30/11/2015 Newsnight

Tonight, Britain stands on the brink of

military action in Syria - is it all down to splits in the Labour party?

As Jeremy Corbyn bows to a free vote for his MPs,

the numbers are mounting in support of David Cameron's call to arms.

As many as 100 Labour MPs could support strikes on Syria, it has

been a bruising episode four Labour. We'll be talking to

Labour's front bench - and a close advisor of Tony Blair

who took us into the Iraq war. The world is at the limits of

suicide - warns Pope Francis - as 150 countries meet in

Paris to slow down climate change. One man knows the planet

better than most. We ask David

Attenborough if world leaders are If we could

harness 1/5,000th part of the energy the sun sprays on the

earth we could provide all the energy requirements

of the entire human race. And meeting the muse of

Yves Saint Laurent, now putting his ?30 million collection of rare

books up for sale. I don't think Mr Corbyn has

a great career of mannequin. By an extraordinary convergence of

political weakness and electoral mathematics, this country now stands

on the brink of committing to war Jeremy Corbyn had gone into the

meeting of his Shadow Cabinet expecting them to back

his resistence to air strikes. He emerged - after pressure from his

front bench - promising his MPs a free vote. What happens next comes

down to a debate on Wednesday, which the prime minister has just tabled,

and the vote that will follow. But from all the signs tonight, it looks

as if the government could now have enough support from the opposition

benches to give the PM the mandate he needs. Tonight, we'll look at the

timetable for any future strikes, and whether the British public

supports the action. We'll also ask how the relationship

between the Labour leader, his cabinet and his supporters may have

inadvertently brought us to where we are tonight.

First up, here's Allegra Stratton. Today's Shadow Cabinet meeting is

perhaps the most important gathering held in the Palace of Westminster so

far this Parliament. Shadow Cabinet members told me they were on the

verge of resignation before it. The meeting would decide whether Britain

would strike Syria and also whether Syria would break Labour. In the

hour before the meeting the office but at a poll conducted over the

weekend that they said showed that 75% of Labour members who replied

oppose the idea of strikes on Syria. I imagine that in this meeting

Shadow Cabinet members will resist the opinion poll and its findings,

they think it's the opinion that should matter. Over the weekend

Jeremy Corbyn's team, the heirs to Tony Benn, looked as if they would

dig in, force people to vote against as dogs and force a mass walk-out.

Long negotiations with deputy leader Tom Watson attempted to bring the

Labour leader back from the brink. We've just bumped into one of the

closest allies of Jeremy Corbyn. This morning they thought there

would be a free vote, now they say they are not social for three

reasons. Firstly over the weekend many MPs have been shocked by the

strength of feeling opposing striking Syria. The second, they say

many numbers have also been shocked by the behaviour, the disloyalty of

the parliamentary Labour Party. They feel the parliamentary Labour Party

should support the leader. And secondly Jeremy Corbyn has made a

life's work of opposing military action. There is a sense in which

they say, if you cannot oppose this, what is the point of him. Moments

later, the decision, a free vote after all. It is said Jeremy Corbyn

offered a free vote of his own free will although it is said that he

considered whipping a party to oppose ever strikes. It seems the

party looks double headed, the leader saying one thing and the

Shadow Foreign Secretary another. The fact is that there are different

views on this within the Shadow Cabinet. Different views on this in

the parliamentary party and probably different views within the public as

well. Of course I understand what you are saying but it is a

reflection of where we are with this debate. Lunch might even for those

opposed to strike there was an happiness. I have never seen or

heard anything like this before. The rule book says the decision on how

and whether to whip is taken by the Shadow Cabinet. About is final. And

for me as an MP is the web that matters, whether we have one or not.

Fine if we have the views of 70,000 Labour Party members but you cannot

make a policy like that on the hoof. It's the end of a long and tiring

day and write know the Labour Party is meeting up those stairs and

around the corner in their weekly meeting. The party is battered

tonight. Also bent in two. The Shadow Foreign Secretary will make

one case from the dispatch box, the Labour leader another. It is not as

bad as it might have been. The party could have been dealing with mass

resignations. What we had tonight was considered debate about Syria,

which is what we should have been doing for the last four days. I feel

this could have been handled a hell of a lot better. David Lambie, how

was the meeting for you? Say what you really think! It was a very

heated meeting. I found it deeply unfortunate that we as a party spent

the weekend terribly internal about ourselves and not directed at this

very serious decision. Stopping military action is an article of

faith for Jeremy Corbyn. On this, he could have wept Labour, yet he shows

-- he chose not to. It seems that Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party now

looks unlikely to stop David Cameron.

