15/05/2014 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Kirsty Wark.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/05/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Turkey's grief turns to rage, can the Turkish Government's response to


the terrible mining disaster get any worse. We will ask the chairman of


Turkey's Committee on Foreign Relations. He took President Obama


to the White House, David Axelrod has landed. If you put the glasses


on, you should be able to see it in a few days. A success story with a


lot of torque. Bond Lear villa for rent, hundreds ofms below surface


for rent. One MasterChef says it is fabulous. I will be on Newsnight


talking about growing underground. Good evening, the outrage at the


Turk irk Prime Minister's handling of the worst mining disaster his


country has ever seen, was only compounded today of an image that


showed his political aide kicking a protestor during the protest of the


visit to the mine yesterday. Thousands of people have felt


teargas and water canon on cities across Turkey, in three days of


morning for the dead. 284 so fashion and 150 still missing deep


underground. The first funerals were held today amidst accusations that


the privatisation of the mining sector has made working conditions


more dangerous. This was twins, 32-year-old and working at the mine,


on Wednesday they were buried together in the home town. Their's


the first of many funerals up and down western Turkey, this is the


country's worst mining disaster and the death toll keeps rising. With it


a sense of outrage directed at pretty much anyone in authority.


This was the scene in Soma when the Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan


came to pay his respects. His official c surrounded, battered,


almost overwhelmed. And a walk about that seemed to go badly wrong. Video


of the Prime Minister's defensive reaction has been published on


newspaper websites. And so have these, pictures of a member of his


staff kicking a protestor. Is this, people wonder, the authentic face of


the Government's response. We must understand that the tragedy happened


in a country that was already polarised enough, in a country where


there was already a lot of anger and division. Both the people who


support the party, and people who are against the party are more


consolidated, if you will. And the gap between these two segments of


the Turkish population is quite large now. The Prime Minister's


first press conference after the disaster was less than impressive


too. The pristine formal setting seemed a million miles from the soot


and grief of Soma. The Prime Minister promised a thorough


investigation, but then launched into a carefully-prepared catalogue


of mine disasters throughout history, including England's worst


at Oak's colliery near Barnsley in 1836. TRANSLATION: These kind of


accidents happen continually, unfortunately. But anger about


events in Soma has spread, this was a port city today, protests dealt


with in familiar fashion by Turkey's heavy-handed police. There were


demonstrations elsewhere and a nationwide strike by unions


demanding better working conditions. Even before Tuesday's disaster,


safety at the Soma mine had been questioned. Opposition MPs demanded


an inquiry, and an effort rejected by the Prime Minister's own ruling


party just last month. One of his allies was grilled on TV about why


he dismissed the inquiry as trivial and petty. Is this a party and Prime


Minister increasingly out-of-touch. I do believe his image has been


tarnished, most alarmingly. The messages that he has been given, you


know, recently, I find it very problematic. It sounds as if he


cares mostly for the people who voted for him, but what about the


other half of the Turkish population. I think as a result


people feel distanced, belittled, and that increases the frustration


and anger. So is this another moment, a repoet of last summer's


burst of anger against an authoritarian Government. Not yet.


The last protests was primarily missle class, university educated


youth in Turkey, expressing their deep dissatisfaction of the type of


governance by Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Where as Soma was a man made


disaster, again and the level of protests has been much, much lower.


The Turkish President visited the mine today, showing rather more


empathy than the Prime Minister 24-hours earlier. But emotions are


still running high. The mine was privatised by this Government,


people wonder if crony capitalism is partly to blame. They will be


burying the dead for days, possibly weeks to come. Turkey's unenviable


record on industrial safety has deteriorated even further. Could all


this still come back to haunt the country's Prime Minister. We have a


member of Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Government and chairman of Turkey's


