Chilcot inquiry publication now possible; Billy Bragg on Englishness; Arianna Huffington; British collusion with the Brazilian dictatorship; and Apple buys Beats. With Kirsty Wark.
Browse content similar to 29/05/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
The Government and the Iraq inquiry have come to a deal
which means the totality of what Tony Blair and George Bush
said to each other in the lead-up to war will be forever secret.
Instead, we will have gists and quotes
Without the whole truth, will the inquiry be a sham?
I'll be asking Tony Blair's friend Lord Falconer.
UKIP won the Euro vote with a particular vision of England,
and it's not one this man subscribes to.
# Britain isn't cool, you know, it's really not that great.
# It's not a proper country... Billy Bragg is here to argue
with Peter Hitchens And as Brazil prepares to welcome
the football fans to the World Cup, in shoring up the country's
21-year dictatorship. TRANSLATION: I had effectively been
disappeared, all the psychological pressure to destabilise me, I
couldn't sleep, I did not know if it was day or night. It was day or
night. Messing with someone's personality. -- it is a very
powerful way of messing. Gists and quotes. That's what the
Iraq Inquiry will be able to report of the communications
and discussions between Tony Blair and George Bush
in the run up to the Iraq War in a deal that has taken an age
to hammer out. This may mean that the inquiry
which Lord Chilcot said, in his opening statement,
expected to report in 2010, But will it be of any use
if the many conversations between the then British Prime
Minister and the US president No, say the families of soldiers
killed in action. I'll be talking to the former
Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, Tony Blair's confidante
then and now in a moment. No British document or British
witness will be beyond the scope of the inquiry... No limits on what
Chilcot could ask or to whom, but limits on how much we get to know.
We may never see the promises Blair made to Bush on Iraq, we may never
know what he committed to before asking Parliament or the public.
More than ten years since the war began, five years since Sir John
Chilcot's inquiry into what happened started, he has announced he will
not be able to publish the full extent of crucial contacts between
Blair and Bush. For some of the families of people killed, only
getting part of the truth is not enough. We want to know the whole
and the full reasons why we went into this very spurious war, which
was after all a war of option, not necessity. So I want the full facts
why my son died, not just the gist bid. The block on publishing
documents is not just intelligence or military information, but Blair
and Bushpolitically intimate communications, and one particular
note written after a meeting between the two after a meeting at a ranch
in Texas the year before the war. Blair's critics said he made a
promise to go along with an invasion before he knew of it could be kept.
I was saying, you can count on us, we will be with you, but these are
the difficulties. As you see, the rest of the note is about all the
issues and difficulties. So in a sense what I was saying to America
is, look, and by the way this is how George Bush took it, I am absolutely
sure, whatever the political heat, if I think this is the right thing
to do, I am going to be with you. I am not going to back out because the
going gets tough. After months of wrangling, the inquiry has announced
it will publish what they describe as gists and quotes, requested from
25 notes and more than 130 conversations between Mr Blair and
President Bush. Potential gaps provided in the material have, they
say, now been addressed, but some material has only been received very
recently. There is also agreement to publish a small number of full
extracts from Cabinet papers. The inquiry team has been able to say
everything they have asked for, as well as hearing countless witnesses
here, but government officials will have to agree precisely what is
published. And nothing that suggests the views of President Bush will be
revealed. Despite weeks and weeks of hearings, hours and hours of
evidence, the final report was never going to be the full, pure,
unadulterated truth. But this is so clearly a compromise between the
inquiry and officials who are determined not to publish all,
private correspondence of Tony Blair, and Americans reluctant to
play ball. One source familiar to the process told me that it is as
simple as the Americans saying no. If Tony Blair had some exchanges
with George double you Bush, some of them should be in the public domain,
but on the whole if you are now going to say to every world leader
that any communication with the British Prime Minister is not
confidential, they will stop talking to us. We may now say it was a
terrible mistake, like the Afghanistan war, which still goes on
as a terrible mistake, but at the time it was Tony Blair, it was me,
Jack Straw, William Hague, David Cameron, taking that decision after
lengthy debates, thinking about it and deciding that it was the right
thing to do. There is no other truth. But for military families,
without publishing the fullest version of events, what can this
inquiry really achieve? I need to draw a line under this, and until I
know the full truth, I cannot do that. And it will be an open sore
until the day I die. Iraq is still grappling with the aftermath of war.