Joining me now, Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Owen Smith

who was in that Shadow Cabinet meeting for much of the afternoon.

How many hours? The best part of two hours.

You'll be voting against air strikes?

Yes, Emily. I thought very carefully about this. I was someone who might

have been persuaded by the Prime Minister and I did not speak last

week, and I chose to think and talk to people over the weekend, as I

have done in recent months, and I've come to the conclusion that the

Prime Minister has, for me, for this MP, not made the case compellingly

enough, either that limited bombing action, which is what he proposes,

will assist in defeating Isil. I think we can all agree that that is

what we ought to be aiming for. All achieve beyond that, lasting

political resolution in Syria... You support Jeremy Corbyn on this? I do.

I think the right thing is to do what he did do, come to the Shadow

Cabinet, recognising the very real, sincerely held, profound

differences... You know that wasn't the case. I don't know that, you

asserted that in the introduction, all I know is that Jeremy came to

the Shadow Cabinet today and said clearly, at the outset, that he was

proposing that we have a free vote on this issue. I think it is the

right thing to do. Reflecting both the sincerely held disagreements

within the Labour Party but also reflective of the country. The

people that I talk to our conflicted about this. They don't know what is

necessarily the right thing to do. I think that if they had a clear

understanding, as we do, of how limited proposal is coming from the

Prime Minister, David Cameron is the person who should be questioned here

tonight. It is he who has failed to... He ought to come on and

explain... We've tried to cut the mathematics. It is all rough at this

stage before Wednesday. It sounds as if we will be committing to a

strikes, doesn't it, after that vote? The government has a majority

of 12. It isn't just the government majority, it is the number of Labour

MPs, between 60 and 100, a big gap but that would easily give him the

mandate to do that. I am sure that there are a number of my colleagues,

I haven't asked them, I am not sure of the absolute total but a lot of

them will have thought just as carefully as I have about this, as

has Hilary Benn and others who are convinced. Will you try to change

their mind? What is the position now? Is it up to you and Jeremy

Corbyn and others who do not agree with air strikes to go to your

fellow MPs and make the case for them not to vote? No, we decided as

a party, as a Shadow Cabinet, that they should be a free vote. So it is

for members, based on their beliefs, to make a decision. Lunch Mac so the

noes are not the party line? We don't have a party line. We've

decided there is disagreement within the Labour Party as to whether we

should be supporting this particular proposal. We need to differentiate

between the notion of our getting involved militarily in Syria at all

at some point, and the proposal that is on the table from the Prime

Minister. I think it is a false dichotomy to say there is this

binary choice. Suppose I am a vote in Oldham this week and trying to

work out what Labour foreign policy is, are they anti-intervention or

not -- if I am a voter? What would you tell me is your policy? That we

are an extremely serious political party that has thoughtfully

seriously about the most important choice that we could make. You have

said seriously twice in one sentence, that means you are torn to

pieces over this. Should recommit our military to engagement overseas

with the inevitable loss of life that will follow? I haven't

carefully at what David Cameron proposes. He says his objective is

to defeat Isil. I agree. That should be had. You cannot say what your

policy is on intervention because Jeremy Corbyn will say one thing and

Hilary Benn, who should be closest to him on this issue, will say

another. Straightforwardly, the most important thing is that we get the

right decision for the country. But we analyse what is placed before us

by the Prime Minister on its merits. And we come to a conclusion as

individual MPs, if we had been able to come to agreement as a party that

would have been better, I think. We clearly could not do that. If he's

right and he got 75% of the reply saying that we don't want you to go

to war in Syria, what was the point of that if he then a free vote?

Jeremy did what he always said he would, reach out to party members

and engage them in a more inclusive debate about policy. Nothing wrong

with that. He could have got a result that was not in accordance

with his views. I am not sure what my CLP would think if all members's

views were tested. What I am certain about is, for me, when I have looked

at the case but by the Prime Minister, I am not convinced that we

will make Britain a safer place, not convinced that we were faced in the

resolution... Laughing in the face of your supporters to an extent

because, like him or loathe him, you understand that Jeremy Corbyn is a

man of principle. We know he is in favour of stop the War. He doesn't

like intervention, and yet he hasn't shown leadership, he's bottled it.

