09/12/2015 Newsnight


Discussing the potential third runway at Heathrow, the Labour party 'in crisis', the Paris climate summit and clean eating. Plus, an interview with author Judith Kerr.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 09/12/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight, pressure on the PM to make a decision on Heathrow expansion


But the government looks set to delay.


Maybe it's political - but tonight we ask why we can't seem


Tony Blair calls Jeremy Corbyn a tragedy for Labour.


Will it play right into the leader's hands?


We ask how Labour moderates are lining up after a rocky few


I think if Jeremy's previous record in parliament shows us anything,


it shows us that it's right and principled to take different


views, on occasions, on issues you feel strongly about.


And the tiger who came to tea - and has really never left.


Judith Kerr talks about the lasting endurance of her characters and why


she's top of the Christmas list aged 92.


If I didn't draw, I would have probably taken to religion,


Have you taken to religion at all? No.


"No ifs, no buts, no third runway at Heathrow."


The statement made by David Cameron back in 2009, which,


even then, looked hostage to fortune.


Tonight, six years on, on the eve of a key meeting


by a Cabinet committee set to decide whether to delay the decision


to expand, the whole question looks even more starkly political.


Chambers of commerce from across the country have written


to the PM demanding he give it the green light before the end


of the year, warning that any delay raises grave concerns


about the country's credibility when it comes


But there are voices from within the PM's Cabinet


who are fiercely against expansion on environmental grounds.


And most crucially of all, a Tory candidate for Mayor,


Zac Goldmsith, who's made clear he would resign rather than tolerate


Does this country, and this government, have a problem when it


comes to making the big strategic decisions?


Here's our economics correspondent, Duncan Weldon.


Due to land tomorrow, a final decision on whether to give


the third runway at Heathrow the go-ahead.


But like all things involving airports, it is sensible


It now looks like the decision has been pushed back by another six


months whilst the government gets new environmental


Or alternatively, waits for the London mayoral election


This is only the latest setback at Heathrow.


This camp was set up near the airport by


environmental protesters when a decision last looked due.


Since then, it has literally had time to


This camp is now approaching its sixth birthday.


Six years protesting about a decision


This saga, and that is the only word that works, has been running a lot


It was back at the turn of the millennium that the Department


for Transport predicted passenger numbers would double by 2020,


In 2003, a white paper was published on a third runway.


Three years later, the government confirmed its support


2007 saw a public consultation but in 2008, the Conservatives came


Finally, in 2009, a third runway was approved.


But next year, the coalition agreement ruled


Under pressure from business in 2012, an Airports


Commission was appointed to review the options and reopen the issue.


That report in July this year, backing a third runway.


Tomorrow, we are supposed to finally see a final


If there is another six months in it, business


will be appalled because they will see another deferral,


another reason why it can be delayed again.


What was the point in having the Davies


Our members care far more about a decision being made


than they do about whether it is Heathrow or Gatwick.


It is actually vital that something is done and done in time for this


generation of businesses to be able to use it in going for this trillion


pound export goal that this government,


laughingly, laughably, suggests ought to be the real target


opposes expansion but still wants a decision.


If it is not a mayoral election, it is the general


election, there is always something that pushes this back.


But in the meantime, this is our lives.


The government is playing with our lives.


We are agreed that we want them to get on with it and make


a decision and let us know where we stand and what we can do.


Heathrow is not the only example of national


Many of our sewers and bridges date back to Victorian


More than 100 years later, we still rely on the legacy


It took two years for the building of the great Western


Isambard Kingdom Brunel built it in just six.


We have been at or near the bottom of the league


table in all kinds of infrastructure metrics for at least 40 years.


In the end, it is about political short termism,


not even with different parties.


Different governments might change their mind,


but within one government you might get a different decision.


They are asking people to make investment decisions that will cost


billions of pounds and need to be paid back over 50 years.


They are just not going to bother when there


Politicians have two problems, geography and time.


The benefits of expanding Heathrow are spread out


But the losers are concentrated in areas like this and that is


The benefits accrue over decades but the costs


can be concentrated into one 5-year political cycle.