foreign affairs committee. He joins me from Istanbul. When the political


opposition called for an inquiry into work place safety, they cited


Soma as one of the offenders. Was it now a dreadful mistake for the


Government to vote against the idea of that inquiry? Well, I think the


picture should be seen in its own perspective. In the parliament work


the sessions start with the opposition taking the floor and


asking for investigations or formation of committees. And if we


had really formed those committees we would have more than 500


different investigations had. But you have a poor record on industrial


safety, did you vote against the idea of having this inquiry? Well


this inquiry was voted yes, the Government party rejected this. But


it wasn't just because it was on the new measures on the mine industry's


security. But normally we have really closed over 100 mines in the


last few years, and this particular mine was investigated twice last


year and it was investigated this March. Nothing wrong was found


there. I think what the position was doing was perhaps correct, but it


wasn't exactly to an investigation commission cturing. It was just to


take the time of the parliament. Two things, these checks weren't carried


out without warning. But secondly the company involved in the mine


said in 2012, it boasted it had dropped the cost per tonne for


extraction from the mine from $140 to just under $24. Didn't that set


off alarm bells? That shouldn't be looked at like that. When you have


privatisation, or if you are having a private sector working anywhere,


the costs go really below the Government functioning of any


institution. You can't say that because that. That is a radical


drop? You can't say the security also went down. The security went


down as well. You heard the dismay that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip


Erdogan's speech about the disaster caused, particularly when he said


these disasters were not quite common place, and cited disasters


around the world, including one going back to 1860 in Britain. Has


the Prime Minister misread not only the domestic mood but the


international mood about the disaster? Well that I think, you


should look at the picture correctly. The Prime Minister


cancelled his visit to Albania, he was supposed to be there. He


convened the ministerial council and declared the three days mourning. He


sent the minister of energy there, the minister is there for three days


now. Every minister relevant was there. He went there personal. Why


did he have to make historical speeches about something that is


very real and immediate to hundreds of families? Well it wasn't


something historical. It was answering a question and he just


gave some examples. That was all. But what he did was actually he


wanted to comfort the people by going there. He has instructed an


amount equal to the salary to be paid to the families of the lost


miners. He ordered also an investigation. He said that if this


investigation result proves that anybody is guilty he will not be, or


she will not be tolerated. You said the Prime Minister went there to


caress the people, what was his aide doing kicking a protestor then,


kicking a member of the family. Should that aide be sacked now?


Well, look, the Prime Minister didn't kick anybody. I said his


aide, his aide? That is an individual issue, somebody from his


staff did that, but he also made a statement that he was deeply


saddened that he couldn't control himself. Should he be sacked? In the


provocations. You should take that as a young person who lost his


nerves. You cannot attach this to the Prime Minister at all. I would


just like to ask you, you are a senior politician. He went there to


find a solution to the problem, if somebody from his staff... I have to


press the point, to be absolutely clear, you are a very senior


politician, it is the Prime Minister's aide, this isn't some


ingenue, when an image of him kicking a protestor or a member of a


bereaved family and you think this is an action of an individual that


perhaps was inexperienced, surely the least the Prime Minister should


be doing is censoring that and saying that aide should be


dismissed? Well, you haven't seen the end of the story yet. We are in


a very difficult moment. The worst disaster happened, funerals are


taking place we are still looking after the people mission. Under


these circumstances I think we shou, everybody should wait for a few days


in order to see what measures are being taken or if a Prime Minister's


aide is dismissed or not. I think looking at the picture today from


that perspective is wrong. We are really suffering, everybody is very


sad and we're trying to go into the mind, trying to find the missing


miners alive or dead and at this point I think looking to the


particular case of a aide of the Prime Minister is wrong. Thank you


very much. All the measures will be taken and the investigation will be


on and if there is anything missing in this security of the mines in


Turkey, new additional measures will be taken. I think looking at the


perspective from one person kicking another is wrong. We are really


suffering from a worst mine disaster. The population is very


sad, families are very sad, and the Government is announcing it will


take all the measures necessary. Thank you very much, I'm affray we


have to stop you there. We have run out of time. Ed Miliband welcomed


his star signing to his Shadow Cabinet meeting today. David


Axelrod, the man credited with putting President Obama in the White


House jetted in for two days of intensive meetings as polls have


questioned Ed Miliband's leadership by putting the Conservatives ahead


for the first time in more than two years. They were having dinner


tonight, so perhaps they are sitting with whiskeys working out what


material Axelrod has to work with. If only it were this ey to pull off


an Obama-style victory, a few striking colours but Ed Miliband is


finding change isn't always a simple message to spell. Step forward the


newest member of Team Miliband, David Axelrod, meeting the cabinet


today, he was President Obama's strategist. Labour insiders are


saying this isn't a Labour makeover, you don't get someone of his calibre


saying this isn't a Labour makeover, to tell you what tie to wear, said


one, although they were wearing the same colour time. It is about


helping Labour frame and communicate its message. He can frame messages,


soundbites, speeches, the way Ed Miliband sound and looks. Now there


is nothing there that the Labour Party couldn't work out for itself.