11 killed yesterday, the level of violence is the highest in years.
Our political legacy is still to be settled. But a less than explicitly
complete version of events from the Chilcot inquiry may still leave room
for both sides to choose their truths.
A little earlier I was joined by Charlie Falconer,
former Lord Chancellor and still close friend of Tony Blair.
I started by asking him who the Iraq inquiry was for.
It's for the public to see what happened
in relation to decisions leading up to the Iraq
and it's for the public to discover what the truth of the position is.
I remember at the time of the discussion
whether the inquiry would be public or private, you said very clearly
that it needed to be public so the public would have confidence in it.
Absolutely. Surely the idea that we will just have gists and quotes
of the correspondence between Tony Blair and George Bush
means that confidence will be undermined.
because the inquiry have had all of the material for three years.
They will be able to summarise what they've got, and what's more,
in relation to the open hearings, remember when Tony Blair gave
evidence in the inquiry, he referred to what most people regard,
quite openly, with the consent of the inquiry,
to the most sensitive parts of the correspondence.
So I don't think there's any real sense
that things have been kept from the public.
Have you spoken to Tony Blair about this? Today, yes.
Was he evincing the idea that it should be reported in full?
Well, he's saying it's a matter for the Government
and a matter for Chilcot and the Government to reach an agreement.
He will accept any conclusion they have reached,
he's not been consulted about the agreement they reached.
He's expressed the view in the past that there should be
some appropriate degree of confidentiality,
which is obviously right, but in this instance,
the question of what the inquiry can publish is a matter for them.
But it's easy for Tony Blair to say he'll go along with the Government,
that there's not going to be full disclosure.
It's for the Government to make up their mind.
They've got to balance the ongoing relationship
with other heads of state against the openness of this inquiry.
What is it in his correspondence? Have you seen it?
I have, and I assume it's not the content of this correspondence,
it is the fact of a British inquiry releasing information of this sort.
Hang on, that means this Government is second guessing what might happen
in the future, so therefore, at some sort about what the impact it might
have an Anglo-American relations, people are not going to see the
entirety of this correspondence, it is all supposition.
They are going to know the substance of the correspondence,
and they will have seen the critical parts quoted in the open hearings.
You are repeating the idea that Tony Blair has made it clear that some of
the most sensitive stuff has already come out in the public hearings,
but if the public doesn't see the totality of the correspondence,
it's fair to assume the public will be suspicious.
Why should they trust politicians just now?
Because in the past they feel they have not been able to.
because it is not the politicians that will determine the gists.
Chilcot and his fellow enquirers have had this correspondence...
Actually, they've had it for three years, so they have had
every opportunity to consider it, and they are independent.
I don't think people think Chilcot and the other members
of the inquiry are like politicians, they are independent people.
But if they are independent people, you say the Government is making the
decision the full correspondence should not be revealed.
So Chilcott does not have a free hand in this, he's not independent.
He would wish to release the whole lot, the Government have said,
for reasons that they don't want to damage relations
with America in the future, they have reached a compromise,
and that was the compromise that has been made public this afternoon.
So we are hidebound by the Americans, essentially.
It is for us to decide, the Americans cannot make the decision,
but a judgment has been made by the British Government,
and Chilcot has reached an accommodation
with the Government whereby they give us
as much as they want in terms of gists.
I am not sure it is an unsensible compromise.
It is perfectly convenient for Tony Blair.
either for Tony Blair or anybody else,
because if the inquiry, which is independent, want to condemn him
or anybody else, this agreement does not in any way prevent them
from either condemning or approving or whatever conclusion they reach.
What would you say to the families who are suspicious of all this?
Who feel you have just said you saw nothing in that correspondence that
you would feel would be damaging in any to Anglo-American relations?
If it was up to you, you would reveal it.
Why should the public have any confidence?
Well, because they have got an independent inquiry
with reputable people who are independent of the politicians
who are going to make the judgments. Trust the inquiry.
