05/08/2014 Newsnight


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

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/08/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



A hammer blow to David Cameron, a Foreign Office minister quits over


the Government's position on Gaza. Our current policy on Gaza is


morally indefensible, that it is not in our interests, it is not in


British interests, and that it will have consequences for us both


internationally and here at home. Who won the first fierce low-fought


TV debate between Alex Salmond and Alastair Darling over Scotland's


future. Mr Salmond do you agree with David Cameron or not. I was going to


make another small point. Do you agree with David Cameron or not. Let


me answer your question. Do you agree with him or not, it is yes or


no. A deadly disease is sweeping through west Africa, do we need


radical solutions to deal with it. We need to think about possible


tools like experimental drugs and vaccines. The app that makes Twitter


look like War and Peace, it is Yo, I will be speaking to its creator in


words of more than two letters. Good evening, there is finally a


ceasefire in Gaza, but the reverbations of the conflict are


stirring a political battle within the British Government. It is rare


minister resigns on a matter of principle, but today the Foreign


Office minister, Baroness Warsi did just that in starkly critical terms.


She tweeted that she could no longer support Government policy on the war


in Gaza. And in a letter to the Prime Minister wrote that "our


approach and language during the current crisis is morally


indefensible and is not in Britain's national interest". The Prime


Minister said in response that he had been consistently clear and


calls for peace. Tonight the divisis seem to have beepened, with Nick


Clegg calling for a suspension of arms export licenses to Israel. We


will debate all of this tonight, but we have this report containing some


flash photography. Beneath the certificate Rhone facade


of Government, tension has simmered over Gaza for week, and today in


Westminster it finally burst into the open with the resignation of


Baroness Warsi. Over the last few weeks I have done everything I can


at formal and informal meetings trying to convince our colleagues


that our current policy is morally indefensible, that it is not in our


interests, it is not British interests, and it will have


consequences for us internationally and here at home. But in the end I


felt the Government's position wasn't moving, therefore I had to,


on a point of principle, resign. In her resignation letter to the Prime


Minister, the Baroness lambasted the Government's stance on Gaza.


Once a standard bearer in the Conservative Party's quest for


voters from minorities, the former chairman has become a political


headache. So why did the Prime Minister take such an uncritical


attitude towards Israel over recent week, risking her fury and that of


millions of voters. David Cameron has in the past, like in, likened


Gaza to a prison camp when he was leader the last time Israel was


involved in an intervention he described it as disproportionate,


he's not going that far any more. It might be that he listening a lot to


the regimes in the region. Very much less critical of Israel than


European Governments. Perhaps, because like Israel they see Hamas,


ISIS, Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups in the region as more of a


threat than we do. There is division within the coalition over whether to


accuse Israel publicly of possible war crimes. Indeed Britain, along


with the US and Israel, may have been dissuading the Palestinian


Authority from taking its case to the International Criminal Court.


Well, the Palestinian Foreign Minister was there today and said


they are about to do that. But they haven't yet, and for so long as the


Palestinians don't go for full membership of the ICC there is


little chance of a war crimes investigation taking off. Using the


term "proportionate" or not using the term "proportionate" or


"disproportionate" is a highly sensitive political issue. The term


though not used in the 1977 Geneva protocols describes in ways that we


all understand what is one side and the other of the lawful line. It is


not an easy line to draw, in fact it is extremely difficult line to draw.