But never underestimate the power of an expensive outsider to make things


happen. If we look at all voting intention polls since 2010, it


appears that Labour's lead has waxed and waned, indeed two polls this


week gave the Conservatives a slight lead. Not perhaps where Labour needs


to be a year out from an election. What can David Axelrod do, I met him


in New Hampshire at 2008 at the start of Barack Obama's first


presidential campaign. Then he had an even bigger hill to climb, with


Obama 20 points behind in the national poll One state at a time,


we said when we were 30 points behind national polls we said it


starts in Iowa. Then the candidate was largely unknown to the American


people a year before polling day. The task was to introduce him in the


most positive and exciting day. Way. For Ed Miliband to get here as Prime


Minister, it looks harder. He has already been Labour leader for


three-and-a-half years. Before that he was in the cabinet, so many


British voters have already formed an opinion as to who he is and what


he stands for. If the polls are accurate, that opinion isn't


favourable. Just 19% of voters see him as the best Prime Minister, as


opposed to 36% for David Cameron and 5% for Nick Clegg. That is actually


a worst position for Ed Miliband than he was when he first became


Labour leader. Ed Miliband comes across to millions of voters as a


very bright, very argumentative, undergraduate. We doesn't have the


gravitas, he doesn't look like he's serious number, a man with gravitas


who can run the country. What he has to do in his speeches at prime


ministers' questions and interviews, is to be less argumentative and more


magisterial so he sounds as if he's in the job already. Labour's best


period, according to the polls, started after the budget in March


2012. A series of coalition tax announcements on caravans, hot food


and charities that rapidly unravelled helped matters


considerably. Even people within Downing Street are calling it an


omnishambles budget. But if we look at a graph for polling on the


economy, since the last election, Labour has been consistently behind


since early 201, and now that -- 2013, now that gap seems to be


widening. He predistribution says we can't allow ourselves to be stuck...


Ed Miliband has introduced new language into the debate, like


"predistribution", Mr Axelrod's job is to refine these. Labour needs to


have a critque of this the largeage, like the kind you would have in work


or the supermarket that says this is what's wrong with the economy, these


people have all of the money and power in society and it needs to be


shared more equally. And getting that kind of message out I think is


one that is popular and speaks to what Labour is good at and what the


Conservatives aren't. Any honest election guru will admit there is a


limit to what any election guru can do, they can shape and polish, frame


and label. The people around Ed Miliband say they have the ideas and


the message, all they are looking for is a bit of help in getting them


across. Joining me now is Ed Miliband's biographer and political


editor for the Huffington Post UK. Phil Collins a former Tony Blair


speechwriter, and Lorraine Candy the Editor in Chief of Elle. The subject


tonight is Ed Miliband. Does he need to make a new political narrative


for him? A bit of both. This question of image, Ed Miliband's


makeover that Phil's paper was talking about today, clearly


undeniably he has an image problem. We shouldn't exaggerate it, there


was talk of gravitas and looking primesal. The best way to look --


prime ministerial. There is always that talk the best way to be prime


ministerial is to be Prime Minister! We in the media are obsessed with


the leader, if you look at the academic evidence who study this,


they say people don't vote on the basis of leaders, we don't have this


presidential system. Journalists love debating it but it doesn't


affect the outcome of the next election. There he is behind on


polling on the economy, and he thought he would breakthrough on


cost of living, he was punting that and he still hasn't managed to make


narrative out of that, that has been stopped dead in its tracks? We don't


want to be distracted by the image part of it. It is not the most


important part, it is what it is. He came out in one poll as being very


honest, the public said they felt he was honest. I would think that is a


positive thing for someone talking to the public about cost of living.