With a resolution to this issue, do you think
I do, my judgment is there will be a report before the end of year.
Lord Falconer, thank you very much.
I am joined now by diplomatic editor Mark bourbon, first of all, Tony
Blair now has nothing to fear, if he ever had. Well, I don't know. It's
true to say I have been talking to contacts about what we can now
expect, and what would be in these letters sent to people who were
facing criticism from the inquiry. It is true, I am told, it will not
be levelled at him as a charge that he manipulated the intelligence
about weapons of mass destruction. Just like the foreign affairs
committee, the intelligence and security committee, the happen
inquiry, this one will not say that. But I am told that it will levelled
charges of mismanagement against Tony Blair about the way he handled
the politics and the way he was optimistic about what would happen
in Iraq. But this is not just about Tony Blair, what are people saying
about the report? I think it is inevitable, because of the emotions
that Tony Blair is Vokes in people, for and against on this question,
that it blocks out an awful lot of what the inquiry was meant to do,
which was to look at how this very serious foreign policy step was
taken, military step, intelligence, to analyse what was done wrong. Now
I am hearing that dozens of people are going to get these letters. This
includes not just politicians, Mr Blair and his cabinet members, but
officials, intelligence people, senior armed forces officers, all
facing criticisms. This is going to take a long time. The people who
have been called to the inquiry or are reported on, what do they do
with these letters? Is there an appeal? I believe they have a
month, so there is a process, they have to put together the letters.
This whole dispute has been about what they can quote from in
justifying some of these criticisms that will be levelled. Could it mean
the end of careers? A lot of these people are already out of government
service or the military, or wherever they were at the time, it is 2003
and the subsequent to that. They will get letters, they will have a
chance to respond, and if the will get letters, they will have a
chance to respond, and inquiry thinks that the response is
justified, they might alter it, and it will go into the final report.
People are saying that, before the end of the year that is realistic.
If you want to be cool, you have to have Beats by Dr Dre on your ears,
so Apple have taken it one step further today and have bought
the whole company for $3 billion in their biggest acquisition ever.
But distinctive and expensive as the headphones are, it's apparently
the Beats' music streaming service, the biggest rival to Spotify,
Here's Jim Reed with the story. A clever canny bet on the future or a
sign of desperation? Apple's decision to either trendy
electronics company Beats tells us something about where the whole
entertainment industry might be heading. Its best-known products,
range of fashion headphones, plastered with a giant logo. This
pair of headphones. ?219.95. And by the way, they are really quite
expensive. The deal will make multimillionaires of the founders,
one of those the influential music executive Jimmy Ivy described the
white headphones from Apple like sounding like mosquitoes. The Forbes
list adjuster changed. It came out two weeks ago for them they need to
update the Forbes list. The other, Dr Dre is seen getting into trouble
boasting about the sale before it was signed off. The first
billionaire in hip-hop. Many in the know say Beats's products seem to be
lacking quality but they're not selling a device but lifestyle. Dr
Dre has been in the game for 30 years. It's responsible for many
rappers, and he's one of those people who mentors and changes the
game constantly. Dr Dre says these are the best headphones to listen to
music, people will take it seriously. Kids will take it
seriously. He is the doctor. But this is clearly about more than just
headphones and Alec tonics. It's about the future of the music
industry itself. That electronic. Just like downloading has wiped out
the record store, so new technology is threatening to take over in the
same way. Apple's iTunes store still rules the market for online music
but there are very worrying signs for the technology giant. Sales in
the USA slumped by one quarter this year. Instead, younger customers are
switching to a new breed of Internet streaming services where you pay a
monthly subscription and listen to any track whenever you want on a
phone or computer but you never own the music itself. It's very
interesting because the notion that we no longer own any of our music,
that there is no physical collection, too many of us, it seems
extraordinary. We use to understand something about a person when it
went into their house and saw what books and records they had and CDs.
