29/04/2014 Newsnight


Jeremy Paxman presents in-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines, including UKIP, cancer survival rates and Obama's record.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 29/04/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



You wouldn't imagine things could get much better for UKIP, but then


tonight they did. A Conservative MP discredited by sleaze stepped down,


forcing a by-election, the party reckons it might be able to win. I'm


an ex-soldier, I believe when I get something wrong you have to fess up


and get on with it. No point in shelly shallying and trying to avoid


it. We will ask if that ex-soldier just stuck a bayonet in the guts of


his own party. Our chances of treating many forms of cancer have


improved hugely. Is the emphasis on defeating the disease though


starving other illnesses of resources? This shows one single


stock market share being traded right around the world in half a


second by a computer. Will we look back soon fondly on the mere greed


of the City trader. Instead of the bottom of the class at Oxford and


Cambridge going to work in the City, it is the top of the class. And the


top of the class is capable of doing unlimited damage to everybody else.


And this: Unsex me here and fill me from the crown to the toe, top full


of diarist cruelty. They are here, they are there, they


are everywhere, the United Kingdom Independence Party have achieved


quite a feat considering they don't have a single MP in parliament. In


just over three weeks' time at the European elections, we shall see


whether the anxiety of the big parties which do have MPs is


justified. And tonight, with the resignation of the disgraced Tory


MP, Patrick Mercer, there is even the chance of the UKIP leader


running for parliament himself. In the meantime there is the question


of whether UKIP is racist? The UKIP council candidate who said that the


black comedian Lenny Henry ought to emirate to what he called a "Black


Country", and he didn't mean the West Midlands, which actually is


where Lenny Henry comes from any way, resigned from the party today.


But all the other parties, the older parties, continue to assert that


UKIP is racist. # So while you work... Dads Army is


coming back. Your name will also go on the list. What is it? Don't tell


him Pike! 45 years after it was first seen on TV, it is about to hit


the big screen as a feature film. The reworking, this time with Bill


Nighy and Toby Jones, look impossible to fail. But the timing


of the venture play be superb. Half a century on the story of a small


island alone and under siege still seems to have enduring appeal. A


small Band of Brothers, led by the local bank manager, waiting with


baited breath for the invasion of an impending force, energy occupied


Europe. Sound familiar? Not war but quite possibly a sentiment that goes


straight to the heart of the UKIP message. That seems to be garnering


support. Tonight news from an ex-soldier that may well blast a


hole in the Tory battleship. Patrick Mercer, an MP suspended for six


months over "cash for questions" allegations, has announced he had a


stand -- will stand down, triggering a by-election. I believe when you


get something wrong you have to fess up and get on with it, no point in


shilly shallying and avoiding it, I'm ashamed of it. I will do what I


can to put it right for the constituency of Newark. Bad enough


for the Conservatives if it ended there, reminders of more financial


sleaze, so soon after the Maria Miller affair, will do nothing to


cheer the troops, weeks before voters held to the polls. But within


minutes of the Mercer resignation came reports that Nigel Farage, or


to give him the full title "the man who scares the living daylights out


of the Conservatives" may try to stand in the seat that is vacant.


Under by-election rules it can't be fought until after next month's


European elections, when UKIP might be riding high. Today there were


predictions for next week's European elections, they predict UKIP with 20


seats up by 13 last time, beating the Conservatives into third place,


and second to Labour who they are putting on 28 seats. It looks as if


the UKIP gains will be disproportionately at the Tories'


expense. But interesting to note that last year 4% of the Labour vote


of 2010 was heading to UKIP, this year that number has almost doubled.


UKIP is becoming an issue for all the main parties. The question now


is how they choose to tackle it. Last week when UKIP launched their


campaign, these posters were labelled racist by a Labour MP.