You want honesty around that. What he looks like and wears is


incredibly important, but it is not the only thing. Nobody ever has an


image problem that doesn't have a problem beneath T I'm a big fan of


Ed Miliband, I think he's very good at getting the message out. The


message is the problem. It is not that he is unable to articulate what


he thinks, he's been very clear about his analysis of capitalism, a


series of retail policies that are re clear. You think him standing at


a podium talking about redistribution is getting across


well. That is an important message about distribution of wealth. Energy


prices. He made the weather on energy and then he fell away. He


couldn't carry it through, why is that? The reason for that, he has a


series of things that are in themselves popular adding up to


something that is proving not to be popular. The reason is he's not a


credible messenger for that story. Would you have said the same about


Margaret Thatcher? At the moment he's an underdog and people tend to,


it is a long time before the election in terms of politics and


voting and actual three what women think, and I keep being told what


women think over the next year is really, really important. How does


he, does he appeal to women actually? I think of all of them


he's possibly, possibly could be the most appealing, but we don't know


about the women around him. His wife is incredibly intelligent,


incredibly likeable, we don't know that much, but if a woman like that


loves a man like then the package I need to know more about as a


possible voter. The package was not just about Obama but about Michelle,


and the same about Samantha Cameron? His brand and image, right at the


beginning, their family and her was incredibly important. If you look at


the pictures of Ed Miliband with his family in a more relaxed way, with


his great v-neck sweater. We don't see enough and that is important.


