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.
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.