off a visit to the Far East
:24:03. > :24:08.today by trying to defend the way he deals with the rest of the world.
:24:09. > :24:14.Soft and consistent seem to be his themes. They could hardly be a
:24:15. > :24:19.greater contrast to his predecessors George W Bush's eagerness to send
:24:20. > :24:23.soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan. But yet failing to appreciate the
:24:24. > :24:27.mood of Russia and failing to do in Syria. As he approaches the end of
:24:28. > :24:33.his time in the White House. Obama is obviously thinking of his
:24:34. > :24:40.reputation. Aware of how many people see him as a disappointment. This
:24:41. > :24:45.week the President has been in the Far East. A trip designed to
:24:46. > :24:52.emphasise his foreign policy tilt towards the Pacific. Come on now,
:24:53. > :24:57.ready, right here. But the scorecard has been mixed. America has given
:24:58. > :25:03.guarantees on Japanese and South Korean security but not got a whole
:25:04. > :25:07.lot back. And with the crises simplering elsewhere in Syria and
:25:08. > :25:15.Ukraine, President Obama felt he had to answer his critics. Typically
:25:16. > :25:21.criticism of our foreign policy has been directed at the failure to use
:25:22. > :25:25.military force. And the question I think I would have is why is it that
:25:26. > :25:34.everybody is so eager to use military force. After we have just
:25:35. > :25:41.gone through a decade of war at enormous to our troops and to our
:25:42. > :25:44.budget. When it comes to sports and photo opportunities, basketball has
:25:45. > :25:49.always been the Obama game of choice, and even during his first
:25:50. > :25:53.campaign, his emphasis on ending wars and choosing diplomacy was a
:25:54. > :25:58.Lambert dunk with the American public. President Obama came to
:25:59. > :26:02.office with the thought that when you talk to the people around him
:26:03. > :26:07.that the US was overinvested in the big land wars of the Middle East and
:26:08. > :26:12.south Asia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and underinvested in terms of his
:26:13. > :26:15.time and attention in terms of East Asia. Power in the world, economic
:26:16. > :26:19.and military power is shifting towards East Asia, I think President
:26:20. > :26:22.Obama, I think maybe his greatest achievement has President has been
:26:23. > :26:27.to redirect the strategic attention of the country towards the Far East.
:26:28. > :26:33.And along with the abandonment of unpopular wars came a deliberate
:26:34. > :26:38.focus on healing America's economic ills. Over the last decade we have
:26:39. > :26:44.spent a drill I don't know dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and
:26:45. > :26:48.hard economic times. Now we must invest in America's greatest
:26:49. > :26:56.resource, our people. America it is time to focus on nation building
:26:57. > :27:00.here at home. And in the 2012 campaign that was portrayed by his
:27:01. > :27:05.opponent as an abandonment of American global leadership. In an
:27:06. > :27:08.American century we lead the free world and the free world leads the
:27:09. > :27:14.entire world. If we don't have the strength or vision to lead, then
:27:15. > :27:19.other powers will take our place, pulling history in a very different
:27:20. > :27:24.direction. And as the President defended his emphasis on healing
:27:25. > :27:29.America first, he ridiculed his opponent for suggesting that America
:27:30. > :27:34.might still have enemies, like Russia. I'm glad that you recognise
:27:35. > :27:37.that Al-Qaeda is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked
:27:38. > :27:43.what is the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said
:27:44. > :27:47.Russia, not Al-Qaeda, in the 1980s are calling to ask for their foreign
:27:48. > :27:56.policy back. The reset in relations with Russia was a cornerstone of
:27:57. > :28:00.Obama's first attempt at foreign policy, and the attempt to make a
:28:01. > :28:05.friend of an enemy that have subsequently led to charges of
:28:06. > :28:10.naivity. Both Republican candidates in the 2008 and 2012 presidential
:28:11. > :28:15.races were explicit in their opposition to Russia. With
:28:16. > :28:18.Republicans and other critics of the administration are hitting home is
:28:19. > :28:23.on Syria President Obama did draw a lion in the sand, and when President
:28:24. > :28:28.Assad crossed it, President Obama did not respond in the brutal,
:28:29. > :28:33.cynical world of Middle East politics that was a blow to US
:28:34. > :28:36.credibility. In the Ukraine and the Crimea process, President Putin has
:28:37. > :28:42.been highly opportunistic, strategic, very quick and decisive
:28:43. > :28:45.and both Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Obama have been a
:28:46. > :28:53.couple of steps reacting behind him. Russia, in basketball terms is the
:28:54. > :28:58.President's biggest mis. For the plans in Syria and the wider Middle
:28:59. > :29:04.East, and even the administration concede as complete re-think on
:29:05. > :29:09.security policy. Basketball aficionados might have noticed he
:29:10. > :29:14.has slowed down since he was Senator Obama, the dynamic of simple policy
:29:15. > :29:17.has gone, to be replaced by a more complex calculation, and the
:29:18. > :29:26.knowledge that sometimes a draw is the best you can hope for. A little
:29:27. > :29:31.earlier I spoke to a spokeswoman for the Obama administration at the
:29:32. > :29:41.state department. In what way is the world a safer place than it was when
:29:42. > :29:46.President Obama took office? I would make a few points, when he took
:29:47. > :29:50.office we had 150,000 US troops overseas engaged in two large wars.
