29/05/2014 Newsnight


Chilcot inquiry publication now possible; Billy Bragg on Englishness; Arianna Huffington; British collusion with the Brazilian dictatorship; and Apple buys Beats. With Kirsty Wark.

Similar Content

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.

Download Subtitles