Heathrow, Gatwick, somewhere else or nowhere, the future of airport


capacity is a key bit of what you might call a long-term


economic plan but short-term politics seem to keep


We did bid for the government voice in this but they are not joining us


tonight. Joining me now, Martin Sorrell, WPP,


head of the biggest advertising It's widely assumed there will be


delayed decision for six months. What will you do if it's delayed?


There's not much I guess we can do, especially in the. It's another


example of dithering over a decision. We've had a studious and


lengthy decision under Howard Davies, and they came up with the


conclusion, and it sounds like the final decision will be postponed. On


understandable grounds in some senses because of environmental


concerns, but when you look at it in detail, the environmental concerns


can be dealt with, as the Howard Davies commission set out. What's


important in this context, infrastructure investment, which


EuroPro League to this conversation emphasised. -- which your pro you'd.


Dubai is understandable, because it's a new country with new


infrastructure, but even Paris and Frankfurt and Amsterdam have made


far more progress in terms of airport development. It's about


trade, jobs, because an expansion at Heathrow will add estimates between


60000 and 100,000 jobs around Heathrow. Even more in the context


of the UK. It's about connectivity to other airports in the UK, and


last but not least, the issue of infrastructure as well. I guess the


issue of progress in other countries comes at the expense of democracy at


some level. It's more important in this country to preserve that


essence of listening to constituents. It is, but there is


some degree of expediency here. There is the environmental issue


people are talking about. We are going through the process in Paris


that is extremely important. There is also the political element, we


have mayoral election, both Conservative and Labour main


candidates are against the idea of Heathrow expansion. I think that


puts the government and Prime Minister in a difficult position.


Postponing a decision for six months or so, enables them to deal with


that problem, at least until after that election. Unless Zac Goldsmith


resigns, as I think one of his associates suggested he might do,


infant of that election, with a non-decision in place. Both business


and the unions are united on this. Unite, the biggest union of Len


McCluskey, has made it clear the unions are in favour of Heathrow


expansion as well. That's interesting. Would it be a price


worth paying in your eyes to have a politician, a Tory candidate for


mayor, resigning for this to go ahead? I presume you will say yes.


The importance of this decision transcends a candidate and a mayoral


campaign. It's much more fundamental. Talking about long-term


economic policy covering education, technology, jobs, skills, training,


and infrastructure. This is a key infrastructure investment that is


pivotal because there are connection routes that extend from this. There


are road routes that extend from this. Jobs extend from this. This


infrastructure investment, this lack of decision-making, is critical to


the future of the country. You said dithering and delaying, do you see


that as endemic to the way this government makes decisions on other


matters, for example be EU negotiations we are in the middle of


the moment. David Cameron is in Eastern Europe today and tomorrow,


do you see that process on the same lines? That's unfair. Taking it, as


you said earlier in the conversation, taking into account


everybody's interest is very difficult. When you look at the


delay, as your film introduction made clear, this decision has been


talked about, extending airport capacity, whether it be Heathrow,


Gatwick, another airport, Boris's airport, whatever, has been talked


about for many years. Actually building this runway at significant


cost, whether it was at Heathrow, Gatwick or a new airport, would take


a significant period of time, and by that time we will have missed out on


major opportunities. You are an advertising man and understand


branding. You understand the importance of a word. If David


Cameron said in 2009, no ifs, no buts, no third runway, would you not


agree that the most important thing for him is to retain credibility and


stand by his words? We all make judgments at various points in time


that sometimes later we might regret. It may be that conditions


and circumstances change. It may be you have to change your point of


view because conditions have changed, economic, political and


social conditions. It needs a change of mind. It was 2009, its 2015 now.


It's linked in a way to the market issue and the EU issue. If we don't


have expansion of our infrastructure, if we vote to come


out of the EU, these sorts of decisions, rightly or wrongly, will


place us in a difficult competitive position. London is a world capital,


and by not expanding its airport capacity it limits its appeal as a


world capital, and that has serious consequences, I think.


Labour's most electorally successful leader, Tony Blair,


has today damned the party under Jeremy Corbyn as a "fringe protest


It's hard to think of anything that could cement his popularity more


firmly amongst his supporters than harsh words from the man


many of them regard as a war criminal.