:29:51. > :29:54.Today one of those wars is over. Americans are home with their
:29:55. > :29:59.families. If you look at the threat from terrorism, from Al-Qaeda corp,
:30:00. > :30:04.the group that attacked us on 9/11 was out there when the President
:30:05. > :30:08.took office, they were operating freely in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
:30:09. > :30:12.Today that group sumpivically is a shadow of what it once was. I could
:30:13. > :30:16.mention many more things but the negotiations with Iran over the
:30:17. > :30:20.nuclear programme today. We are engaged in the most serious and
:30:21. > :30:22.sensitive negotiations with the best chance of peacefully resolving our
:30:23. > :30:27.concerns over their nuclear programme. None of this is easy,
:30:28. > :30:31.many, many challenges remain. Those are just a few examples of how we
:30:32. > :30:35.have made progress during the last six years now. Do you still believe
:30:36. > :30:46.that the relationship between your country and Russia has been, as it
:30:47. > :30:49.was put, "reset"? Well that was -- Well that was a certain time in our
:30:50. > :30:53.policy, how we describe our relationship with Russia today is
:30:54. > :30:56.complicated. Anyone looking at the situation would describe it in the
:30:57. > :31:00.same way. We clearly have fundamental deep-seated differences
:31:01. > :31:03.with how Russia is behaving in Ukraine today, we have been clear
:31:04. > :31:07.about, that yesterday sanctioning more Russian officials, when we can
:31:08. > :31:11.work together, for example on the Iran negotiations I mentioned, we
:31:12. > :31:16.will continue to do so because it is in our national security interests
:31:17. > :31:21.to do so. Wh Secretary of State Kerry describes the Ukraine crisis
:31:22. > :31:30.as "putting the entire model of global leadership at stake", what
:31:31. > :31:33.does he mean. ? What he means is in 2014 it is unacceptable for a
:31:34. > :31:36.country to invade its neighbour. To take the steps we have seen Russia
:31:37. > :31:42.take when it comes to Ukraine. We have been very clear that countries'
:31:43. > :31:47.territorial integrity and sovereignty is a key notion that
:31:48. > :31:51.underpins the whole international system of which Russia is a key
:31:52. > :31:56.part. That is what it is referred to. Are there any circumstances
:31:57. > :32:02.under which the United States commit troops should the Russians intervene
:32:03. > :32:09.militarily in Ukraine? No, we are not talking about that. For a couple
:32:10. > :32:17.of reasons. What we want to s is the situation deescalated not
:32:18. > :32:21.escalating, also we have no interest whatsoever in engaging with some
:32:22. > :32:25.sort of proxy war with Russia that harkens back to a time decades ago,
:32:26. > :32:29.which we have no intention of going back to and don't think the Russians
:32:30. > :32:33.should want to either. This is rather like the situation in Syria
:32:34. > :32:41.where a threat is made and the country doesn't have the means or
:32:42. > :32:48.the desire to follow it through? Absolutely not, I would disagree
:32:49. > :32:53.with the emise, in the Ukraine we have promised a number of things,
:32:54. > :32:58.economic pressure through sanctions, economic and diplomatic pressure to
:32:59. > :33:02.punish them for what they have been doing in Ukraine. We won't commit
:33:03. > :33:05.military resources there, because we don't think there is a military
:33:06. > :33:09.solution. We have also said on the flip side we will stand by the
:33:10. > :33:14.Ukrainian Government and people. We believe the best way to support them
:33:15. > :33:17.is through economic, diplomatic assistance. That is exactly what we
:33:18. > :33:23.are doing now, exactly what we said we would do. Do you like the Braing
:33:24. > :33:27.snake-hipped greedy Charlatans that become the poster boys for 21st
:33:28. > :33:35.Septemberry capitalism. Silly question, no-one does, or anything
:33:36. > :33:39.like how much they love themselves. The red-meat eating good guys come
:33:40. > :33:44.last trading world doesn't care. And capitalism depends on them to