And you don't do that any more. Under this scenario, that all goes,
and we are invisible except we are not big of that sort of identity
shows up online. Beats runs one of the largest streaming services
available in the USA but not yet in the UK for the instead of using
computer algorithms it employs teams of human taste makers to music to
listen to. But with just 250,000 paying subscribers, it is still much
smaller than rivals like spot of five full cup with more than 10
million worldwide. A dealer this size is attractive to Apple because
it has such deep pockets full of the company had ?95 billion in cash just
sitting in its account. These headphones have become a fashion
statement and what's really interesting, I think, Apple is
always managed to play both the culture side and the technology side
and brought it together. It's understood the value and the power
of that in the community and its strength is often been together
technology to get out of the way in order for people to experience
culture more directly. I think of this deal plays right into that. It
might make sense on paper but this is still a gamble for the world 's
biggest technology company. The success or failure of this deal
could decide not just how Apple performs, but how the music industry
looks in a decade 's time. UKIP's spectacular success
in the European elections speaks to a certain view of the UK
and its constituent parts, Nigel Farage has even offered to go
head to head with the First minister In particular,
UKIP represents an Englishness which, to the singer and campaigner
Billy Bragg, is unimaginable. Here he is singing Take Down
the Union Jack. UK. # It's really not cool that no.
# It's not that great. # It's not a proper country. It doesn't even have
a patron saint. # It's just an economic union. # It is past its
sell by date. Well, I'm joined now by two very
different types of Englishman. As is the author and Mail on Sunday
columnist Peter Hitchens. You delivered a lecture tonight
where you were talking about the notion of Englishness. Don't you
think Britishness exists? It exists but is coming under attack from the
idea of an independent Scotland or Devo Max Scotland. Before the
independent referendum, the three main parties offer maximum
devolution for Scotland. People in England are saying, why can't we
have some of it? You would like to see a federal system? Personally, I
would like to see assemblies in each of the English regions with the same
powers as Scotland. The boat across Europe, particularly UKIP, it's a
against globalisation and the way we deal with globalisation I believe is
to have bringing localism to people. -- provoked. -- the vote. It's
nothing to do with globalisation but with government. People living in
its own country, running itself under laws which its own people are
chosen. That's an entity which is not a country. It's dissolving as a
country because so many people have been trying to dissolve it and
there's strong pressure from the EU which likes country to be sliced up
into regions and smaller parts before it swallows them up. That's
what's behind the destruction of the union. The European Union's
inability to tolerate other federations on its territory. The
idea of England to you, is it something you are dear to? No, I've
always tried to defend the idea of Britain -- you adhere to. The
problem is that, because England has been under attack from within, for
many people in Britain, who didn't wanted to continue, who wanted to
dissolve it, they have used nationalism to do it. The problem
for the English if they are not in the driving seat of these forces.
The Scottish eye in the driving seat for devolution. The EU are in the
driving seat for globalisation, so the British state, England is a
country, written does another patron saint, football team, but England is
a country which has allowed its identity to be wrapped in the union
Jack since the glorious Revolution. We have got to pick up the threads
of Englishness. You say for George and the Dragon? They are different
traditions in England. If people see the flag of St George on the back of
a white minivan, they are immediately taken opinion. You never
say that with a Welsh flag or St Andrew? You have tried to reclaim
Englishness? From home? From whom? There is an element within UKIP,
little England. The other day factor English National party now. A lot of
people in England are puzzled by the fact for some reason the other
nations of the UK seem to want to tear themselves away and declare
loyalty to somebody else. Scotland isn't going to be independent.
Ireland will not be independent. Northern Ireland will not be
independent when it leaves, they will be provinces of the EU. Instead
of going to Brussels to London, they will go direct. It's barely possible
for the UK to be a sovereign country any more. For these other ones do it
is beyond. I don't understand how you can set the... -- set of their
and demand self-determination cash set there. --
I think Scotland has more in common with England. That's up to the
people of Scotland to say not you. One of the reasons why Scotland is
likely I think to leave totally or through Devo Max is because of the
feebleness of the British response. Whole idea of unionism has lost all
force because the main party which was most do defend it has become a
European party. The Conservative Party ought to have been defending
the union. And the Labour Party. How can you defend the British UK whilst
simultaneously campaigning for the EU? They are viable entities. The
Scots Apple for self-determination is a response to globalisation, the
supranational capitalism which is manifested in the city of London.