And it clinches the dilemma of the Labour party.


Many of the moderate MPs cannot wait to write off their current leader.


But each time he faces a decisive moment -


the Syria vote, the Oldham by-election - he seems to rise,


reenergized, from what appeared to be ashes.


Allegra Stratton looks at the state of play.


All political leaders need momentum, but this autumn Jeremy Corbyn's


first 100 days hasn't flowed smoothly at all.


The Labour leader has made some headway.


The government U-turned on tax credits and policing, after all.


But still, sometimes it seems he's been fighting


Last week was a point of real danger for the Labour leader.


It brought the prospect of not one, but two crises.


Chaos over the Syria vote, and then the possibility of losing


Jeremy Corbyn's opponents told me that over the past week,


there were moments when he looked in real serious trouble.


In the end, just under half of his Shadow Cabinet defied him


on Syria, and his party held on to Oldham.


He has emerged from this fortnight miserablis enhanced.


So, what now for these mighty forces within the Labour Party pitched


Two former soldiers, both tipped for great things,


I think we have to move forward to May.


I think we face elections taking place all around the country,


and that provides a mechanism for us all to come together


to support our Labour candidates around the country.


I think, when I went back to my constituency,


Angry at the scheming and behaviour of elements of the PLP.


Surely it marked something of a tipping point.


The Labour leader brought the majority of his MPs with him,


Did the 66 pro-strikes Labour MPs set themselves apart


I don't have that concern, because I think if Jeremy's previous


record in parliament shows us anything, it shows that it is right


and principled to take different views on occasions,


about issues you feel strongly about.


I'm not saying it's going to take in 20 or 30 years to rehabilitate.


I think most members will understand that on this issue of war,


an issue of conscience, I think they understand that those


people thought long and hard about why they were voting.


They were thinking about national security, thinking about,


I think most members will understand.


They might be disappointed with what they did, they might be


I think they will understand that the vast majority of those


members, the vast majority, did so for honourable reasons,


or what they thought were honourable reasons.


I think people should respect that decision.


If they then go ahead and start scheming and plotting


and doing all of that, then I don't know.


But Corbyn himself said that those of you who voted the way you did,


Well, I'm not, and my colleagues are not the kind of people


who are minded to be swayed by those kinds of comments.


So people who voted in favour of strikes in Syria,


It isn't tittle tattle, it's about understanding


I think the mood of the party is to get behind our leader and take


That's what we are committed to doing.


We have the Syria vote out of the way.


It was a difficult moment for us as a party.


We need to move on from it, come together, and get


It doesn't sound like you think it rules anybody out.


I think our members understand that people have principled views on both


sides of the argument, and they will be respectful of that.


The clashes are now less frequent and may slow to a stop,


but for both sides, things could pick up again very quickly.


Senior sources have confirmed to Newsnight that the party's rule


book is, to use their word, "silent" on the issue


of whether a sitting leader gets to stand again if challenged.


Jeremy Corbyn's opponents think that if May's elections are bad,


they would corral an overwhelming number of Labour MPs to call for him


to go, and promote only one candidate, ensuring


That's why at the September party conference, Corbyn's allies wanted


We speak to two figures key behind-the-scenes.


I think he's one of the most underestimated people


Nobody thought he would get on the ballot.


Nobody thought he would be a contender.


Nobody thought he would be able to win.


I think there is a small, vocal minority of people,


and they have been shown to be a small minority of people,


within the Parliamentary party and the party more generally,


who haven't yet come to terms with Jeremy's victory,


It should be very clear that the leader, the incumbent,


should be able to stand in the election.


But I don't think people will be looking to move against the leader


The people around Jeremy, and I'm never sure if this


is him himself, or people who share his politics,


do seem to keep wanting to go looking for fights.


Completely unnecessary when, actually, the kind of rather bruised


and moderate wing of the party is not looking for a fight.


But if they want to come and have a fight over the rule book,


whether it's the leadership election rules, or the powers of conference,


or whatever, then they will find a fight.


It looks like peace might have broken out in the Labour Party


For Jeremy Corbyn's opponents, the next moment of pressure


will probably come the morning after May's local election results.