We are all men and women of principle. On this issue he's

bottled it. He could have said, I believe in this strongly, I lead the

party, my supporters have told me that they backed me and I am taking

that to Parliament. Why didn't he? Because he's seriously reflecting on

the fact that there isn't an agreed position within the party. There are

different views held sincerely by different members across the party

and that is why the sensible thing for us to do is have a free vote. I

come back to this substantive issue. That is what we ought to be baked

tonight, it isn't about the Labour Party or Jeremy Corbyn and certainly

not about individual MPs -- that's what we ought to debate. It is about

if the right thing to do is to engage in limited bombing, mainly

ten planes from the UK, adding to the two and half thousand, 3000

strikes that have been administered by the Americans and the French. The

question is, well that haste in the end of Isil and Assyrian resolution?

I'm not convinced that is the case. - and a Syrian resolution. I think

we should think much more deeply about long-term strategy is a

western power in the Middle East. Thank you. That is exactly where we

are taking the debate. David Cameron promised along and full debate in

the House of Commons on Wednesday, he said it was the right thing to do

and would be in the interests of the country to keep us safe. He was

asked about that figure of 70,000 moderate troops on the ground in

Syria, uncertain at this stage, he replied that they would be ready.

Me. The Iraqi Army and the Kurdish peshmerga forces. The Syrian

situation is more complicated but there are some ground troops in

terms of the free Syrian Army and other troops that are able to take

action against Isil. What happens now for the Government?

The debate and the vote on veterans, people are talking in Government

about anything, as you said, I'm hearing similar things, 60 to 100

Labour dissidents. That gives David Cameron what he wanted, for it not

to be a whipped thing, a party political division over this issue,

and secondly a substantial majority potentially for strikes. The RAF I'm

told will pretty much immediately probably that night start flying

reconnaissance over targets. It's possible, what they call dynamic

targeting, the J tack, the air controller, may give them a target

that Knight and they may well start. Even if they don't it is only likely

to be a day or two before they hit targets in Syria. So they can get

ready that quickly can they? They are already flying against targets

in Iraq and they can do that. Hearing your early discussion, this

perception that the UK can't bring that many aircraft to the fight.

They are determined to increase the number. There's pretty limited

leeway in the RAF on that, and what I've been hearing is that the

current 8 tornadoes in Akrotiri will be supplemented. Of course they

can't just move these eight planes around between Iraq and Syria.

People will say you are shifting the same deck chairs on the deck. They

are going to send two more Tornadoes and six Typhoon aircraft. They will

have relatively quickly in Akrotiri up to 16 jets to carry out air

strikes against IS targets in those countries. They are trying to

increase the level of apprenticeship military activity. When you factor

in as well defensive UK airspace, that's pretty much it. That's pretty

much the whole Royal Air Force committed. Mark, thank you.

Joining me now, Tony Blair's former chief of staff, Jonathan Powell,

who's written extensively on the question

His latest book is Talking to Terrorists.

Nice of you to come in. When you listened to Mark laying it out there

in stark terms, it feel it is like the country is being readied for war

and I guess you will say that this is the other equation of what Iraq

has started I don't think there can be a logical idea about bombing

Iraq... But you recognise this is a big step, this needed to be a

convincing argument for all the reasons we understand about it not

being an invitation of a sovereign territory? I don't think this is the

start of a big war. I don't think it is seen as such a big step. It is

doing what Isil do, which is not regarding the border. There are

bigger questions that come later, as bombing is necessary but in the

sufficient, it is necessary to help the Kurds for example to hang on to

Kobane in Syria and to capture Sinjar. Do you think David Cameron

should have said, I'm pretty sure of this, we are doing it already? He

should have had a vote and it looks like he is able to win it now.

Bombing is sufficient, is not sufficient, it is necessary but

won't some of the problem. If our aim is to degrade and destroy Isil

we are going to have to do a lot more than simply bomb them. 70,000,

we are thinking of that now as the 45 minute figure. Does I ring true

from what you know of these troops? I think there are 70,000 fighters in

Syria but at the moment they are fighting Assad and they don't have

any intention of fighting Daesh or Isil. You can't leave it to the Shia

militias from Baghdad, so who is going to do this fighting? That's

the question that needs to be answered. And it is not going to

make us safer is it? You can't realistically that Britain at home

becomes a safer country? It does if we deal with Isil. Just as they were

this Paris, you can't ignore it. 9/11 came out of Afghanistan. You

can't deal with them here, you have to deal with them at the root. It

seems a simple equation there, a simple question for you but it's not

one for the Labour Party at the moment. Do you think part of this

self flagellation, a large part, is precisely because of the Iraq war?