Once you say something is disproportionate, you are saying the


person who did that is acting unlawfully. Tonight w a ceasefire


taking hold in Gaza, evidence of the continuing fight within the


coalition. With the Lib Dems pushing for an arms embargo on Israel. I


believe that the export licenses should now be suspended, and working


with Vince Cable in this, it is his department in Government that


administers these export licenses, he and I both believe that the


actions of the Israeli military are overstepping the mark in Gaza,


breaching the conditions of those export licenses and that's why we


want to see them suspended, pending a wider review in whether they


should be revoked more permanently in the long run. And there is


another point where the Lib Dem leader differs from David Cameron,


seen here visiting Bethlehem, in labelling the Israeli action


"disproportionate" Nick Clegg has flagged up a belief that war crimes


may have taken place. A factory near Birmingham making drone component


force Israel was the scene of protests today. Under pressure, the


Government says licenses for arms sales to Israel are now under


review. The British fall-out from the Middle East conflict is just


starting. Its consequences could be legal, economic and above all


political. Joining us from Edinburgh is the


former leader of the Liberal Democrats, and here in the studio is


Douglas Murray the journalist and writer. First of all, do you think


Jose Manuel Barroso was right to resign? Well, if she felt as


strongly as she expressed herself in the letter I don't think there was


any alternative open to her. Let me say I agree with her judgment that


it is morally indefensible and against our interests, but I would


go further than that and say I think it is against the interests of


Israel as well. Because how can you build any kind of peace either


temporary or lasting, based upon the kind of film and the kind of scenes


we have seen on our television screens. Essentially what is


happening in Gaza is that the infrastructure is being


systematically taken apart. If that is the feeling of the most senior


Liberal Democrat to Nick Clegg, which it clearly is, he's not going


to resign, but isn't it rather surprising that no senior Lib Dem,


feeling so strongly, has taken the same road as Baroness Warsi? Each of


us make our own individual judgments about these things. But no-one can


be in any doubt for example that people like myself or Paddy Ashdown


has expressed ourselves as forcibly as we could. If I could pick up on


the point the piece raised. I'm in no doubt that what happened is


disproportionate. And we will come on to that. Very well. Let me just


bring in Douglas Murray now. Do you think that Baroness Warsi's


resignation is harmful to David Cameron in all sorts of ways? Not at


all. It is fairly well known she has been a bit of a nuisance to him for


some time, she has been running effectively an independent policy on


a whole range of things which are areas to do with social cohesion and


to do with the anti-extremism agenda, which are very much


parallel, but different from those of the Prime Minister. Are you


saying they are destructive? Oh yes, and many people who have worked with


her and many people and voices inside the cabinet and others have


been quoted saying, before today, how destructive those parallel


policies were. Is her voice one that has echos within the wider country?