For Jeremy Corbyn's team, the next moment of pressure


will probably be around the time of the party conference


when they try to change the rule book.


In the meantime, crises will probably hove into view


But at some point, the Labour Party has to stop fighting itself, and


And now to Paris, where scores of countries are lining up to back


A new draft text of the agreement being negotiated at the UN climate


change talks has been released, which contains potential


for ambitious targets on curbing temperatures and cutting emissions.


Crucially though, are concerns the measures being laid out to get


This is the copy of the document that should eventually go on to form


It's not exactly easy reading but the


last one was 48 pages long and this one has been slimmed down to 29.


The last one had 900 brackets in it, each symbolising


Three quarters of those brackets have been removed.


It reflects some of the compromises that have been made over the last


week and a half of negotiations but there are some real areas


of disagreement here that are starting


The first one, on the level of ambition.


Is this document here ambitious enough?


Should we be aiming to prevent global


temperatures from rising above two Celsius, above preindustrial levels


or should we aim, more ambitiously, for a 1.5 Celsius threshold


$100 billion has been promised by 2020 to help


developing countries to skip fossil fuels and move to cleaner


But the mechanisms behind that have not been agreed


Who pays the money has not been agreed, who gets the money.


That is a big issue for some of the countries here.


The third enormous issue, one that everyone disagrees


on, is the discrepancy between developing countries


Should the developed countries who have historically been


emitting the bulk of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,


should they really bear the burden of


responsibility, should they be doing the most to cut their emissions


and give money to help other countries


or should it be developing countries who need to do more?


We can't just leave it to the developed countries,


they now emit 65% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.


Should these countries be doing more and


should some of the richer countries, Saudi Arabia and China,


should they be contributing finance to the poorer developed countries?


There's 48 hours to go and we're starting to


There will be a lot of negotiating going on here into the night


and they're hoping for a deal by Friday.


Joining me now from the talks in Paris, which are continuing


into the night, is Giza Gaspar Martins,


Chair of the Least Developed Countries.


Giza Gaspar Martins, thank you for joining us. The Indian spokesman


said today that the wealthy world's obligations have not been met.


Developing countries are not fulfilling their obligations. Do you


feel that where you have reached tonight is more equal? Tonight, we


have finally gotten a draft text that is more workable, that is a


more workable attempt at reconciling, putting together the


various policy options that we have been advocating. Obviously, there is


still quite a bit of negotiation work to be done on this document and


we are certainly prepared. We have been asked to stay here for the


night and we are prepared to work through those issues. It is not


necessarily a dichotomy between developed and developing countries.


I think that what we have before us is a realisation on the part of our


soul that there are tremendous sacrifices to be made, on all our


parts, in order to engage in meaningful climate action. And it is


about those sacrifices that we need to begin to have a conversation. And


this document puts us on the right footing. You are brave to use the


word sacrifice because many people at the talks do not. What does it


entail? What kind of sacrifices, on the personal, individual or


corporate and governmental level are involved? Firstly, we must agree.


And now I think there is quite tremendous political Unison. There


is a unanimous realisation that climate change is a threat, is a


phenomenon that we must tackle. And we must tackle it in order to keep


us all safe. Keeping us all safe means limiting global temperatures


rises to 1.5 degrees. And that is where the conversation about


sacrifices comes in. It certainly means that development needs to be


greener, development needs to be cleaner in terms of emissions of


greenhouse gases, and for it to be clean it means that we need to


engage in a conversation about sharing the pools that will enable


clean development. You have mentioned that figure, 1.5, do you


think you will come away from this fortnight with that figure of 1.5


degrees as a cap? Any agreement that seeks or aims to keep all of us safe


needs to begin to look at 1.5 or below 1.5. This is not a number that


we have pulled out of a hat. This is what science is informing us needs


to be done. Even 1.5 degrees, the scientific consensus tells us that


very many of us will not be safe. Therefore, anything above 1.5 is not


fully tackling the challenges before us. Understood. Giza Gaspar-Martins,


thank you very much. Now, do you describe yourself


as virtuous when you eat If so, you may warm


to a growing trend of those It describes a way of cooking


or consuming food in as close to its natural state as possible,


often avoiding gluten, dairy, sugar, fat -


or, let's just say, any Proponents swear by it,


and love the way they feel on it, but should we be wary of any fad


that conflates puritanical consumption with the idea


of being, well, "good"? Our man with a doggy


bag is Stephen Smith. # My milkshake brings all the boys


to the yard # And they're like,


but this far into Newsnight, I'm ready for some full


It's the kind of grub we associate with the fragrant Nigella.