Obviously there's a hangover from the Iraq war, just as there there

was before from previous war. Black Hawk Down in some Aaliyah stopped

people intervening in Kosovo. When you say rational, people will say in

foreign policy terms that was the worst decision any leader has made

since Suez? You can say that if you want, but you don't want to be hung

over by the last decision. You don't want to lash out in the heat of

emotion. You want to make a cool, rational decision. I guess what I'm

asking, is it right that we have questioning leaders now? Do you

admire Mr Corbyn for saying hang on everyone let's make sure that we

know what we are going into? Or do you see a Labour Party in pieces? It

is absolutely right that everyone should ask questions. We need a

serious military strategy and political strategy. As I say,

bombing makes sense but you need to have ground forces if you are going

take territory. Are there ground forces? I don't know whose ground

forces they are going to be. You can't do it without ground forces.

And you need a political strategy dealing with the bereavances of the

Sunnis, who've been disenfranchised in Iraq and Syria. And talking to

them just as we talk to the IRA, the PLO and others in the past. Where do

you think ground forces need to come from? You cannot see a UK Prime

Minister now putting in British ground troops, can you? That's what

people are going to have to think about. This is a coalition, not just

Britain. We are going to have to put western forces in, but it is a

coalition, not something that Britain can decide itself. And you

believe Britain needs to communicate with terrorists and get that

dialogue going. Is Isis on the cards for that? I would have thought so.

Every time we meet a new terrorist group, we say we'll never to them

and defeat them... Even an apocalyptic death cult?

Unfortunately they know they they can get our attention by killing

people in horrific ways. Thank you. I know you are going to stay with

us. So has the lead up to what is

increasingly looking like a move to military action been overshadowed

by party political spilts? Tonight, Jeremy Corbyn claimed

the debate was running away from David Cameron

and his case was falling apart. Rachel Sylvester of the Times,

and Clive Lewis MP and Director of Momentum - the Campaign group

that supports Jeremy Corbyn - are Just for the record I advise some of

the people who work for them. Director is too posh a title I'm not

a chair. For the record, keep it straight.

Rachel - talk us through what Downing Street

Has the battle run away with David Cameron? I think they'll be feeling

rerelieved. They said they wouldn't hold a vote unless they were pretty

sure of winning it. The vote has gone ahead and that David Cameron

has had to concede a free vote, it makes it much more likely that air

strikes will go ahead. This was one issue on which the Labour

opposition, which has been pretty powerless since the election had

some power. They had the ability to determine the result in Parliament.

What's happened today is significant. But they've given that

power away. Isn't that frustrating for the grass roots? I think it is a

matter of conscience. I think when you listen to the so-called grass

roots, they would have seen that many MPs have agonised over this and

thought over it. Ny MPs have agonised over this and thought over

it. I look back - I wasn't there obviously, I look back to the Iraq

war where we were whipped and the Libya where we were whipped and they

didn't end well. This gives MPs the chance to analyse and come to a

conclusion how we are going to vote. I know we laugh at the term new

politics, but I think we are approaching it not a more mature way

and I think many people out there in the country would like to see us

acting in that way. Is that something you would say, we don't

need leadership per se, we like new politics and like something not

whipped like Iraq? There'll be a bunch of people in the country

disenfranchised unless very have an opposition that's peeking for them.

And if you have the Foreign Secretary and the leader in

different positions how are the public to know if air strikes would

go ahead. They are not behaving like a credible alternative Government. I

was looking at the newspapers as I came in and how much was devoted to

the internal machinations. I've been asked on five programmes to talk

about Syria, and on each one I have ended up talking about the Labour

Party. I understand it is an interesting concept. On Wednesday

when we know what the vote is we'll be in a position where we can talk

directly about Syria instead of hypothesising. What I would like to

see and what the media should be doing, we should be questioning

David Cameron. We are on the brink, potentially, of sending an extra six

planes, 14 planes into Syria, to bomb. As we speak now, if that vote

goes through, there'll be women and children, potentially, who will be

dying because of that decision. That's not something as an MP I feel

particularly happy being whipped on. It is a matter of conscience. For

that reason, if that alone, wouldn't it have been better to see a very

strong message to went right through the party saying we are anti-this

and we are now going to be the party that holds David Cameron to account?