Certainly it has echos in the divisions of parliament, that is


clear with from what was just said now. She must be assuming that


people take different opinions in all sorts of things, she must be


reflecting a different opinion in the country? It is possible, I mean


it has been said for a long time and fairly well known that Baroness


Warsi wanted a Ministry of Her own, she didn't get one, it was clear


time after time she wasn't going to get one. Are you saying it is sour


grapes? It is interesting, she has been trying to create herself as


effectively the minister for Muslim, that has been a very noticeable and


I think a highly sectarian move on her part. This move and resignation


at this point, and let's remember as Israeli troops are withdrawing from


Gaza, it is timing and very clear it is a cynical and personal move for


future career prospects. If I may say so that is rather a personal and


cynical take. There are divisions in the country. Whatever the motives of


Jose Manuel Barroso let me make clear I think the real issue is the


substance here. And whatever reason she gave to us, if she had been so


offensive to David Cameron then he had the opportunity to ask her to


ten down at his most recent re-- to step down at his most recent


reshuffle. You said the substance there is different language being


used and Nick Clegg has talked about disproportionate. You said what


happened in the school last week, when the Israelis hit the UN school


last week was a violation of international law? I believe that to


be the case. What would you do about it? The question is whether or not


it can be referred to the International Criminal Court. As was


pointed out in the piece that because Palestine is not a member,


hasn't signed up then the pollability possibility has been


made more difficult. If you want to do it independently you have to


achieve a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations. So


the reality is not there. Which you would be pretty certain the United


States would oppose. I'm accused of doing something wrong by attributing


motives to Baroness Warsi, and he's attributing motive to the state of


Israel and an entire country, people have to be careful in positions like


Ming and Baroness Warsi have to be extremely careful at times like


this. And Baroness Warsi speaks to it, there is a grassroots movement,


particularly in the Labour Party movement, of young Muslims in this


country who feel very whipped up by this, and people like Ming Campbell


and Baroness Warsi have to be careful before they start accusing


the nation state of Israel of war crimes. They are crimes going on and


committed by Hamas, a terrorist group, and it is very noticeable in


this whole debate we do not hear from the Liberal Democrat party or


from figures like Baroness Warsi the condemnation of the terrorist group


Hamas coming out of the mouth of the beginning of every statement. I will


do that now, I did indeed on the occasion when the Foreign Secretary


made a statement? The House of Commons. It is wholly unacceptable


that Hamas should use rockets in an indiscriminate way. Do you think


Israel should be allowed to defend themselves from Hamas. This is not


Alastair Darling against Alex Salmond, I regard it as wholly


unacceptable, but it is equally wholly unacceptable for a country


like Israel, which has the most sophisticated defence capability at


its disposal should take action which has the effect of putting the


lives of innocent women and children at risk, more than at risk. Can I


just turn one other point in Baroness Warsi's letter talked about


the consequences of what she says policies in Gaza and radicalisation


here in the country, she talked about that having consequences for


years, do you agree with that? Remember that's precisely the


warning that was given to Tony Blair on the eve of the military action


against Iraq. It has also been publicly stated by the Intelligence


Services in this country that they are much concerned about


radicalisation. That being... It is saying agree with my views. I will


finish my point even if Douglas Murray won't listen to it. Briefly,


let him finish. I'm just saying this, radicalisation is something


which presents the most clear and imminent danger to the security of


this country and anything... Ministers shouldn't be helping to


whip it up. Do listen for heaven's sake, anything which adds to that or


brings any encouragement to that radicalisation, is wholly against


our interests and security of any of our citizens. Including accusing


Israel of war crimes. No sooner was the referendum of Scottish


independence announced than negotiations about who would and who


wouldn't take part in TV debates kicked off. Alex Salmond, the first


minister of Scotland would only debate with David Cameron, he


refused, the SNP held that line for a long time, but six weeks away from


the vote Salmond has sparred with Alastair Darling, in the Better


Together campaign in a two-hour televised debate. It ended half an


hour ago, here are some of the highlights. Making the case for


independence is the First Minister Alex Salmond and making the case for


the union is the leader of Better Together, Alastair Darling, please


welcome them. For more than half of my life Scotland has been governed


by parties that we didn't elect at Westminster. And these parties have


given us from everything from the poll tax to the bedroom tax, and


they are the same people who through project fear are telling us this


country can't run our own affairs. Let's say with confidence, with


pride, with optimisim, no thanks to the risks of independence, and let's


have the best of both worlds, not just for us, but for generations to


come. How can we build a just society when we have policies


imposed upon us from Westminster that Scottish MPs voted against but


did not have the power to stop, so my vision is for a prosperous


economy but also for a just society in Scotland. I want you to do


something that will be really difficult, I want you to contemplate


for just one minute the fact you might be wrong. What is Plan B. If


you don't get a currency union, what is it we are going to have had


instead, please tell us we need to know. I will do something more


difficult than contemplate that I'm wrong, I'm contemplating you were


right last year when you said it was logical and desirable. I believe you


still think it is logical and desirable that last year was before


we were in the campaign period, and therefore during the campaign period


you, George Osborne, the unionist parties, have to engage in project


fear and tell people that something that was logical desirable last year


isn't this year. Any eight-year-old can tell you the flag of the


country, the capital of the country and its currency, I presume the flag


is the saltire and the capital Edinburgh, you can't tell us what


currency we will have, what will an eight-year-old make of that. David


Cameron has said supporters of independence will always be able to


cite I examples of small independent economies across Europe, it would be


wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another successful


independent country. But do you agree with David Cameron on that?