Are you suggesting people in Scotland are not for the idea of the
European Union? Not at all. I'm suggesting there are no longer
willing to allow the market to solve all the problems that society
presents. There's that dogma we've had since the years of Thatcherism.
It wasn't away by new Labour. You are mixing of two different things
for the European Union imposes globalisation on the market and its
members in a ruthless fashion. If you think Scotland will escape that
by leaving the UK, you are by much mistaken. Let's be clear, it seems
to me, what the people that want a separate Scotland are saying, they
want it within the European Union. They may not get it. It is what is
fundamentally made practically possible. Before then, only a token
independence move would have been impossible which would have been a
dependent... I totally disagree. The public has 100% independent and
Scotland is just as viable as the Irish Republic. The Irish Republic
didn't attain it until it joined Europe and broke away from Britain.
That's when it became serious. Before that, it'd been a token
independence. Let's look to the future, the idea of a regional
assembly, a federalism, where England is reborn as a different
entity. Once that starts, who knows? I could set myself up, by a large
jumper and grow an enormous beard and become a Cornish nationalist and
subsidies and money would flow towards me. All kinds of things will
happen to England once the UK ceases to exists. All kinds of nationalism
to become possible. All of them will ultimately be provinces of the EU
and therefore not independent at all. It's a Morris dancing, it's not
a real country, a real country is people living on its own territory
making its own laws. That's not what any of these pledges will be. If
Nigel Farage more in touch with England and you are? He's in touch
with a certain type of England. A lot of people voted for him. People
were voting for him, the discontent of globalisation. For many people,
globalisation is intangible but the EU, it enforces globalisation, and
gives Google the opportunity to talk out against it. We need to reform
the EU so it becomes more less about national capitalism. It is not able
to be reformed. Thank you both very much indeed. Billy Bragg will play
as out tonight. You will have to do is find out what song he is playing.
Brazil will soon be the centre of the football-loving world.
A country famous for producing one of the best
But what has been forgotten by many is that at the height
of Pele's stellar career, Brazil was a military dictatorship.
President Dilma Rouseff, who was herself imprisoned and tortured,
set up a Truth Commission two years ago, and now that Commission has
produced evidence that makes uncomfortable reading for Britain.
The world's spotlight is on Brazil, football the popular obsession.
But here there is now a new fascination with the past
and the decades of military dictatorship.
more about the forgotten, dark side of Brazil.
democratically elected left-wing government in 1964.
The fear was of Soviet expansion after Cuba's Communist revolution.
There followed 21 years of dictatorship.
We've found compelling evidence that Britain not only welcomed the regime
but actively collaborated with the generals.
Torture was the generals' main tool of repression.
called the Young People's Popular Uprising.
They're now tracking down the torturers and publicly shaming them.
Hundreds died or disappeared during military rule.
but many were young students, union leaders or journalists.
were subjected to extreme physical violence before they were killed.
But from the early 1970s, things changed.
Survivors speak of a new form of psychological torture,
a method that came to be called the English system.
The hub of the regime's torture apparatus
inside the headquarters of the military police.
Alvaro Caldas was a journalist and member of a militant group.
He was brought here, severely beaten and tortured with electric shocks.
Three years later, he had given up politics,
but still he was rearrested and brought back.
TRANSLATION: I was in the same place,
but I noticed there were marked differences.
and the smell made me feel really sick.
and there was this sound which alternated loud and soft.
When I was questioned, I always had to wear a hood.
All this psychological pressure to destabilise me.
I couldn't sleep, I didn't know if it was day or night.
It's a very powerful way of messing with someone's personality.
If I had been there for two weeks or a month, I would have gone mad.
This frail old man was once a notorious torturer.
Colonel Paolo Malhaes came to give evidence
unrepentant for his record of killing and mutilation of victims.
the special cell in Rio was based on an idea learned in the UK.
We found out that in a private conversation with the prosecutor,
the Colonel had admitted he himself had been to Britain.
was killed in a suspicious burglary at his home.
Buried with him are the details of exactly what he learned.
It's likely to have been the controversial stress techniques
that the British trained agents of the Brazilian military?