You can't be that party any more. I think most people know, we've all

said it is a matter of conscience. Before it was mentioned about how we

still have a so-called hang-up. The echoes of Iraq echo through our

party. Many MPs are affected by that. They listen to that. It is

right and proper. Rachel, is this sustainable? Do you think this is

the new politics, this is how opposition is working now, this is a

pretty important decision. Does it seem to be a position they can hold

on to? What isn't sustainable is the fact you've got a huge chunk of the

parliamentary Labour Party at odds with their leader. I think this

isn't just to do with Syria. It is to do with the fact that the MPs

feel they have a mandate from their constituents and the leader feels he

has a mandate from his members. There's a total clash of not just

ideaologists but the principle obvious politics. The MPs wants to

win the election and they want to adopt policies which reach out to

people beyond the Labour tribe. What they feel the Corbynistas want to

appeal within the tribe... As an MP yes I want to win election 2020 but

I want to make the right cities when it come tolls potentially send our

forces into warfare, potentially putting themselves at risk and kill

women and children. What does momentum do? Does it lobby the MPs

had, take the views of supporters to MPs and try and hold them to a "no"

vote? I think if you look at what Momentum does, it is not one central

organisation which comes out with a line. It is a grass roots

organisation made up of thousands of Labour Party members. I think as an

MP I expect to be lobbied by constituents, by party members,

members of Momentum, people from Progress and the Fabians, I'm an MP.

What I don't expect is abuse. I think what Jeremy Corbyn has said,

he's given a free vote. Respect that. Is this the Labour Party that

you recognise? No, I think there's a problem in this country when we

don't have a strong opposition. As long as we are talking about

ourselves as the party instead of the issues, and the problem Clive

talks about is what we are going to have. Whose fault is that It is not

sustainable for a long period of time. I don't see how you can keep

this together. It is a clash of membership who voted for him and MPs

who never accepted that. Thank you all very much indeed.

Recent history is littered with the places - Copenhagen, Lima,

Bali - that gave their names to the mission of stalling climate

Kyoto was the last - some would say limited success -

So to say there's a lot riding on Paris this week -

after all the trauma the city has been through - is no exaggeration.

Today world leaders from more than 150 countries descended on Cop21 -

the Climate change summit whose mission is to pull things back

One man who knows the planet better than most is

He's been at the forefront of the Apollo program - a mission to

speed up the technology needed for renewable - solar - energy - to make

I talked to him this afternoon from Paris.

I think the statement made by President Obama just now has really

It doesn't go quite as far as some of us might wish,

but it is certainly a major step down the road.

Do you agree with India's Prime Minister Modi, who has asked

for climate justice, that curious phrase, but he's basically saying

that those countries that have developed, that have become powerful

on the back of the use of fossil fuels should now give more?

Yes, but President Obama's statement, and certainly the global

Apollo programme, which I'm hoping to support, provides exactly that.

What we're trying to do is to get the nations together to do

the necessary research to get the production, transmission and storage

of energy from renewable resources cheaper than coal so that those

nations which may be developed or less developed that are getting

their material from coal will now decide to move to

a different source of energy which will be cheaper than the coal on

You would say therefore there is no shortage of energy on earth?

There is no shortage of energy from the Sun.

If we could harness a one 5,000th part of

the energy that the Sun sprays upon the earth every 24 hours, we could

provide all the energy requirements of the entire human race.

We are suggesting you would get not even that much,

but that's what we are suggesting that we should get straight from

Why do you think, given everything that science has

Because it is easier to burn a piece of coal.

We've solved the major ones of getting the energy

What we haven't solved so far is getting it cheaper.

That's what we need to do, so that's cheaper than coal.

At the moment anybody can go out and dig a piece of coal and light

But we can't afford to do that any more.

John Kerry made that statement and said whatever happens wouldn't

I believe that when you look at Obama's statement the will is there

You can write all sorts of words on paper, but in the end if it's good

people of good heart and goodwill, that's what get things done.

So it doesn't matter if it won't have a legal status?

Of course it would be nice if we had a legal status, but we hope

that people will abide by these sentiments, which have been stated

very clearly by the President and which I believe are being stated

What would make you punch the air at the end of this summit and say yes,

What are the words you want to hear from whom?

If Obama had added a target date and actually also agreed a road map, a

committee that was going to oversee worldwide scientific research to

identify the problems in the chain and to sort out who's going to deal

with them, that would have been the cherry on the cake.

Sir David, thank you very much indeed.