Small countries do have to make sure they balance the books. Do you agree


with him, everybody has to balance the books. Your own figures we have


a much bigger deficit at the time you want independence from the rest


of the UK, that would mean difficult decisions which you are not prepared


to face up with. Do you agree with David Cameron or not I feel like


Jeremy Paxman and Michael Howard here. You are more like Michael


Howard than Jeremy Paxman, you are not answering the question. Far too


much of the debate has been characterised by guess work, blind


faith and crossed fingers, that is no way to decide the future for our


children. Voting question is ambition over fear, telling the


world that Scotland is an equal nation that carries itself with


belief and confidence, this is our moment, let's take it. Elements of


the debate there from earlier tonight, joining me from Glasgow we


have our guests. Here in the studio is Isabelle Hardman, from the


Spectator live blogging the debate tonight. On points, how do you think


that went? I think actually it was no game-changer for starters. We


have had a group of young voters here all night who all say they are


more undecided than they were at the start. It was successful for


Alastair Darling to the extend that the subject matter continued to be


money, pensions, currency, all the aspects to an extent which would be


favoured by the unionist cause. And Alex Salmond didn't manage to get


the values, the reasons that anybody would really want to have an


independent Scotland as firmly at the centre of the debate as Alastair


Darling managed to get money. So I think to that degree you would have


to say it began to move Alastair Darling's way. But having said that,


I think there is no silver bullet in the argument or in the debate and it


will be the conversations people have around it that matter. Did you


get the sense it was a moment tonight where six weeks out this


actually would have energised a lot of people in terms of taking part in


the debate? I think so actually, I was in the hall admittedly in the


cheap seats up the top, but it did feel quite electric at points.


Particularly in the cross-examination when Alastair


Darling cross-examined Alex Salmond and visa versa. That is when it


really came to life. And overall I think you know Alex Salmond is an


experienced television performer, he was much slicker and confident,


Darling was very nervous initially. Over the cross-examination things


came to light and Darling came to light and we got into the


substantive issues. It is those issues that a lot of undecided


voters are interested in. On the substantive issues, did you get a


sense no matter if you are for or not, a lot of people south of the


border couldn't see sadly is Scotland very much feels like a


different country? That was certainly the impression that Alex


Salmond wanted to create, particularly in his closing


statement. He talked about Scotland being a more equal country and that


could be the impression it sold to the rest of the world. I think this


is part of the SNP's campaign in general. It wants to create the


impression that Scotland is separate. And to a certain extent it


has succeeded in that, whether or not Scotland votes to go


independent. As was said, on the hard questions, the economic


questions, where there aren't any silver bullets there were very, very


strong exchanges, on the question of currency, and also on the question


of being in or out of Europe. A sense that these, you know, they


talk about in the end of the day it will be people voting about identity


or whatever, these are hard-headed economic questions aren't they?


Absolutely, and they are both issues on which Alex Salmond and the yes


campaign has never been particularly strong. I thought Alastair Darling


did particularly well on dissecting his position on the currency union.


Very curious for Alex Salmond to raise the European Union and go


after Alastair Darling on that point. Because again, as I say, he's


not on strong ground there. What the debate did was highlight that


actually after two years of this referendum debate, two years in


which things have been thoroughly raked over, Alex Salmond and the yes


campaign are no further forward on the EU and the currency union


question. Leslie, it is always a problem isn't it in whatever the


referendum is, when there is bed fellow that is don't otherwise


agree, you have Alex Salmond harrying Alastair Darling to agree


with David Cameron's view that Scotland could be a successful small


country, and Alastair Darling found himself in a position of not wanting


to agree with David Cameron? That's true, and that was a kind of wobbly


moment for Alastair Darling. As was the fact that when he was asked for


two definite powers that would be given to Scots if they voted no, he


came up with road tax and then some devolution of income tax. Now today


we were told there was a new devo more proposal agreed by the three


unionist parties. That decision of more devolution welfare wasn't


brought to Alastair Darling, that should have been brought up more.


There are your perspective, blogging here in London looking at this,


where what are the big issues and the big points of contention do you


think? The main take away from the debate was the currency union. That


was where Darling was particularly strong. Hammering away asking the


same question again and again. And the audience helped him, they were


confused about Salmond's position and Plan B, whether he actually had


one or not. Salmond doesn't want to state whether he has a Plan B


because he wants to give the impression that Better Together are


cobbling together half truths and misquotes and all their warnings are


campaign rhetoric. It also looks as if he hasn't thought about it. Among


the other issues pulled out tonight there was oil, immigration, social


justice and so forth, how do you think that the tenor of this debate


and the areas covered will inform the next one? Obviously both


participants will take away from that what they perceived were their


weaknesses and their advisers perceive as weaknesses and work on


that. Alex Salmond came across at points as frivolous, he has a


terrible habit of dredging up newspaper cuttings and off the


record things, and aliens he appeared frivolous on that point and


will avoid that the next debate. Darling missed a trick by not


setting out a clearer vision for after a no vote. It is a problem in


any campaign if you are saying Better Together and interpreted in


Scotland as a no vote. And Alex Salmond getting trapped on that the


positive reasons what you would say would come out if indeed on


September 18th Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom. What do


you think Leslie would be one of the big things that will happen. Will it


return to the issue of currency, people are passionate about this?