That is the family argument where the woman stands behind the arm? It


is about how you sell yourself, we live in a TV age of three main media


advisers all ex-politicians. Margaret Thatcher in 1979 was a


substantive figure, she came to office and made radical changes, she


was seen as shrill and weird, she trailed Jim Callaghan by 22 points


in the polls on the personal approval ratings on the eve of the


election she won on in a landslide. John Major won by more votes in


history and he wasn't a charismatic man. The idea that Ed Miliband can


sell himself on the notion much family, given how he won the Labour


leadership election is a total fantasy. That is interesting, I


wonder if you think that lingers? Of course it lingers, of course it


does, people don't know a great deal about it. And people aren't going to


vote for him. I don't think you are sell him on the notion of family,


that is not what he's going to be talking about, his policies aren't


just the notion of family, it is an element of it. I'm saying as a man


who is possibly going under a rebrand with someone else in charge


it would be good to know more about him personally and see a relaxed


side to get the message across. Do we live in a less political age,


more presidential p you talk about the TV debates? I think we live in a


much more visual age, women and younger voters do everything


visually. Even if you are eight or nine you can change and filter your


image that you put out on Facebook and other media. We are used to


people changing their images, we are distrustful because we can do it


ourselves. You need to be aof that. How do they make a trustworthy


image? They need to make him feel more relaxed. He's a very


intelligent man. I don't want to go to the pub with a man running the


country, I want someone really clever running the country. He's


very relaxed and good under pressure, a good performer, there


have been times when he has performed very well. Maybe it is


right there are times when his language was too complex. But he's


starting to distill a story. We have to think is this the correct story,


why is it he doesn't have the credibility, why are his ratings as


a potential Prime Minister so low. Does David Axelrod align him to the


Obama story. He has been saying the democrats and Labour have different


issues by share a common goal and this will be a big and important


election. Is he right? I agree I think the issue is not just about


growth, it is about who get the growth. We have seen a report is the


increases in tax share. We talk about Barack Obama, and who he issed


leading on the economy. -- who is leading on the economy, he was


behind in the polls against Mitt Romney about leading the economy. He


did a heresy, he shifted to the left and started talking about inequality


and tax rises and it worked. Here you have it it was said there that


you bring in somebody who costs an awful lot of money and think that


will work, do you think he can make the difference between propelling Ed


Miliband to Downing Street or not? I think it is very interesting the


point you made about bringing an outsider in, bringing somebody who


thinks about it in a totally different way. Obama is a different


things, if I talk about female voters there is not a woman in the


country who wouldn't want to go to dinner with Barack Obama, I'm not


sure about planed at the moment. Someone coming in from the -- Ed


Miliband at the moment. Someone coming in from the outside, as a


voter, it can make a twist. He's far too good to think he can do what he


did for Barack Obama to Ed Miliband. That is partly because it is not


America, and partly when Labour is so far behind on the economy, it is


the 11th hour, it is too late to change it. Too late? Tony Blair was


22 points behind John Major in the 1997 election and won the election


that was on economy. Pfizer has brought concerns about


takeovers for British business, some are worried about a long-term threat


to Britain's science base and manufacturing sector. Kraft Food's


takeover of Cadbury was followed by a closing factory and job losses,


despite promises. Can overseas ownership be good for British


business, some with the best marks. Over the last couple of weeks you


would be forgiven for thinking that foreign takeovers of British firms


are something to fear. But do overseas owners kill jobs? Not


always. Damage our skill base? Not necessarily. Are they bad for


long-term investment? Not everywhere. Immediate the modern,


not so British car industry. Britain benefits massively from being open


to investment. Nissan is now producing more cars than the whole


of Italy. Since the recession motor manufacturing has been one of the


bright spots of the UK economy. Investment is up, exports are up,


and employment is up. So why have foreign takeovers here worked out so


well. And what lessons can other parts of the economy learn from its


success. Nowadays there are six big car manufacturers in the UK, all of


them foreign owned. Back in the 1970s, the British car industry was


mostly still, well, British. But car production was falling. It only


began to rise again from the mid-1980s. With the opening of


Japanese and other foreign-owned plants. The global recession hit


demand for cars especially hard, now though it is on the up and expected


to hit a record level by 017. And about 80% of these cars will go


abroad. The industry was once the go-to example of Britain's status as


an economic failure. Plaged by difficult trade unions, chronic


underestimate, and widespread inefficiency. It didn't help that


Britain generally made rubbish cars to boot. You have had some bad


experiences with the British cars. The bottom dropped out of the Ford


after nine months. Have you tried British cars? I had a Jag before


that and Fords, it was the usual trip down to the garage every


fortnight. You mate remember the Triumph TR-7, a typical British car


from the 1970s, a commercial failure like a lot of those cars. Now things


are very different. Smart Government policy is helping the industry to


grow, with things like training and research and development. Back in


the 1970s policy was very different. It was about cobbling firms


together, bailing out losers and in the end the Government owned a huge


chunk of the STLI. -- industry, we all know how well that turned out.


There are three reasons why the UK is so attractive to the sector,


firstly, a high-quality, flexible Labour force, which has a long track


record now of successfully building quality product d. Secondly our


manufacturing processes are now globaling adopted. And they aredly,


interestingly, I think the relationship between Government and


the industry, through the automotive council means that we have a forum,


where the industry specific issues can be tackled stragically, so we


have a pathway together. The British car industry employs nearly 130,000


people, it generates over ?10 billion a year for the economy.


Foreign ownership in the sector has brought better management technique,


exposure to international competition, and often global


economies of scale. These foreign-owned firms aren't just


producing more here, they are also carrying out high-tech research.


What are we looking at here? This is our 3-D version of the Evoke. At


Jaguar Land Rover's R centre in Warwickshire, they have built a


vertical actual reality cave to test proto-types. If you put on the


glasses, it allows you get right inside the data. You can put your


head inside the engine with these 3-D glasses. Centres like this,


mixed with the research is putting us on an even footing with the


German manufacturers. In some respects we are slightly ahead. We


are using clever techniques in the virtual world that enables us to be


ahead. Both in terms of materials and development process...