Well, we've come to see a man who actually interviewed many
of the highest ranking generals while they were still alive.
Are you convinced, from your interviews,
that there was collaboration between the British and the Brazilian army?
Definitely. Why would they mention this?
Why were they looking abroad to learn how to interrogate people?
My guess, based on what I've read, what I've heard,
is that their simple brute techniques were not working.
several generals told him they'd sent officers to London.
One said, "The Americans teach, but the English are masters
in teaching how to wrench confessions under pressure,
by torture, in all ways. England is the model of democracy.
They give courses for their friends."
The head of the Rio Truth Commission is under pressure
Brazilians have long known America paid for and taught repression.
It's been a revelation here that Britain was also involved.
to hear that a democracy which is so important,
so established, so old, collaborated with the dictatorship.
We then tracked down a former leader of a police death squad.
He couldn't come to Rio because of threats to his life.
It's alleged that Claudio Guerra killed up to 100 people.
Now he's found God and works as a Christian pastor.
who were teaching interrogation techniques in Brazil.
TRANSLATION: I had contacts with two,
The one in Rio stayed at the Copacabana Palace.
How did you know they were English agents?
Because we knew the American agents from the CIA.
The Americans spoke Spanish, they were all Cubans.
so you could tell they were not Americans.
And when they were teaching, they said the techniques
were used in Ireland and had given good results.
Britain's interrogation methods were widely admired.
It's known from documents in the national archives in Kew
that they were also exported to allies.
We've discovered evidence that Brazil was one of them.
to Brazil adopting acceptable standards of interrogation
of the kind permitted in Northern Ireland,
or the commander of the first army in Rio describing
the new techniques as taking a leaf out of the British book.
Then we found this 1972 letter from the British ambassador,
There is a reference to the adoption by the Brazilians
of more sophisticated methods of interrogation.
"As you know, I think they have in the past
been influenced by suggestions and advice emanating from us."
In the confidential letter on torture...
Sir Alan Munro was a diplomat in Brazil just afterwards.
We showed him the ambassador's letter.
He said he personally had no knowledge of British collaboration.
If the Brazilians were looking at techniques, if you like,
of interrogation used by British authorities,
would have been the early years of the Troubles in Northern Ireland,
well, this would have been undertaken, I would say,
under some Brazilian initiative of inquiry.
And to the extent that it might help to reduce
the most brutal methods which had, in some cases, been employed,
well then, it would be a step in the right direction.
the idea that Britain helped train the torturers
was not a step in the right direction.
colluding with the oppressive regime,
a regime which still hasn't faced justice.
In a written response, the Foreign Office told us that it does
not comment on the work or documents of previous administrations.
Reading Ariana Huffington's CV is so exhausting
I had to lie down in the Newsnight office for a few minutes.
Chair, president and editor-in chief of the Huff Post Media Group,
author of 14 books, she serves on several boards,
including that of the main Spanish daily paper and its parent company,
the Committee to Protect Journalists and so it goes on.
But now she's admitted she's exhausted too
your success isn't dependent on money and power,
which for the vast massive majority of the population it probably isn't.
Arianna Huffington, at the bases of gists and quotes, you are saying
there has to be a third dimension to your life, well-being and so on. --
Thrive. But isn't this for the rich and powerful? No, the message of the
book is for everybody, whether you are struggling to put food on the
table or at the top of the pyramid facing multiple demands on your
time. Because it is all about tapping into inner strength and
wisdom, where resilience comes from. The more challenging your life is,
the more adversities you are facing, the more important it is to
be connected with that strength. We see how many people are completely
destroyed by losing a job, by adversity, by struggling. Because of
money. But others are able to overcome their problems and
transcend them, and there have been multiples that is done, very much
about inner strength and resilience. -- multiple studies.
This is when you fell down and took a knock on the head. I collapsed
from exhaustion, and I saw how burn-out and stress are really there
around one, in the lives of millions of people. Here in the United
Kingdom, we see that stress is actually the primary cause of
disease. That is why now there is this mindfulness meditation
movement, even the Houses of Parliament, the Bank of England, it
is just amazing how people are recognising the need for something
different. Let's test this, the last time I saw you, you had a blackberry
in your hand and something else, how many devices? I have four devices,
but I sleep eight hours at night, I have many renewal times during the
day. I meditate every day, and I'm not talking about not working hard,
not achieving, not going for your dreams. I am talking about recovery
time, renewal time, all the things ancient philosophers talked about.