Here is the thing to say. Actually the whole pro-independence campaign,


like myself. I'm not a member of the SNP or a formal member of the yes


campaign. There are many political parties voting for yes, but far more


people who are no political parties at all. Tomorrow there is a mass


canvas of Scotland by the radical independence campaign and they are


looking at ten areas where actually no party has actually bothered to


canvas for several generations, these folk aren't registered to


vote. There is a huge grassroots movement going on here, that is


something very difficult for the classic media to get hold of and


perhaps even the official campaigns, because it is beneath the radar. To


me it is transformational and change always happens like that. A Guardian


poll taken straight after the debate put Alastair Darling at 56 and Alex


Salmond at 44. Is that what it looked like to you? I think so,


partly because Salmond didn't perform as well as he could have


done. Do you think he was too tricksy on the questions? The stuff


about aliens and the right side of the road was irrelevant, and


actually he really needed to have a clear win from tonight. And even if


you think it was debatable whether or not he won, that is bad enough


for him. Thank you very much, we can go now to Alan Little, who joins us


from Glasgow. What was the atmosphere like from where you were


watching it? Can you hear me? We will come back to Alan a little


later, as soon as we have sound attaching us to Glasgow. Now camera


five here I can go to you, thank you one of the unique things about the


referendum on Scottish independence is 16-year-olds can vote, for


another viewer in tonight's debate we went to meet some of them. A


group involved in Generation 2014, a BBC Scotland project to track young


people's voting intentions. They have never voted in a national


election, but the independence referendum has given 16 and


17-year-olds in Scotland their chance. How will these lovers of the


selfie, the social media generation vote? I travelled to Glasgow as


tonight's debate loomed, to find out. First stop, Motherwell where I


met a political ingenue and undecided voter Jessica. I think now


it is getting so much closer to the vote everyone is so interested in


it, and everyone is talking about it a lot. Even when we were out at the


weekend and things it will always turn to the conversation at one


point. This is where you get your information about the referendum?


Pretty much. It is where everybody will, my age, will probably find out


most things. Forget newspapers and television, this generation heads to


social media as it weighs up how to vote. I'm on Facebook nearly 24


hours a day. Usually I will just go on and it will just be there. This


is about the debate, do you recognise that man? I know Alex


Salmond quite well. What about this one? Not too familiar with him.


Alastair Darling. So everybody, there is a really important debate


going on tonight, does anyone know what it is? Yes. Yes. Brilliant, you


are all very clued in. These under-18s are on a council-run


course learning about entrepeneurialism.


How many are going to vote yes, who will vote no who is undecided? I


have got a few deal-breakers, mainly the EU-NATO issue. Because Scotland


currently is part of the greater UK we are also under NATO and the EU


subsequently, and if we were to leave then both bodies have said it


would be very difficult to reapply, and it could take up to five or


eight years to get back into the EU. As a 16-year-old you are worried


about that? Yeah. Because I think growing up it is like a backing


almost of kind of having a bigger body behind the country rather than


just, if you want to be independent you don't want to be on your own at


the same time. Whether university tuition fees would stay free in a


future Scotland was another big question. These youngsters were


enfranchised by Alex Salmond but the polls show more plan to vote no


rather than yes. Some say because the social media generation are more


linked into the outside world. They are the first generation that has


grown up always with networked computers, they use social media,


they talk to people elsewhere, they order something from abroad and it


arrives within one or two days. It plays into their voting intentions.


Not that they feel less Scottish as such, but that they think less about


smaller scales. Borders don't make as much sense to them. Our last


young voter says she's not Scottish or British first just a human being.


I am glade that we have been given this vote, because ideally it is a


better future and I think, it is about our future and we should have


a say in it. It is daunting, I'm voting but undecided right now. I


don't have that long left to make a decision. There are around half a


million voters who like these three haven't yet decided how they will


vote. So what did they think of tonight's debate. I think it is


quite interesting and you do get to see both sides. I think it has been


really interesting at times, but it can be boring because it is like


repetitive, they keep asking the same questions, he keeps giving the


same answers. No-one is actually giving you a definitive answer, you


are left there to sit and wonder by yourself. Scotland's under-18s make


up 2. 5% of the electorate. As the polls narrow, their voices will play


an important role in their country's future.