:33:45. > :33:48.function N a remarkable new book, Michael Lewis analyses the damage
:33:49. > :33:54.being done to capitalism, by the way some so called high freakcy traders
:33:55. > :34:00.are behave -- frequency traders are behaving. First an explanation of
:34:01. > :34:04.what they have been doing. Imagine reaching into the chiller
:34:05. > :34:09.cabinet, only to have someone snatch it from you and make you pay extra
:34:10. > :34:13.to get your hands on it? That is one of the ways that high frequency
:34:14. > :34:18.traders make money, taking millions of pound out of our savings and
:34:19. > :34:23.investments in such tiny amounts we don't even notice. For example the
:34:24. > :34:27.big pension fund might place a big order for shares in one exchange,
:34:28. > :34:30.because the order is so bad there are not enough shares on that
:34:31. > :34:39.exchange so it is pinged around to other exchanges in turn. What the
:34:40. > :34:45.high frequency der gets there first and buys them up and sells them on
:34:46. > :34:50.to the pension fund with an increased price. We are not talking
:34:51. > :34:54.about peanuts here, one fund manager lost 1% of his total every year to
:34:55. > :35:00.the high frequency traders. You can get an idea of how staggeringly
:35:01. > :35:07.lucrative it is, when you look at how much they will spend to get the
:35:08. > :35:13.tiniest advances. One company spent ?300 million to shave three seconds
:35:14. > :35:17.off the link up time between Chicago and New York. It is ultimately paid
:35:18. > :35:21.for by our pensions and savings. At the moment we are talking about
:35:22. > :35:26.things, the high-frequency traders do that are illegal if morally
:35:27. > :35:29.questionable. However the FBI this month announced it is considering
:35:30. > :35:32.whether this practice of frontrunning, chatsing orders around
:35:33. > :35:36.the world should be considered -- chasing orders around the world
:35:37. > :35:40.should be considered illegal and insider training. There are some
:35:41. > :35:46.things that some high frequency traders do that are flat out
:35:47. > :35:53.criminal. Like spoofing. A trader might like to buy a quantity of oil
:35:54. > :36:00.more cheaply by putting a order in below the prize price, they then
:36:01. > :36:06.places orders at increasingly lower prices, fooling traders that it is
:36:07. > :36:10.dropping, he buys quickly cheap and cancels the sell order. He can make
:36:11. > :36:18.a quick profit by doing the reverse. It is all over by the time it takes
:36:19. > :36:22.you to blink. The popular idea of financial markets looks like this,
:36:23. > :36:27.but this is what they look like, black boxes using trading strategies
:36:28. > :36:34.none of us understand. This is risky, a catastrophic meltdown, only
:36:35. > :36:41.ever a nanosecond away. I caught up with Michael Lewis yesterday. Was
:36:42. > :36:45.what these guys are doing wrong? It is an open question whether it is
:36:46. > :36:49.illegal. It is unclear whether the way the stock market has evolved is
:36:50. > :36:54.in the end illegal, I think it will be answered in the court of law
:36:55. > :37:02.whether it is illegal. But the, what is troubling about it is you have
:37:03. > :37:07.got a financial system that is behaving in ways that are not good
:37:08. > :37:11.for investors. There is a lot of behaviour that is probably all legal
:37:12. > :37:20.but still distasteful. Has anyone been charged as a result of your
:37:21. > :37:24.reflations? The -- investigations. The FBI has opened an investigation
:37:25. > :37:31.in the last month or so, they haven't charged anybody yet. They
:37:32. > :37:35.were They were asleep on the job until somebody woke them up? I'm not
:37:36. > :37:39.sure what woke them up, the characters in my book might have
:37:40. > :37:44.woken them up before I did. The people who are really asleep on the
:37:45. > :37:49.job was the Securities and Exchange Commission, the regulators of the
:37:50. > :37:53.financial sector. They seemed incapable of being at all active in
:37:54. > :37:57.the financial market. They respond to crises but don't prevent them
:37:58. > :38:02.happening. I don't know what these guys who were fixing the market were