Possibly the wrong approach, John WoodAlcock tells me, the mainstream


parties can't afford the "fruitcakes, racist and loonies"


line any more without isolating their own voters. Those posters


might time with people, if we label the party racist, the worry is


everyone who looks at those posters and is stirred in some way by them


feels like we are calling them racist. They are not, they are


concerned about their jobs and their livelihood. This week a cross-party


group, Migration Mars, has launched the fightback, has accused UKIP of


eur-racism, and some are not frayed to hit where it hurts. We need to


expose the activists in UKIP who are the BNP in blazers. They are saying


the same thing about foreigners and people of a different coloured


different. As the National Front used to say before them. We need to


show that these are not the charming, reasonable, normal people


they pretend to be. Why do the main parties ause UKIP of being racist or


zenophobic, but refuse to believe that could be applicable to those


who vote UKIPble to those who vote UKIP. A party's leader and the


people who vote for them are not always the same. The people who tap


into the "the country is going to the dogs" sentiment. They talk about


issues which have little to do with politics. They talk about the


teacher killed yesterday in her own school. Or much more prosaically


about the difficulty of finding a human voice when you call your local


bank. They say that the three main parties have stopped listening,


stopped caring, given up on Britain, now that is much harder for them to


tackle than any one underlying policy. Tomorrow Nigel Farage has


promised to announce if he will stand in Newark, place your bets


now. The Conservatives have a 16,000 majority there, that could be hard


to shift. Now Newark is not warm -- Warmington-on-sea, the fictional


down in dads' army, but it may be the place where they go to war.


My guests are with me. Doesn't the very formation of a cross-party


campaign from all vested interests like you and your colleagues and


other parties demonstrate precisely why UKIP is successful. That you are


out-of-touch with public opinion and they are not? No I don't think it


does at all. I think it is the mainstream parties saying there are


very real differences about Europe, there are very real differences


about immigration and let as discuss them. But don't let's have it in the


way where we pander to the lowest common denominator, where we have a


campaign in which if we were talking about black people or Asian people,


people would be up in arms, but it is OK to talk about people from


Europe, 26 million of them apparently, are coming over here


looking for jobs. Let's look at the poster here, you tell us why this


poster, 26 million people in Europe are looking for work, whose jobs are


they after, why is that racist? Because it is an absolute nonsense.


It may be nonsense, that doesn't mean it is racist? There are 26


million people, alarmist in Europe. That wasn't your accusation, your


accusation it was racist, why? If you substituted for the word


"Europe", you substituted "people from Africa" or "people from Asia"