It seems she's worried that some adherents to so-called clean eating


may be masking eating disorders or body issues.


The folks here at Nama in West London ought to know.


They have been made by dehydrating a batter of courgettes and walnuts,


spreading it and dehydrating it at about 40 degrees for about 24


hours until they go into solid pizza bases like this.


what's wrong with the regular pizza base?


There's nothing wrong with it, but because we are a raw vegan cafe,


and because we try to provide food for people who have intolerances


to gluten or wheat, and they can't consume them,


How about some pasta made from cold raw courgette strips


It's an inactive form of yeast that adds flavour to the dish.


Marinating, taking up all the flavours.


my body does kind of pay the price for it, and I do feel a little less


Again, I don't think it's whether somebody should or shouldn't


do something, it's just doing what you feel is right.


If someone has wholesome raw food or vegan food,


and it makes them feel great, then why not, let them


My whole philosophy is about eating healthy 70% of the time and then


doing whatever you want 30% of the time, because if you make it


100%, it becomes completely unsustainable, and at one point that


If you tell yourself you can't have it, the way our mind works,


we are going to want it at some point, and then the guilt sets in.


The menu at Nama makes it clear that recipes contain nuts.


Nigella seems to be warning the same is true of the clean food movement.


Joining me now, Alexandra Dudley, whose company makes organic,


artisan seeds - and Celebrity MasterChef critic Jay Rayner.


Nice to have you both here. When we were looking at their pizza base


made from Walmart and organic dehydrated courgette, you said it


looked yummy. Is that part of your diet? Actually, I said it slightly


ironically. Raw pizza is not necessarily my meal of choice. But


that is not to say I don't like all raw food. I think some of the more


celebrated... Talk us through what you understand as clean eating. Take


us through that. What does that mean for you? Personally, and I wasn't


wearing this earlier, for me it means food that is not overly


processed and is real food. So real food that you cook at home, and that


includes things like butter, eggs, and I am a bit more of an advocate


for a more all-rounder diet. Gluten, I don't eat gluten, I am a coeliac


and I cannot eat it. I try not to eat dairy but when there is gelato,


I eat dairy because I like it. I don't have yoghurt every day because


it makes my skin bad and it makes me cranky and that is just what works


for me. I did used to same clean eating a lot on Instagram, which was


a strong social media channel for me. And I changed it, I made a


conscious decision to change it a couple of months ago, mainly because


I felt that what clean eating means now is a completely, it's not clean


eating, it is a warped vision of what clean eating is.


And it's this kind of idea of clean eating... I'm quite strong on


language, and the one thing to understand why clean eating is


cobblers, but at the way we talk about dirty, dirty dealing, dirty


politics, dirty money, and we talk about junkies getting clean and


cleaning up their act. There's a moral quality for a clean eating,


they are virtuous will stop it plays into the pathology I is in the diet


as a way to control the world around us. People talk about processed food


as if it is evil. Throughout human history, from the moment we ground


flour into wheat, we have had processed food. Really the issue is,


is your diet healthy or not healthy? That's all it's about. The chef was


talking about collapsing, coming off the wagon, and it has this religious


overtone that you have been bad or let yourself down. Is that a worry


for you? It is. It's a mega worry, it's extreme, I think. There have


been some comments about the word clean eating on social media


channels in particular, it being an excuse and way for people to mask


eating disorders. I agree with that, hence the reason we have chosen to


remove that. That's why we say it real, feel real. What does that


mean? What's eating John Reel? You confessed to eating a worryingly


sweaty sausage from a cart in Trafalgar Square. I eat a mixed


diet. We have the dissolute almost 50-something man against the youth


over here. I'm not the best proponent for this visually. Nigella


is roughly my generation, and she should talk these things up. There


is a joy in food. We sometimes eat terrible things. Have you ever eaten


fried chicken from a high-street brand? Of course you have. Where is


the shame? I've also eaten salad. It's amazing! Alexandra has as well.