Everything seems to be going well for the car industry. Some are


worried about the nuts and bolts. It is no sir about the number of shiny


cars across the line, it is about the number of British components


under the bonnet. The problem is -- bonet, the cars in the 1970s were


100% British and the percentage is lower. If you correct for the


important content we will still only be producing something like


two-thirds the value of output that we produced in the 19p 0s, and rob


-- 1970s, and probably significantly less than in the late 1990s. For a


long time we imported more cars into Britain an exported abroad. Recently


the value of the cars we sell overseas has matched the value of


the cars we buy in. This doesn't tell the whole story. A lot of the


components in British-built cars come in from abroad. Add in all


that, as shown on the red line, and the motor industry as a whole is


still a big importer. Only around 40% of the parts in a British-made


car are from the domestic supply chain. In Germany and France that


figure is nearer 06. Closing this gap could at ?3 billion to the UK


economy. Foreign ownership can be controversial. While we may again


investment, jobs and expertise, profits, accountability and decision


making can flow abroad. There is rightly public interest in where the


ultimate ownership of UK businesses rests. I don't think it is simple to


give a yes or no answer about whether or not foreign ownership is


good for the UK. It is about having a long-term plan and driving through


successful investment, and securing growth in overseas market. The


British car industry is doing well, because firms have invested in


research and development, innovation and their work force. Most of those


firms also happen to be foreign-owned. In other sectors,


overseas takeovers have been associated with asset stripping and


chasing a quick buck. The real divide isn't between British and


foreign ownership, but between those seeking long-term value and those


only interested in short-term profits. UK car manufacturers all


would love to be aiming for the long-term value. And today the


industry is becoming a world beater. The 1970s feel like a very long time


ago. Joining me now is an economist dubbed one of the top world thinkers


by Prospect Magazine, and the editor of City AM. First of all, would the


evidence of the car industry be one that actually if it hadn't been for


foreign investment saving the day we wouldn't have car industry at all?


In the case of car industry that is true. But you have to recognise that


it is well established empirical evidence that other things being


equal, foreign companies will do fewer or higher value added


activities in the host economies like the UK in the case of the car


industry. We have to bite the bullet, if we want foreign


investment we have to accept we are branch factories and not have the


main engine here? That is what I meant. I have no problem if you say


well we are going to be second fiddle, but we will be a good second


fiddle, then it is fine. But very often that debates get very


ideolgical. As with Pfizer AstraZeneca? Some people talk as if


danger is all that matters, and others say it doesn't matter at all,


but it is somewhere inbetween. The Government wants the balance to


change and to have more either indigenous investment here rather


than foreign investment, and more development here changing


conditions. They have set up as well as the automated councils, bringing


all sorts of industries together, Aerospace, life science, to develop


a base standard for things like apprenticeships or conditions, good


idea? I think largely these things are a waste of time. Of course you


have to develop apprenticeships and create the environment for growth,


you have to have great universities producing great scientist. I don't


buy the industrial policies, I don't think they work, I don't think the


own ership of the company mattering at all. I have seen lots of


companies dominated by that. I don't think they are branch offices or


back offices, they are creating very good high-paying jobs, they


contribute hugely to this country. I don't think we should be


nationalistic in any way whatsoever. You both seem to take the same view


in this that we shouldn't be hung up about the headquarters being here,


or the research and development, we in a sense should kind of be the


worker bees and brings people in for whatever it is, Aerospace and


shipbuilding programmes. We don't have the expertise on that? We


should have that, London has more highly value-added jobs in Europe. A


lot of the people who do the jobs and paid very well are working for


overseas companies. I don't think it matters. Is There isn't any sense of


a red flag when someone like Pfizer comes, even if they strip out and


take advantage of taxation, if in the end there is more development at


AstraZeneca... In the face of Pfizer there is the track record of the


company taking over smaller companies, shutting down their


research facilities. Even at the moment the combined, when the two


companies merge the share of AstraZeneca will be about 30-40%,


depending on whether you are looking at employment or direct revenue and


so on. Pfizer is proposing to do only 20% of research in Britain, so


that's a clear sign that indicates to Pfizer that they are going to be


the second fiddle. It is a case by days basis. AstraZeneca has


announced a bunch of job cuts, they have reduced their work force, the


companies are no different. The global companies are completely


global, they couldn't careless where they are based? Location matters.