They just keep asking the same questions. I'm joined by Alan Little


and try to ask him the same way west again! What was the big take out


tonight? I can hear you now. If anybody had asked most political


observers earlier on this evening who they expected to win this debate


they would have said that Alex Salmond is the superior debater and


that is not even Alastair Darling's most fervent supporters would


concede campaigning of this sort on the stump is not his greatest


strength. You wouldn't have thought that from the way the debate went.


We learned that Better Together have bane donned old fears, hammering


away on the question of the currency will be perceived as negative, there


is a danger it might be counter-productive. We saw Alastair


Darling going for the jugular. We learned whether or not it is fair or


just the burden of proof is very much on the side of those who want


radical change and the yes campaign. On the currency question it is their


weakness suit and Better Together have really taken the gloves off on


that and on the question of the European Union membership. They have


abandoned the fears they had earlier in the year that it might not be


working that Scots might vote against it. And I think they will be


concluding tonight that they should keep hammering away at that, keep


pulling at that thread and that will get them over the finishing line.


And the nationalists must be looking at their strategy and saying we have


to have an answer to this currency question and pretty soon.


Thank you very much indeed. It is a measure of the fear of the spread of


the Ebola outbreak in west Africa that British Airways has suspended


lights to like beeria and Sierra Leone until the end of the month,


due to it has said to the deteriorating health condition in


the country. The outbreak has claimed 887 people across west


Africa, and the pace of the infection is fastest in Liberia, two


infected aid woers returned to the US have in isolation and given doses


of an experimental treatment to boost the immune system. Independent


voices are calling for the pharmaceutical industry to put more


resources into creating a vaccine to treat the deadly virus.


At the centre of this outbreak is fear and anxiety. Ebola has now


spread beyond the rural village where is it had been contained to


the vast coastal cities of west Africa. Sandra Smiley has just


returned from one of the capitals. There is a lot of fear and stigma


around the disease, and in some of the areas that are affected by


Ebola. The example of this is the story of Finda Marie, a 33-year-old


woman demonstrating symptoms of Ebola, her sister called in an alert


and she was tested and tested positive two, days later she died.


Some of the members of her sister's community blamed her sister for her


death because they said that if she had stayed at home then she would


have lived. There are a lot of misconceptions around healthcare


workers in these communities, and that is hindering MSF and other


NGO's work. Nearly 900 have died from the disease across four


countries. Ebola spreads by direct contact with bodily fluids, the


current outbreak is killing around half of those infected. Today a


second American missionary landed back in Atlanta for treatment. The


condition of both aid workers is said to have suddenly improved after


they were offered a highly experimental drug, not available to


locals. Tell us about these details that you have learned about this


experimental and some are even saying secret serum? US TV networks


have been full of talk about a wonder drug, they are attributing


any improvement to that alone, but that is impossible. One reason Ebola


generates so much fear is there is no single cure, advantage s are in


development with human trials in the autumn, not quick enough for some.


Tomorrow in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, a group of


influential scientist also call for treatment to be fast-tracked and


west African countries to be given the chance to try new untested


drugs. This time we seem to be in an exceptional situation, we have had


an epidemic that has gin going on for six months or possibly longer f


anything it is going out of control rather than being contained. And


rereally need to be thinking about other possible tools we could be


using here. Part of the problem is large drug companies have little


incentive to develop new medicines. The number of Ebola victims in


Africa is still tiny compared to major western killers like heart


disease and cancer. I think the question fundamentally is then also


about limited resources and how does a pharmacompany decide to spend its


money and where to invest. And also from our benefit is something like


heart disease, for instance, kills 160,000 people a year in the UK,


that is one every three minute, approximately. So you know if you


had a choice about where you can meet the needs best of a large


population, that is where you would invest. It may take concerted


international effort to find a cure with the World Health Organisation


taking the lead. Until then Ebola will keep rearing its head and


generating shock headlines in the west and genuine fear across large


swathes of the developing world. As mobile phones allow us to do more


and more, it is pretty surprising that the latest communications


sensation is utterly minimal. A free app launched on April fool's day,


which has been downloaded more than two million times. Has the single


purpose of being able to send to other users one word, unchanging,


uncorruptible, and that word is "yo", the app has been valued at $10


million, is it brilliant or bonkers. In a minute we will hear from the


man behind it. First we discover the joy of Yo.