Have you done a KFC? Other brands are available. I'm more of a sweet


girl. Do you wake up in the morning feel like you have sinned, like you


have to purge? The whole idea of virtue. I have to say that, as a


woman, and being in the industry I'm in, yeah, I do, often wake up and


feel that way. Would you punish yourself with double the exercise or


half the food? No, I tried to distance myself from those thoughts.


I think we have enough of them. For my punishment I go down to the gym.


So you wake up thinking, oh no? I have been a large man all my life. I


have a metabolism engineered for the Russian Steppes. But I happen to


live in London. I'm now a restaurant critic, but I do something by going


to the gym several times a week and that's how I work it out. We have


run out of time, but thank you very much.


Mog the forgetful cat is, roughly speaking,


But she's back at the top of the bestsellers this Christmas,


resurrected in a brand new title - Mog's Christmas Calamity -


to raise money for Save the Children - over ?1 million so far.


Her creator, Judith Kerr, is more than twice her age


but as lucid and inspirational as ever.


The author of The Tiger who Came to Tea and When Hitler Stole Pink


Rabbit - which describes her childhood fleeing Hitler's Germany


and moving as a refugee to Paris - sat down to talk to me


about what she describes as an extraordinarily lucky life -


and about how that tiger first emerged.


I began by asking her about her own literary journey.


I was 45 when my first book was published.


I had done other things before, but I always wanted to draw.


The other things, like writing stuff for the BBC, were sort


of accidental, because I was married to a very good scriptwriter,


Because you have this other thing to think about.


I think if I didn't draw I would probably have taken


When people put their own interpretations


on your stories, The Tiger Who Came To Tea, does it make you giggle?


I read it every night for months to my son,


and started imagining it was about sexual awakening


I'm reliably informed I'm wrong, but that is what was going


Will you tell us what was at the base of the tiger?


Before my son was born, there was only my daughter and myself.


She was two going on three, and Tom, my husband,


was, I forget what film he was making, but he was out a lot


Whereas normally he was at home writing.


We had been to the zoo, so it seemed reasonable


We both thought they were incredibly beautiful.


You've got The Tiger Who Came To Tea, you've


got a very dark book, When Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit,


Do you think that you need to protect children


from the realities of the world, shelter them, or show them?


I didn't think about either of those.


I loved being in Switzerland, especially in Paris


I was talking to Tom about writing this book.


He said, it can't just be about your happy childhood.


Hitler has got to be on the first page.


My father had been warned by a stranger to get out of Germany


immediately, because they were planning to take away his passport.


He was afraid that the Nazis would hang onto us to get


The moment when we were able to join him.


His face was white, and his eyes were searching the crowd,


And then Papa, who was always so dignified, who never did anything


in a hurry, suddenly ran towards them.


He put his arms around Mama and hugged


her, then hugged Anna and Max, hugged them all and wouldn't


And you grew up in Paris, where you spent


Yes, my parents were very protective, and I never really


understood how awful it was for them.


My mother was incredibly unhappy and I didn't notice?


I only found out about it long after her


There was an archive about my father, and they keep


finding letters that he has written, or people have written to him,


she wanted to kill not only herself, but my brother


and me, to protect us.


I looked at the date and I thought, I'd just managed


to learn to speak French at that time.


It would have been very annoying to waste all that!


Looking at all that now, and your parents'


experience, at the age of 92, do you feel that you are in control


hard for the right for assisted dying.


I have, luckily, no reason to end my life.


But, I think people are coming round to the idea that if life isn't


worth living any more, if you realised you had Alzheimer's,


I mean, it's nobody else's business what you do at that point.


You are so uplifting to talk to, and razor sharp.


Half the time I can't remember the one word I need.


The ridiculously lovely Judith Kerr talking to me earlier at her home.


That's all we have time for, good night.


The programme discusses the potential third runway at Heathrow, the Labour party 'in crisis', the Paris climate summit and clean eating. Plus, an interview with author Judith Kerr. Presented by Emily Maitlis.

Download Subtitles