are coming here for work, everybody would think that is racist. There is


no reason why it says Europe that isn't racist in exactly the same


way. It is alarmist, it is nonsense, as Nicholas Soames says it is


completely devisive. Where does your party appeal to racists? I don't


think it does any more than the other parties. I think we are under


enormous media scrutiny, which I don't complain about, as ming


Campbell said to me yesterday, "welcome to Test Match cricket",


where there are people who have expressed racist sentiments we root


them out and take disciplinary action. You don't accept the poster


is racist? Of course it isn't. We in UKIP are proposing an immigration


policy which would be a level playing field with every country in


the world. A points-based system so the migrants who can benefit Britain


can come here. What we have at the moment is open-door migration from


more than two dozen neighbouring countries and the absurd situation


where an Indian engineer or New Zealand brain surgeon would struggle


to get in, but an eastern European a very grant has a complete right to


come. That is the double standard, and it is crazy. Why are you raising


your eyebrows? I think Patrick doesn't quite appreciate that we


have a system at the moment which is points-based. Not for the EU. Anyone


can come from the EU? We have the level playing field. It is not


level, that is the point. There are a lot of British people, as you


know, working and living in Europe and you give them no thought. But


the question is this isn't it, we hear almost on a daily basis about


extreme candidates. If they are not attacking Lenny Henry, you have


these UKIP candidates now, today, attacking Mo MoFarah for not being


British enough, and talking about banning Islam. Isn't it enough when


you have the leader of your party saying to the Guardian on Saturday


when asked should people be worried about Romanian families living in


their street? He says yes. Is it any wonder that you are encouraging


racists of this kind. I completely refute that accusation. Quite rank


frankly, let's be real about this, people value their sense of


community. When any people come from another community or nationality,


that causes them to worry about their community cohesion. So you


disagree with your leader on this subject? You would be happy to have


Romanians living next to you, unlike your leader. What we know about the


Romanian influx is there is cashpoint fraud, and begging in the


streets. That is a whole country. You have an amazing thing of putting


words in my mouth, if you let me finish. There are many Romanians who


work extremely hard, and Romanians who, with those values coming to


live in your street fine, once you get to know them. If it is a


Romanian running a cashpoint skimming gang you have every right


to be concerned and sustain that concern. The question wasn't are you


happy to have people indulging in criminal activity living next to


you. It was Romanians in general. To make the whole statement about a


whole country strikes me as extraordinary, is it any wonder you


have people aligning themselves with you with this view. It is great


pity, there are very, very many decent people who have voted for


UKIP in the past. How sweet of you to say so. And who will vote for


UKIP in the future. They will. It is a great shame that some of their


representatives and candidates have these extreme views. Two things we


know, 70% plus of the British public don't want open-door, unlimited


immigration from the rest of the European Union. The second thing we


know is there is an extraordinary degree of antipathy towards the


Westminster political class represented by you today. You are a


lovely person but with enemies like you who needs friends, that would be


UKIP's analysis of today. We will stop this before it gets personal.


Thank you both. For anyone, if any of us is unlucky enough to be


diagnosed with cancer figures published today give some comfort.


An average of half of us could expect to still be alive in ten


years' time, the survival rate is much better for some cancers than


others, but the advances in treament treatment have been so impressive


that the picture is quite changed. Cancer one of Britain's biggest


fears. Partly because as recently as the 1970s, treatment was very


ineffective. People thought of it as a death sentence. It is certainly


still common, in 2011, 330,000 people were diagnosed with a form of


the disease. In the same year, 160,000 people died. But there is


good news. Back in the 1970s, around one half of people diagnosed with


cancer died within a year. But survival rates have been rising and


rising. The latest estimates imply that around one half of people


diagnosed with cancer will survive a decade. That's because we have got


better at all parts of the treatment process. We are spotting diseases


earlier and treatments are much better. But the progress hides some


major variation. Ten -year survival rates for breast cancer are 78%. For


bladder cancer they are 50%, for lung capser they are 5%, and for


pancreatic cancer they are just 1%. More common cancers tend to attract


more research time. But, even some relatively prevalent cancers like


lung cancer have just proved difficult to crack. Differences in


survival rates also reflect things like how quickly the cancers tend to


get found and diagnosed. That is an important reason why survival rates


for pancreatic cancer have barely moved in 40 years. Still there has


been improvements, it is of course great thing. But we should also


remember that Britain could do much better. A recent study found that 9%


of British people with lung cancer survived for five years. In Norway


it was 14%. In Australia 17%. And in Canada it was 18%. So we should


celebrate the recent improvements in care, cancer is, in many cases, now


a manageable condition. But, there is still a long way to go.