The text-based communication we are all addicted to has a big


limitation, context. You can't see the sender's face, were they being


ironic, playful, serious, angry, passionate, despairing or something


else entirely. Perhaps the ultimate mobile app is this one, Yo, here is


mobile messages that is all context. What does it mean? You tell me. Wait


it works is simple, after I was downloaded the app I can find out


which of my friends have downloaded it, in this case my producer James.


I can send him a message, Yo, and if he wants he can reply. There you go,


Yo, if I want to send another one I can send it, Yo, did I mention this


was launched on April fool's day. If it is a joke it is a pretty serious


one, a million downloads and $1. 5 million of investment, and a


valuation of the company between $5 million and $10 million. Is it a


quays of Yo bubble, aisle lean is a partner in the venture capital


company, she says we are in very different territory than the late


dotcom bubble of the 1980s. You have mastive user communities and


audiences that people with monetise, you are seeing a lot of engagment


and people are coming back and using Yo again and again and again. There


is more fundamentals behind what people are doing and growth pushing


what is on the Internet and the app economy. I don't think it is the


same thing as last time. According to one study the mobile app economy


is now worth $25 billion a year, up from roughly zero six years ago. All


over the world there are thousands of teams working on the assumption


that we barely have begun to explore the potential of the app. Kate Rider


is developing Maven, a health app for women. One of the biggest


problems in healthcare is access, having health on your mobile device


means you can access it from anywhere, and you can connect


instaly with our product and healthcare providers, or


information, you can keep your health data on the phone so yeah, I


mean definitely mobiles are the centre of a lot of the innovation in


healthcare. But that doesn't mean that every idea will succeed.


Although there are some blockbusters, many, indeed most of


the 700,000 plus apps available on app stores fail to make money. And,


what about Yo, go or no? We will find out now, because joining me


from San Francisco we have our guest, the founder of Yo. Good


evening to you. It was launched as David said on April fools day, was


it first a light-hearted joke? No, it wasn't a joke. It was launched on


the 1th of April, but for us it was a fun app that we used and we saw a


lot of use case force it. We saw its potential right from the start. We


didn't think about all the use case, but from the beginning we


immediately saw that people liked using it. There are a lot of case


force it. How did you come up with the idea, did you do market research


or have a brain wave? It wasn't like that. My partner asked me to do a


app for him to test one big button that sends a push notification in


order to summon his personal assistant. In the beginning I


thought it was a silly idea and I didn't want to do it. Two weeks


later he came again and asked me to do it again. And then I remembered


that I have a friend which I basically talk with him in the same


manner, we text each other messages with no confident, for basically


texting each other "yo". I like that it started as a summons to a PA. In


the relatively early stages what applications apart from saying hi to


your friends might it have? We think of the Yo not as an app to say hi to


your friend, we think of it as platform. As a platform we open an


API and it is public, and other people can use it for a lot of


things. For example restaurants can use it to just notify the customers


when the table is ready instead of having the customers waiting by the


door. Websites that don't have an app can send notifications to their


readers. News websites can send notifications. This is basically a


communication platform. Currently there is no content, but the


notification itself is a message. Do you think it will make you rich? I


don't think about that currently. Thank you very much indeed for


joining us. It sounds like the stuff of science


fiction, send a spacecraft on a 12-year mission to chase down and


land on a comet in deep space. This is no Space Oddity, it is real. The


European Space Agency Rosetta spacecraft has been pursuing comet,


the comet for six billion kilometres. Tomorrow it will get


there. We go behind the scenes at Mission Control. Comets can be


spectacular objects. But to scientists they are amongst the most


valuable objects in our skies, because they can take us back in


time to the origins of the Solar System. The formation of the sun and


the planets left behind millions of bits of ice and rock spinning around


the Solar System and they are what we now call asteroids and comets.