:38:03. > :38:07.doing that was wrong? If it was smiled upon by the regulators, they
:38:08. > :38:13.were just acting as those sort of people have always acted, weren't
:38:14. > :38:19.they? I think that's probably their point of view. That their behaviour
:38:20. > :38:23.was just, was being condoned by the financial regulator, how could you
:38:24. > :38:27.possibly accuse them of illegal activity, however that is what the
:38:28. > :38:31.New York Attorney-General is about to do. So we may have a very curious
:38:32. > :38:37.situation where people are accused of crimes for doing things that the
:38:38. > :38:44.financial regulators condone. But you know this world, has something
:38:45. > :38:50.changed in it? Are they different sort of people? Yeah it used to be
:38:51. > :38:55.just nice men who went to work in the financial sector. The appearance
:38:56. > :39:00.of probity really mattered to those figures? They didn't require high
:39:01. > :39:04.intellect, this was an advantage, they can only do so much damage when
:39:05. > :39:08.they aren't that bright. What has happened now is instead of the
:39:09. > :39:11.bottom of the class of Oxford and Cambridge going to work in the City
:39:12. > :39:16.it is the top of the class. And they are capable of doing unlimited
:39:17. > :39:20.damage to everybody else, making it complicated in ways we don't
:39:21. > :39:24.understand. That complexity is like a no-pass, it is like what is going
:39:25. > :39:29.on. If the only people who lose money as a consequence of their
:39:30. > :39:34.activities are hedge fund deals, those sort of people who cares? If
:39:35. > :39:40.that was true I would care a lot less. But the effect of the rigging
:39:41. > :39:43.of the stock market is to essentially tax all investment
:39:44. > :39:49.capital. It isn't just hedge funders on the other end of this, every
:39:50. > :39:52.stock market transaction is susceptible to being scalped. Trades
:39:53. > :39:59.by little people, trades by big people. The bigger problem isn't
:40:00. > :40:04.just the scalping going on. In order to arrange the technology so it can
:40:05. > :40:11.owe cushion you have to make it a lot more complicated than it would
:40:12. > :40:16.have been. Their complexity ends up being unstable, they have companies
:40:17. > :40:21.crashing and exchanges going down for hours at a time. Even within the
:40:22. > :40:26.financial system there is a misgiving about the way they have
:40:27. > :40:30.structured it and a concern it is like a catastrophe waiting to happen
:40:31. > :40:36.because the technology has got too complicated. Let's hope it is not a
:40:37. > :40:41.catastrophe, a scandal has been revealed, you have revealed a
:40:42. > :40:46.scandal here, and the authorities will bring in new rules and then the
:40:47. > :40:50.next bunch of smart kids will work a way around them? That is one
:40:51. > :40:56.possible outcome. Surely that is the whole pattern? That has been the
:40:57. > :41:00.pattern. The reason I was interested in telling the story, this is the
:41:01. > :41:04.first time that there has been reform within the market that hasn't
:41:05. > :41:07.depended on regulators doing anything. You had people who were
:41:08. > :41:14.Wall Street insiders, from exchanges and high freakcy trading firms from
:41:15. > :41:21.banks -- frequency trading firms from banks, they need to say the
:41:22. > :41:25.stock market needs to be unrigable and announce to everybody that the
:41:26. > :41:28.markets are rigging things. The people whose money they control and
:41:29. > :41:33.those they were supposed to be creating, once you create that
:41:34. > :41:38.market pressure to move the market into place where it can't be
:41:39. > :41:45.scalped, I think you possibly have a sustainable, unrigable, unAble
:41:46. > :41:52.future. I think the broader picture when you pack away is Wall Street is
:41:53. > :41:57.less and less necessary. It is more and more obnoxiousious. But
:41:58. > :42:01.technology has eliminated the need of what they do. It is a case of the
:42:02. > :42:06.society forcing the issue and saying we don't need you in this, get out.