Here now is the Medical Director of Cancer Partners UK. And Chris, who


has lived with breast cancer for five years and set up the cancer


awareness cancer charity, Coppafeel. And a member of the Alzheimer's


Society. This changing experience of cancer, how is it altering the way


we look at the disease? I think cancer is rapidly becoming a chronic


illness, like diabetes and high blood pressure. That is a long-term


illness? A long-term illness. When I began as a consultant 25 35 years


ago, 25% of patients would survive ten years, now it is 50%, and in the


next 20 years it will be 75%. The fear goes with the statistics. So


that changes the way people think about it? It does, people come to


the clinic, telling someone they have cancer no longer has that


dreadful conotation it did when I started. Having said that there are


still sad situations and people are still going to die of cancer. So we


could do much better if we put more effort into it. Tell me if the


terminology is wrong, you have lived with cancer now, you were diagnosed


how long ago? Five years ago. Breast cancer? Yeah. And you have lived


with it since then? Yes, I was already diagnosed with secondaries


when I was first told I had cancer. So I didn't go through a stage of


being diagnosed and thinking I was going to be OK. It was already stage


four breast cancer when it was found. And do you recall what the


impact of that news was and can you contrast it with how you feel about


the disease now? I knew very little about it. And I actually didn't know


what the conotations were of it, being the secondary compared to it


being primary. So I just, I didn't also know anything positive about it


either, so I knew it was bad. But I didn't really think I would be here


five years on. What do you think about it now? I am very much veering


towards the side of it being more of a chronic illness. Because I'm


living with it. And I have an identical twin sister and you


wouldn't be able to tell I'm the one who has cancer. And I know so many


other people living with the disease as well. So surely that's when we're


starting to think it is a manageable disease. This is a great advance


isn't it? Absolutely. I think it is really great news for cancer and for


people with cancer, but it is also a great news story for medical


research in general. Because it shows that by putting the right


investment in medical research, we can realise a discovery as new


treatments and cures for medical conditions. It is great news for


cancer, we need to see the same happening for dementia and


Alzheimer's and other diseases. I want to clear up one point with the


professor here, why is it there is a huge discrepancy between the


survival rate in some cannisters and others? -- cancers and others?


Pancreatic is the worst, 3% 40 yearsing and 3% now. It is partly


because of late diagnosis, but also because there is something about the


cells of the pan crease of the pancreas that we don't understand.


We are hoping to discover it through molecular analysis, so what applies


to cancer will apply to dementia. It is about reducing a reductionist


interpretation of what makes it cancerous. Clearly it would be


better if we had survival rates of the kind that exist in Norway or


Estonia, I think that is another one, or Australia. How do you


improve those? You need some money and you need to change the system.


You need to get better earlier diagnosis. What Chris is doing


through her charity is raising awareness of breast abnormalities,


persisting through an often negative system, general practitioners, going


to clinics, getting through that there is something wrong with you. I


guess the name explains what your charity is about Coppafeel, feel


your breasts, and that is a step towards early diagnosis? And not


ignoring symptoms, having the confidence to say to your GP, I have


noticed these changes, they are not right for me, it needs to be


investigated. Is there some sort of measurable result? Awareness is very


hard to measure, but we are seeing more stories come through, case


studies of people saying it was because of your message that I went


back to my GP and it was taken more seriously and I asked to be referred


and I was subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer and it was found


early. We need to make shower that breast cancers are found early, that


is when you are more likely to survive it. You have already


referred to the difference between the sort of resource that is are


available in cancer care. And the sort of resources, Alzheimer's is


your field, dementia. Do you resent the attention that cancer gets?


Absolutely not. The amount going into Cancer Research is fantastic,


even though today's news is good news, there is still a lot more that


needs to be done in cancer. What we can do in the dementia field is


learn a lot from Cancer Research colleagues about awareness raising.


We can bring new money in to dementia to make progress. The


Government have doubled its spend on dementia, and the Alzheimer's


Society will spend extra over the next ten years. That is a step in


the right direction, we need to keep the momentum going. The political


spotlight we have on dementia but seeing a big increase in research.


Do you feel because cancer has a particular talismanic, terrifying


impression upon people, that you some how have an unfair share of the


cake? I do feel that sometimes. I have been a great campaigner and I


think maybe I'm taking it away from someone. But I think the great thing


I know about Cancer Research, the lessons we are learning there will


alie right across the board of many different diseases. The epidemics of


our time are not the plague and infection, they are non-communable


conditions, chronic diseases. In all of them the molecular basis of them,


and how we treat them better, comes down to an analysis of the genes and


DNA, where it has gone wrong. The social implications of dementia and


older people especially living with cancer there is a lot of commonalty.


And cancer patients have other diseases as they get older. Do you


feel you are slightly jeopardising funding for other areas of medicine?