That means that comets can help answer the fundamental questions


about our own earth's origin, and perhaps the biggest mystery of all


is where did all the water come from? It might sound outlandish but


the blue planet wasn't always blue. When the earth was a young planet it


was searingly hot and volcanic. And any water on the surface would have


simply boiled away into space, and with no water there could be no


life. But at some point water appeared back on the surface, we


became the blue planet and life could emerge in all of its glorious


diversity. But finding out where that water came from is a


fundamental question. And one we don't know the answer to. Some


scientists think there was water trapped under the earth's surface


which then seeped out. Many scientists believe that this water


comes from space. From the IC comets and asteroids that bombard earth,


left over from the beginning of the Solar System. How can we tell if


this water came from a comet. Surprisingly it is not impossible.


All water has an atomic significanture, little differences


that create a finger print. By carefully comparing the water on the


comet to that here on earth, we can tell whether they had the same


origin or not. But to do that properly we have to land on the


comet. Something never before attempted, that is what Rosetta will


do and why it is a supremely ambitious mission. Here at Mission


Control in Germany, I met up with the man in charge. Rosetta's flight


director Andrea. It has been a long journey, hell us how Rosetta has got


to the comet? The comet is flying relatively far away from the sun.


And our rockets couldn't deliver the spacecraft to such an orbit, we had


to use energy from planets in the Solar System to accelerate Rosetta


further and further out into the Solar System to reach the comet.


This takes time. So Rosetta has spent the last ten years spiralling


around the Solar System, flying past the earth, then Mars, then earth


twice more, using the gravity of the planets to nudge it into its deep


space orbit. Now we are on a trajectory that would fly close to


the comet, but we are not exactly on the same orbit around the sun, we


have match the two orbits. Without that the comet would fly-past? There


would be a fly by, a mission like many others that flew next to comets


but that is not what we want to do. We want to reach the comet and stop


there and orbit the comet. We had to slow down the spacecraft compared to


the comet and slowly approach it, and once we were there we could


start the mission. Tomorrow Rosetta will finally reach the comet and


begin its exploration. Why is it difficult to go into orbit around a


comet? We don't know anything about the comet, the shape, the gravity,


so we have to characterise all this. We don't even know the altitude


hour, it is rotating. How close with Rosetta get to the comet? We will


fly mid-September an area of 30kms and then country to 20kms if the


environment will allow it. We still have to explore. Exploring the comet


and its environment will initially be done by imaging it. And already


the images taken from thousands of kilometres away have thrown up


revelation about the comet's shape. We are surprised to see it looks


like two bodies sticking together. The most recent ones I have seen


make it look like a rubber duck? I like that a lot. It is a surprise


and we have to find out why the body looks like this. Just looking at the


shape model here, these image, it is hard to understand where you would


safely put down this landing. It is the obvious thing to go for the big


face here? The tricky thing is the sun coming up or going down. You


don't want to land in the dark? You don't want to land in the dark. The


lander will basically be dropped on to the surface from a few thousand


metres up, because the gravity on the comet is a tiny traction of the


gravity here on earth, it will take several hours to fall. It makes for


a soft landing but the very weak gravity also presents a problem.


Gravity is about 100 millionth of the gravity on the earth. To top it


bouncing straight back off the comet we have ice screw that is will dig


down as soon as the feet hit the floor. They are not just to secure


it, it will make measurements of the surface and measure the seismic


qualities of the surface as well. Even that part of the messing, just


securing it to the comet is science itself. One of the key tasks for the


lander will be to analyse the ice within the comet to see if it


matches the water we find on earth. Meanwhile, Rosetta will continue to


orbit, staying with the comet as it goes through its closest approach


with the sun r duesing vast plumes of gas and dust throwing into the


comet's tame we will reproduce the vast tail. Of the comet. It is a


risky mission, but if we knew it we wouldn't have to do it. It has huge


solar panels and you are flying in windy dons and constant -- windy


conditions, so constantly being forced away from the comet. With the


mission about to enter its most critical phase, after more than a


decade's work for many of the team, there is a palpable sense of


excitement amongst astronomers across Europe and at Mission


Control. For sure it is one of the most challenging space missions


ever. Nobody has ever gone to such an irregular body or active body


with the need of such a high accuracy of flying a spacecraft


around the body. It is new and unique in the history of space


flight. It is fantastic. That's all we have time for, good night.