The Conservative Party bullying scandal that forced former

chairman Grant Shapps to quit his ministerial post over the weekend

The party has announced that a law firm will run their investigation

There had been claims that their own internal inquiry, launched

after a series of complaints were made about former aide Mark Clarke,

Mark Clarke, who has already been expelled from the Conservative Party

for life, categorically denies a string of bullying and blackmail

Those calling for a more independent inquiry included Ray Johnson -

he's the father of Elliott Johnson who killed himself after previously

Well, James Clayton, who's been following this story

This is quite a momentous day for the Conservative Party. Until last

week, Edward Legard was heading this inquiry. He is a barrister and

perhaps more importantly a former Conservative Party candidate. A lot

of MPs I've spoken to have said, how can you have an independent inquiry

when it is run by a conservative. That was not a concern David Cameron

shared. This is a B Hind me from David Cameron to Ray Johnson, the

father of Elliott Johnson. -- this is a letter, behind me. In the T he

supports the inquiry and says that they have under way an internal

investigation with a disciplinary panel that will be headed by Edward

Legard. That entire inquiry has today been given to Clifford Chance.

What has changed? A lot of pressure on Grant Shapps and on Lord

Feldman, the current chairman. Grant Shapps resigned at the weekend, as

we know, this was meant to alleviate some of the pressure on Lord

Feldman. It has almost done the opposite. I have spoken to number

ten Downing St and they are in full Operation Save Lord Feldman mode.

They say that Lord Feldman did not know who Mark Clarke was and didn't

know of any bullying before 2015. They say that this independent

inquiry is a result of people like Ray Johnson who had called for it.

There is another strategy at play here. It's this. Lord Feldman is

very close friend of David Cameron's and the Tory party has

decided they are not going to let this one go. They are to allow Grant

Shapps to leave because he wasn't exactly flavour of the month and

they are happy to give ground on and on the inquiry but they don't want

Lord Feldman to go. We will have to see in the next couple of weeks if

that strategy works. Mark Clarke denies all allegations. Yes Mackie

has denied all allegations of bullying. Thank you, James.

Fashion is territory into which Newsnight rarely forays.

But when it does, it does it in style.

The former lover of the late Yves Saint Laurent has decided to

sell the most priceless library in private hands - estimated to be

They're all to go under the hammer at Sotheby's in Paris,

Pierre Berge, once the manager of the house of Yves Saint Laurent,

impossibly rare books and manuscripts by Shakespeare,

Dante, Flaubert, the Marquis de Sade and many others.

It was all too much for Stephen Smith.

He dressed the most beautiful women in the world.

And that bought him the most priceless library in the world.

Including a volume of St Augustine's Confessions from 1470.

What was his famous saying, "Lord, please give me celibacy,

Not yet, that is the important thing, not yet.

Pierre Berge was the unflappable maitre d'

He would sketch all the time, and I was a manager.

And nobody came to the field of the other.

You didn't interfere with each other's work?

Did you ever have to say, come on, Yves, I need those drawings

For me I think the fashion designer or painter or writer, they have to

You and Yves Saint Laurent collected art and houses, but this was your

Yves was born with a nervous breakdown.

He was born with a nervous breakdown?

He was born with a nervous breakdown.

It's a joke, but it's not really a joke.

But you know, there are fashion designers who are

unhappy and fashion designers who are very happy.

Fashion is not an art, but fashion needs an artist to exist.

It's a strange combination, but I suppose you understand it.

Was Yves Saint Laurent an artist in that sense?

Yves Saint Laurent absolutely was an artist.

According to Berge, the House of Yves Saint Laurent took fashion

But now he says the industry has lost a sense

For me the fashion is to serve the woman, and not the woman to

You can see the wrong way all the time today.

Yves wrote one day, if fashion is only for rich women, it is very sad.

What do you make of people like our own dear Victoria Beckham and Kate

I send my best wishes, but fashion, believe me, is a very hard job.

It's not a woman's distraction, like to collect horses or dogs.

And there's your phone, intruding on your time.

For a man from the rag trade, Berge is very well connected,

Why not, we can call him later to see what he's doing.

Do you have his number in your phone?

We asked Monsieur Berge to run his tape measure over the British

Do you like his look, what do you think?

What I don't like with your Prime Minister,

is the distance he keeps with Europe.

Now, I don't know if you've come across this gentleman yet.

He seems a little bit full of dreams.

It is necessary to give dreams to people.

I don't think Mr Corbyn has a great carriere of mannequin.

That is all we have time fors we will be back tomorrow. Good night

from all of us.