No. Not at all. If anything awareness is quite different to


buying items needed for research. I can still go out on the street to


tell someone to check their breasts without money in my pocket. That is


not to say we don't need money because we need it to do the


projects we are talking about. We are about taking the message early


and educating young people, so they don't start learning the fear of


cancer and get anything there before they even start doing that. Thank


you all very much. President Obama rounded off a visit to the Far East


today by trying to defend the way he deals with the rest of the world.


Soft and consistent seem to be his themes. They could hardly be a


greater contrast to his predecessors George W Bush's eagerness to send


soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan. But yet failing to appreciate the


mood of Russia and failing to do in Syria. As he approaches the end of


his time in the White House. Obama is obviously thinking of his


reputation. Aware of how many people see him as a disappointment. This


week the President has been in the Far East. A trip designed to


emphasise his foreign policy tilt towards the Pacific. Come on now,


ready, right here. But the scorecard has been mixed. America has given


guarantees on Japanese and South Korean security but not got a whole


lot back. And with the crises simplering elsewhere in Syria and


Ukraine, President Obama felt he had to answer his critics. Typically


criticism of our foreign policy has been directed at the failure to use


military force. And the question I think I would have is why is it that


everybody is so eager to use military force. After we have just


gone through a decade of war at enormous to our troops and to our


budget. When it comes to sports and photo opportunities, basketball has


always been the Obama game of choice, and even during his first


campaign, his emphasis on ending wars and choosing diplomacy was a


Lambert dunk with the American public. President Obama came to


office with the thought that when you talk to the people around him


that the US was overinvested in the big land wars of the Middle East and


south Asia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and underinvested in terms of his


time and attention in terms of East Asia. Power in the world, economic


and military power is shifting towards East Asia, I think President


Obama, I think maybe his greatest achievement has President has been


to redirect the strategic attention of the country towards the Far East.


And along with the abandonment of unpopular wars came a deliberate


focus on healing America's economic ills. Over the last decade we have


spent a drill I don't know dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and


hard economic times. Now we must invest in America's greatest


resource, our people. America it is time to focus on nation building


here at home. And in the 2012 campaign that was portrayed by his


opponent as an abandonment of American global leadership. In an


American century we lead the free world and the free world leads the


entire world. If we don't have the strength or vision to lead, then


other powers will take our place, pulling history in a very different


direction. And as the President defended his emphasis on healing


America first, he ridiculed his opponent for suggesting that America


might still have enemies, like Russia. I'm glad that you recognise


that Al-Qaeda is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked


what is the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said


Russia, not Al-Qaeda, in the 1980s are calling to ask for their foreign


policy back. The reset in relations with Russia was a cornerstone of


Obama's first attempt at foreign policy, and the attempt to make a


friend of an enemy that have subsequently led to charges of


naivity. Both Republican candidates in the 2008 and 2012 presidential


races were explicit in their opposition to Russia. With


Republicans and other critics of the administration are hitting home is


on Syria President Obama did draw a lion in the sand, and when President


Assad crossed it, President Obama did not respond in the brutal,


cynical world of Middle East politics that was a blow to US


credibility. In the Ukraine and the Crimea process, President Putin has


been highly opportunistic, strategic, very quick and decisive


and both Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Obama have been a


couple of steps reacting behind him. Russia, in basketball terms is the


President's biggest mis. For the plans in Syria and the wider Middle


East, and even the administration concede as complete re-think on


security policy. Basketball aficionados might have noticed he


has slowed down since he was Senator Obama, the dynamic of simple policy


has gone, to be replaced by a more complex calculation, and the


knowledge that sometimes a draw is the best you can hope for. A little


earlier I spoke to a spokeswoman for the Obama administration at the


state department. In what way is the world a safer place than it was when


President Obama took office? I would make a few points, when he took


office we had 150,000 US troops overseas engaged in two large wars.