:42:07. > :42:13.We may be headed in that direction. If you are the sort of person who
:42:14. > :42:19.thinks the old Young British Artists are, were Charlatans, here is a
:42:20. > :42:25.treat. Julian Scnable has a new exhibition in London. It is greeted
:42:26. > :42:29.by a few mixed review, from awful to utterly dreadful according to the
:42:30. > :42:36.Evening Standard. But as the artist and film director told Steven Smith,
:42:37. > :42:40.don't people have a sense of humour. Why not just walk past him while he
:42:41. > :42:50.is standing there. He will be annoyed? He will be fine. You are
:42:51. > :43:01.not left in any doubt you are with a big art world figure when you meet
:43:02. > :43:17.Julian Snachble. You don't forget he's a garlanded movie director
:43:18. > :43:24.either. This painting I Always Thought of Myself as Taller was
:43:25. > :43:32.inspired by old neighbour, Lou Reid. It is as if this is imming were d on
:43:33. > :43:38.the material instead of on them. We had an SVU, and -- SUV and I I was
:43:39. > :43:43.opening the boot, and I said I'm sorry you have to watch the top, and
:43:44. > :43:57.he said I always thought of myself as taller. It was an apology for him
:43:58. > :44:04.being scared for a moment. He is really not dead, can you hear street
:44:05. > :44:19.hassle, and Pale Blue Eyes, he was so relevant. He directed a
:44:20. > :44:26.documentary by the underrated album, he knew a different side of the
:44:27. > :44:34.artist aside from the swagger. When my father died I called Lou and he
:44:35. > :44:39.came over, and we sat next to my father dead in bed and looked at him
:44:40. > :44:44.for a couple of hours and talked to him. And then I wrapped a rag around
:44:45. > :44:54.his face so his mouth would say shut and I put him in the bag. We went
:44:55. > :45:00.through a lot of things together. It isn't only American artists that
:45:01. > :45:08.have inspired him. How did you come upon the works of Bez of Happy
:45:09. > :45:12.Mondays fame? I love them, Black Grape is a great record. I paint to
:45:13. > :45:18.music a lot. And the fact that he doesn't sing or say anything is sort
:45:19. > :45:26.of an emblem of painting, which is mute. So it is kind of a secret. Is
:45:27. > :45:32.he aware that you have immortalised him in that way? We couldn't let
:45:33. > :45:37.things rest there could we? I have never, ever seen his work before.
:45:38. > :45:40.But I am amazed by it. But it is a bit mad with my name all over it
:45:41. > :45:46.though, it is a little bit like I have come along afterwards and done
:45:47. > :45:52.a bit of groupie stuff and ruined the picture. But I love it, it is
:45:53. > :45:59.proper psycadelic sort of graffiti type art. I don't know if they are
:46:00. > :46:04.good and bad when I paint them. What do you think now? I like them more
:46:05. > :46:08.than when I painted them. Since he burst on the art world some 40 years
:46:09. > :46:15.ago, he has not lacked for confidence. And has played the part
:46:16. > :46:21.of the Maestro to the hilt. Often affecting pyjamas at the easal, as
:46:22. > :46:25.here? I have no apologies, sometimes the world needs to catch up with
:46:26. > :46:29.you. A lot of people don't have a big sense of had you more, and
:46:30. > :46:35.things are done and said in tongue and cheek, and there is one where
:46:36. > :46:45.basically my head is being put cut off by an art dealer. The artist
:46:46. > :46:52.insists his paintings will have as long a shelf like as his movies,
:46:53. > :46:57.like The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, about an artist with
:46:58. > :47:03.locked in inDrome, which won the prize at Cannes. Then he says film
:47:04. > :47:08.and art should all hit the same spot? It is like a drug, you want to
:47:09. > :47:12.have that feeling, you take that, inject it into your arm and you walk
:47:13. > :47:16.out of that. That is the feeling you get from the diving and butterfly
:47:17. > :47:21.and looking at one of the paintings, they are just tools to get you into
:47:22. > :47:29.that state to where you might be conscious of yourself in some way.
:47:30. > :47:34.Why are we here, what are we doing? That's almost it for tonight. Back
:47:35. > :47:37.tomorrow, our celebration of Shakespeare's 450th birthday
:47:38. > :47:48.continues now with Dame Harriet Walter and a murderous sill key from
:47:49. > :47:59.act one scene five of Macbeth. The raven himself is hoarse, but cokes
:48:00. > :48:07.the fatal entrance of Duncan, under my battlements. Come you spirits,
:48:08. > :48:16.attend on mortal thoughts. Unsex me here, and fill me from the crown to
:48:17. > :48:24.the toe, top full of direist cruelty. Make sick my blood. Stop up
:48:25. > :48:29.the access and passage to remorse that no compunctions of visiting
:48:30. > :48:40.nature shake my foul purpose, nor keep peace between the effect and
:48:41. > :48:48.it. Come to my woman's breast and take my milk for gall, you murdering
:48:49. > :49:00.ministers. Wherever in your sightless substances you wait on
:49:01. > :49:10.nature's mischief. Come, sick night, and pull thee in the host of hell,
:49:11. > :49:17.that I see not the wound it makes, nor heaven Pope through the blanket
:49:18. > :49:32.of the dark to cry "hold, hold, hold". ??FORCEDWHIT
:49:33. > :49:36.A lot of low crowd and patchy fog by the morning. Particular low across
:49:37. > :49:41.the southern parts of England. The fog lifting and the cloud thinning
:49:42. > :49:45.and breaking and we should see sunny spells emerging. Probably in
:49:46. > :49:46.different places though for most of the day it is