In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Emily Maitlis.
Browse content similar to 30/11/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
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.