Today one of those wars is over. Americans are home with their


families. If you look at the threat from terrorism, from Al-Qaeda corp,


the group that attacked us on 9/11 was out there when the President


took office, they were operating freely in Afghanistan and Pakistan.


Today that group sumpivically is a shadow of what it once was. I could


mention many more things but the negotiations with Iran over the


nuclear programme today. We are engaged in the most serious and


sensitive negotiations with the best chance of peacefully resolving our


concerns over their nuclear programme. None of this is easy,


many, many challenges remain. Those are just a few examples of how we


have made progress during the last six years now. Do you still believe


that the relationship between your country and Russia has been, as it


was put, "reset"? Well that was -- Well that was a certain time in our


policy, how we describe our relationship with Russia today is


complicated. Anyone looking at the situation would describe it in the


same way. We clearly have fundamental deep-seated differences


with how Russia is behaving in Ukraine today, we have been clear


about, that yesterday sanctioning more Russian officials, when we can


work together, for example on the Iran negotiations I mentioned, we


will continue to do so because it is in our national security interests


to do so. Wh Secretary of State Kerry describes the Ukraine crisis


as "putting the entire model of global leadership at stake", what


does he mean. ? What he means is in 2014 it is unacceptable for a


country to invade its neighbour. To take the steps we have seen Russia


take when it comes to Ukraine. We have been very clear that countries'