You agree with you? You node a great university, AstraZeneca gets taken


over and Pfizer takes a research centre, away from Cambridge,


Cambridge will beless less likely to help. Sometimes has OK to play


second fiddle, but it is not OK to play second fiddle in something like


a pharmacompany, where the interintellectual property won't be


part of our economy? It is about your goal and your judgment of the


pet tenancies of the two different companies. As it toad in the 197 OK


0s, they were not able to generate that kind of research without


investigation. You have AstraZeneca, it is half Swedish. But it has a


deep root in the research that scientists and the community are


doing. It has a lot of links with universities. It is that route that


you need to try to preserve. I don't accept this assumption, global


companies are that are not head quartered can employ lots of


scientists and do lots of research, I don't think it matters, if you are


a modern, global firm you can go away and think the reasons are best,


if there is a lot of highly educated people and good tax system, you will


locate activities there. If you don't think it is a good place to


base you won't be based there. I don't think nationalism enters it,


and we shouldn't be and discriminate these companies.


By the standard of the overheated property market in central London it


is almost a snip, a secret Government bunker, room for up to


?8,000. Up now. The air raid shelter hundreds of feet under ground is in


need of innovation, clearing and fixing the leaks, but you don't need


to to far from the travel. If you don't live in the capital,


you may not know Londoners are enchanted by the tube, and like to


tell one another about stories about it. It is said to be a create


Labyrinth, like King Soloman's mines. Deeper even than the


underground lines, and it is somewhere here in south London.


People twelve a parade of fast food restaurants and a nondescript door.


It goes forever doesn't it? It does. Each tunnel is 1 thousand feet long.


100-feet beneath the pavement, this is one of eight level deep shelters.


There are 1,900 bunk beds, each one numbered. Wanted a downwardly mobile


tenant. Finale Holness and his colleagues are letting this bunker.


Excavated in the Second World War and held up to 8,000 people a night


as Hitler's bombs fell on the city. What are we going into now, another


room? Any prospective occupying would have to get up and down 178


stairs, the lift is out of action at the moment. And not mind a certain


solitude. What is that? A Northern line train. About 50 feet above us


we have the Northern line running. On time? Absolutely! It is like


being in the hull of a submarine. The narrow head space, the rivets,


and from time to time the rumble of a great leviathan overhead, actually


a Northern line tube. There is a constant temperature of about 16


degrees centigrade down here. It is dry, on the whole, and there is a


kind of woody, chalky smell. Hard to imagine 8,000 souls packed in


together in fear of their lives. If the bunker looks suspiciously


tunnel-like, no wonder. There was once a plan to link the shelters to


form a magma-scraping Metro system, once a plan to link the shelters to


a forerunner of CrossRail. However arrivals from the West Indies found


themselves here before finding themselves in Brixton to develop the


heartland of black London. No you haven't slumped on the remote and


tuned to MasterChef by accident. Michelle Roux Junior has joined


forces with market gardeners growing veg in another of the deep level


shelters. I thought they were barking mad, growing in a disused


tunnel that is an air raid shelter. I thought it was crazy until I


visited the site. It is awe-inspiring, it is disused space


that would be mothballed and not used. That in itself was fantastic,


it is a closed environment as W it is a constant temperature which is


ideal for growing. He's planning a new signature platter. I think I


will have to create a dish and call it "Le Petit salad vegetarian


surterrain". What is it? Mixed leaf salad of vegtables underground.


Sounds better in French. What about the other tunnels, one is full of TV


shows and film? There are various film Di Canios for big releases like


spider man 3, to 1970s game shows of golden shots, and even older films


than that. Did you find the Newsnight archive anywhere? I


didn't, no. Dozens, literally dozens of people would be interested in


that. A bit wet here? It is not sewage!


Still making your mind up. Clapham south bunker is close to great


leisure amenities? You can exit on to Clapham column. I would like to


do that. We can do that for you, I would like to ping out and frighten


a dog walker. As with the property market generally, the thing about


air raid shelters is you have to know when to get in and when to get


out. Today over a decade on from the worst terrorist attack in a major


city, there was a memorial museum opened on the site. Every victim has


been remembered. We leave you with the images from the day, and singing


from the children's choir that performed at the Opening Ceremony,


good night. # There's a time for us


# Some day a time for us # Time together


# With time to spend # Time to learn


# Time to care # Some day


# Some where # We'll find a new way


A fine warm sunny day on Thursday, and there's plenty more where that


came from, right from the word go on Friday, a lot of sunshine for a lot


of us, and if anything the temperatures will be a degree or so


warmer, they


Download Subtitles