You have exponential growth with health post, is its do as I say or
do as I do? Do you make sure that people do not work too late? We have
e-mail rules, employees know that when they are off work, they are not
expected to be on e-mail. Not tweeting? When a car off work, they
are off work, period. Do you tweak as much as you used to? I tweaked
for me, but I don't tweet while I am off. -- tweet. That is the key to
everything I am saying. This is not some flaky Californian theory. This
is based on science. In the book, there are 55 pages of scientific
endnotes. If you are going to have any traction, you need to have big
global companies buying into this, because otherwise people will not
have the confidence to behave like that. There is a global shift
happening, this is happening in 11 countries, and in every country
different companies are doing different things. In Germany,
Volkswagen gives employees phones which turn off automatically at 6pm.
You say this goes for everybody, but it is particularly directed towards
women. Two women have a harder time in public life? -- do. Jill
Abrahamson, the first executive editor, female executive editor of
the New York Times, fired up the two years. In your view, fired for a
legitimate reason? Well, we don't know the full history of what
happened, but the language that was used around the ousting of Jill
Abrahamson would not have been used around the ousting of a man, you
know. That she was abrasive, difficult, difficult in managing a
newsroom. I think the language is very difficult when it is applied to
men and when it is applied to women, and that is something we need to
watch. At the same time, if we want more women in successful, top jobs,
we need to change the workplace. Is that actually realistic? Absolutely!
The top job presumably would be president of the United States, are
you telling me that if Hillary Clinton ran and won, she would
behave in any different way to Bill Clinton? Well, lots of ways she
might, but in terms of her administration, come on! Bill
Clinton is quoted in my book saying the most important mistakes I made
in life was when I was tired. He did not specify the mistakes, but if you
talk to people who served in his administration, they will tell you
it was chaotic. His longest serving health and human services secretary
told me that she had to sleep with her briefing books, because he would
be calling at one in the morning to ask questions about Medicare. That
is not necessary, that is not leadership. You do not need to run a
White House or any kind of government in a way that is chaotic
and based on the fight or flight. It is interesting, because the opposite
of that, I remember hearing from somebody you had been at a dinner
with George Bush, he used to eat at six o'clock at night and retired at
nine o'clock at night, not much good it did him! No, absolutely, retiring
early does not mean you are wise, but no question that we need to
redefine what successes, and how you tap into the wisdom that produces
good decisions. Look around, an enormous amount of leaders who are
very smart and not at all wise. Should Hillary Clinton run? I mean,
just as another woman talking about one woman, she should run if she can
do it in a way that does not involve her stressing out, as she did, and
collapse from exhaustion, getting a blood clot in her brain. , I mean,
it is important in a way that does not produce such incredible stress.
Breakfast at 7:30 tomorrow, get to bed! The Daily Mail, this shabby
whitewash, families furious as the Cabinet Secretary cooks up a deal to
keep letters and calls between Blair and Bush Sigrid. Kate Middleton
there, grimacing as she tastes scotch. -- secret. SNP denies
cover-up of the cost of separation. World outrage grows over women
condemned to hang on for falling in love. The Guardian, new doubt over
Scottish wealth, but the top picture is Andy Murray serving in the French
Open, he won in three straight sets. We thought,
as we had Billy Bragg here, we would make him sing
for his supper. We take you back in time, more
than 30 years, to A New England, # I was 21 years
when I wrote this song # I'm 22 two now
but I won't be for long # People ask
when will you grow up to be a man? # But all the girls I loved
at school # I loved you then
as I love you still # I don't feel bad
about letting you go # I just feel sad
about letting you know Not wall-to-wall sunshine, the best
sun will be around the coast, Fairweather cloud building up, a few
Chilcot inquiry publication now possible; Billy Bragg on Englishness; Arianna Huffington; British collusion with the Brazilian dictatorship; and Apple buys Beats. With Kirsty Wark.