territorial integrity and sovereignty is a key notion that


underpins the whole international system of which Russia is a key


part. That is what it is referred to. Are there any circumstances


under which the United States commit troops should the Russians intervene


militarily in Ukraine? No, we are not talking about that. For a couple


of reasons. What we want to s is the situation deescalated not


escalating, also we have no interest whatsoever in engaging with some


sort of proxy war with Russia that harkens back to a time decades ago,


which we have no intention of going back to and don't think the Russians


should want to either. This is rather like the situation in Syria


where a threat is made and the country doesn't have the means or


the desire to follow it through? Absolutely not, I would disagree


with the emise, in the Ukraine we have promised a number of things,


economic pressure through sanctions, economic and diplomatic pressure to


punish them for what they have been doing in Ukraine. We won't commit


military resources there, because we don't think there is a military


solution. We have also said on the flip side we will stand by the


Ukrainian Government and people. We believe the best way to support them


is through economic, diplomatic assistance. That is exactly what we


are doing now, exactly what we said we would do. Do you like the Braing


snake-hipped greedy Charlatans that become the poster boys for 21st


Septemberry capitalism. Silly question, no-one does, or anything


like how much they love themselves. The red-meat eating good guys come


last trading world doesn't care. And capitalism depends on them to


function N a remarkable new book, Michael Lewis analyses the damage


being done to capitalism, by the way some so called high freakcy traders


are behave -- frequency traders are behaving. First an explanation of


what they have been doing. Imagine reaching into the chiller


cabinet, only to have someone snatch it from you and make you pay extra


to get your hands on it? That is one of the ways that high frequency


traders make money, taking millions of pound out of our savings and


investments in such tiny amounts we don't even notice. For example the


big pension fund might place a big order for shares in one exchange,


because the order is so bad there are not enough shares on that


exchange so it is pinged around to other exchanges in turn. What the


high frequency der gets there first and buys them up and sells them on


to the pension fund with an increased price. We are not talking


about peanuts here, one fund manager lost 1% of his total every year to


the high frequency traders. You can get an idea of how staggeringly


lucrative it is, when you look at how much they will spend to get the


tiniest advances. One company spent ?300 million to shave three seconds


off the link up time between Chicago and New York. It is ultimately paid


for by our pensions and savings. At the moment we are talking about


things, the high-frequency traders do that are illegal if morally


questionable. However the FBI this month announced it is considering


whether this practice of frontrunning, chatsing orders around


the world should be considered -- chasing orders around the world


should be considered illegal and insider training. There are some


things that some high frequency traders do that are flat out


criminal. Like spoofing. A trader might like to buy a quantity of oil


more cheaply by putting a order in below the prize price, they then


places orders at increasingly lower prices, fooling traders that it is


dropping, he buys quickly cheap and cancels the sell order. He can make


a quick profit by doing the reverse. It is all over by the time it takes


you to blink. The popular idea of financial markets looks like this,


but this is what they look like, black boxes using trading strategies


none of us understand. This is risky, a catastrophic meltdown, only


ever a nanosecond away. I caught up with Michael Lewis yesterday. Was


what these guys are doing wrong? It is an open question whether it is


illegal. It is unclear whether the way the stock market has evolved is


in the end illegal, I think it will be answered in the court of law


whether it is illegal. But the, what is troubling about it is you have


got a financial system that is behaving in ways that are not good


for investors. There is a lot of behaviour that is probably all legal


but still distasteful. Has anyone been charged as a result of your


reflations? The -- investigations. The FBI has opened an investigation


in the last month or so, they haven't charged anybody yet. They


were They were asleep on the job until somebody woke them up? I'm not


sure what woke them up, the characters in my book might have


woken them up before I did. The people who are really asleep on the


job was the Securities and Exchange Commission, the regulators of the


financial sector. They seemed incapable of being at all active in


the financial market. They respond to crises but don't prevent them


happening. I don't know what these guys who were fixing the market were


doing that was wrong? If it was smiled upon by the regulators, they


were just acting as those sort of people have always acted, weren't


they? I think that's probably their point of view. That their behaviour


was just, was being condoned by the financial regulator, how could you


possibly accuse them of illegal activity, however that is what the


New York Attorney-General is about to do. So we may have a very curious


situation where people are accused of crimes for doing things that the


financial regulators condone. But you know this world, has something


changed in it? Are they different sort of people? Yeah it used to be


just nice men who went to work in the financial sector. The appearance


of probity really mattered to those figures? They didn't require high


intellect, this was an advantage, they can only do so much damage when


they aren't that bright. What has happened now is instead of the


bottom of the class of Oxford and Cambridge going to work in the City


it is the top of the class. And they are capable of doing unlimited


damage to everybody else, making it complicated in ways we don't


understand. That complexity is like a no-pass, it is like what is going


on. If the only people who lose money as a consequence of their


activities are hedge fund deals, those sort of people who cares? If


that was true I would care a lot less. But the effect of the rigging


of the stock market is to essentially tax all investment


capital. It isn't just hedge funders on the other end of this, every


stock market transaction is susceptible to being scalped. Trades


by little people, trades by big people. The bigger problem isn't


just the scalping going on. In order to arrange the technology so it can


owe cushion you have to make it a lot more complicated than it would


have been. Their complexity ends up being unstable, they have companies


crashing and exchanges going down for hours at a time. Even within the


financial system there is a misgiving about the way they have


structured it and a concern it is like a catastrophe waiting to happen


because the technology has got too complicated. Let's hope it is not a


catastrophe, a scandal has been revealed, you have revealed a


scandal here, and the authorities will bring in new rules and then the


next bunch of smart kids will work a way around them? That is one


possible outcome. Surely that is the whole pattern? That has been the


pattern. The reason I was interested in telling the story, this is the


first time that there has been reform within the market that hasn't


depended on regulators doing anything. You had people who were


Wall Street insiders, from exchanges and high freakcy trading firms from


banks -- frequency trading firms from banks, they need to say the


stock market needs to be unrigable and announce to everybody that the


markets are rigging things. The people whose money they control and


those they were supposed to be creating, once you create that


market pressure to move the market into place where it can't be


scalped, I think you possibly have a sustainable, unrigable, unAble


future. I think the broader picture when you pack away is Wall Street is


less and less necessary. It is more and more obnoxiousious. But


technology has eliminated the need of what they do. It is a case of the


society forcing the issue and saying we don't need you in this, get out.


We may be headed in that direction. If you are the sort of person who


thinks the old Young British Artists are, were Charlatans, here is a


treat. Julian Scnable has a new exhibition in London. It is greeted


by a few mixed review, from awful to utterly dreadful according to the


Evening Standard. But as the artist and film director told Steven Smith,


don't people have a sense of humour. Why not just walk past him while he


is standing there. He will be annoyed? He will be fine. You are


not left in any doubt you are with a big art world figure when you meet


Julian Snachble. You don't forget he's a garlanded movie director


either. This painting I Always Thought of Myself as Taller was


inspired by old neighbour, Lou Reid. It is as if this is imming were d on


the material instead of on them. We had an SVU, and -- SUV and I I was


opening the boot, and I said I'm sorry you have to watch the top, and


he said I always thought of myself as taller. It was an apology for him


being scared for a moment. He is really not dead, can you hear street


hassle, and Pale Blue Eyes, he was so relevant. He directed a


documentary by the underrated album, he knew a different side of the


artist aside from the swagger. When my father died I called Lou and he


came over, and we sat next to my father dead in bed and looked at him


for a couple of hours and talked to him. And then I wrapped a rag around


his face so his mouth would say shut and I put him in the bag. We went


through a lot of things together. It isn't only American artists that


have inspired him. How did you come upon the works of Bez of Happy


Mondays fame? I love them, Black Grape is a great record. I paint to


music a lot. And the fact that he doesn't sing or say anything is sort


of an emblem of painting, which is mute. So it is kind of a secret. Is


he aware that you have immortalised him in that way? We couldn't let


things rest there could we? I have never, ever seen his work before.


But I am amazed by it. But it is a bit mad with my name all over it


though, it is a little bit like I have come along afterwards and done


a bit of groupie stuff and ruined the picture. But I love it, it is


proper psycadelic sort of graffiti type art. I don't know if they are


good and bad when I paint them. What do you think now? I like them more


than when I painted them. Since he burst on the art world some 40 years


ago, he has not lacked for confidence. And has played the part


of the Maestro to the hilt. Often affecting pyjamas at the easal, as


here? I have no apologies, sometimes the world needs to catch up with


you. A lot of people don't have a big sense of had you more, and


things are done and said in tongue and cheek, and there is one where


basically my head is being put cut off by an art dealer. The artist


insists his paintings will have as long a shelf like as his movies,


like The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, about an artist with


locked in inDrome, which won the prize at Cannes. Then he says film


and art should all hit the same spot? It is like a drug, you want to


have that feeling, you take that, inject it into your arm and you walk


out of that. That is the feeling you get from the diving and butterfly


and looking at one of the paintings, they are just tools to get you into


that state to where you might be conscious of yourself in some way.


Why are we here, what are we doing? That's almost it for tonight. Back


tomorrow, our celebration of Shakespeare's 450th birthday


continues now with Dame Harriet Walter and a murderous sill key from


act one scene five of Macbeth. The raven himself is hoarse, but cokes


the fatal entrance of Duncan, under my battlements. Come you spirits,


attend on mortal thoughts. Unsex me here, and fill me from the crown to


the toe, top full of direist cruelty. Make sick my blood. Stop up


the access and passage to remorse that no compunctions of visiting


nature shake my foul purpose, nor keep peace between the effect and


it. Come to my woman's breast and take my milk for gall, you murdering


ministers. Wherever in your sightless substances you wait on


nature's mischief. Come, sick night, and pull thee in the host of hell,


that I see not the wound it makes, nor heaven Pope through the blanket


of the dark to cry "hold, hold, hold". ??FORCEDWHIT


A lot of low crowd and patchy fog by the morning. Particular low across


the southern parts of England. The fog lifting and the cloud thinning


and breaking and we should see sunny spells emerging. Probably in


different places though for most of the day it is


Jeremy Paxman presents in-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines, including UKIP, cancer survival rates, Obama's record and high frequency traders. Plus American artist Julian Schnabel and Harriet Walter performs Macbeth.

Download Subtitles