:00:00. > :00:09.After two weeks of talks, and with one deadline already
:00:10. > :00:11.missed, is the clock running out on plans for a comprehensive
:00:12. > :00:17.We will be live in Paris for the very latest on talks
:00:18. > :00:21.And the former Labour leader Ed Miliband discusses
:00:22. > :00:41.We are doing so well in all the polls. A poll came out two days ago.
:00:42. > :00:45.We are number one. And so it seems, despite this week's
:00:46. > :00:48.hugely controversial call to ban Muslims from entering the US, we'll
:00:49. > :00:51.ask if Donald Trump is unstoppable. Also tonight, the embassy,
:00:52. > :01:00.the Ukrainian militia, Who told us that they had found
:01:01. > :01:02.these paintings in the war zone in some house related to someone a
:01:03. > :01:04.friend of the former president. And in Artsnight, a profile
:01:05. > :01:06.of photographer Juergen Teller, whose shots of Kanye West
:01:07. > :01:16.and Kim Kardashian made global They are Americans, and then a
:01:17. > :01:19.good-looking French chateaux, it doesn't look quite right. That is
:01:20. > :01:23.why they got married in some nice place in Tuscany. I rather was
:01:24. > :01:31.attracted to the sandpit. "Nothing is agreed until everything
:01:32. > :01:34.is agreed." The words of the chairman
:01:35. > :01:36.of the climate change talks in Paris, the French Foreign
:01:37. > :01:38.Minister Laurent Fabius, are still echoing around
:01:39. > :01:40.the conference centre tonight way past the official deadline,
:01:41. > :01:43.with a new deadline for a deal Tonight he promised the deal
:01:44. > :01:48.could be "a big step forward But money is the major sticking
:01:49. > :01:53.point, specifically the level of compensation for poor countries
:01:54. > :01:55.to cope with the restrictions required to slow down climate
:01:56. > :01:57.change, and the issue of which countries get what money,
:01:58. > :02:00.especially with the ambition for a limit of a 1.5% rather
:02:01. > :02:33.than 2% temperature increase. Today in Paris, Greenpeace turned
:02:34. > :02:41.the Arc de Triomphe into a sermon, using one hopes what are some sort
:02:42. > :02:44.of naturally biodegradable pen. Behind all of the science, much of
:02:45. > :02:50.the argument now is a messy fight about money. The question is who
:02:51. > :02:57.pays, the developed or the developing world? Carbon emissions
:02:58. > :02:58.per person have been falling in the developed economies and 70s.
:02:59. > :03:03.Meanwhile, industrialisation has driven them higher in many
:03:04. > :03:08.developing economies. That in the late 90s at the time of the Kyoto
:03:09. > :03:11.deal, Chinese emissions were well below European levels but rapid
:03:12. > :03:13.industrial growth has since pushed them higher. At Copenhagen in 2009
:03:14. > :03:16.it was agreed that less developed countries would carry some of the
:03:17. > :03:22.burden of producing emissions, but the deal was sweetened with a
:03:23. > :03:25.promise that by 2020 $100 billion a year would be made available to
:03:26. > :03:29.finance climate change mitigation and adaption. Ultimately there is
:03:30. > :03:35.almost certainly going to be a need for much much higher figures. Those
:03:36. > :03:39.won't come just from the budgets of developed countries, they will also
:03:40. > :03:43.come from export credit agencies. They will come from multilateral
:03:44. > :03:49.development banks, and indeed they will come from the private sector
:03:50. > :03:54.itself that hopefully will be able to see their way towards profitable
:03:55. > :04:01.investment opportunities. Halfway to 2020, and that 100 billion has not
:04:02. > :04:07.yet been hit. Bilateral public climate aid from government stood at
:04:08. > :04:09.$23 billion last year. Another 20 billion came from multilateral
:04:10. > :04:13.organisations like the World Bank, a couple of billion from export
:04:14. > :04:18.credits and almost 17 billion from the private sector. The path to 100
:04:19. > :04:21.billion is still being debated tonight in Paris. Some countries are
:04:22. > :04:26.obviously rich and expected to step up. Others obviously poor and
:04:27. > :04:29.expected to benefit, but what about those in between? China and India
:04:30. > :04:34.have much larger economies than save the UK but both argue that most
:04:35. > :04:38.historical carbon emissions have come from the developed West.
:04:39. > :04:42.Advanced economies, they say, must bear a particular burden. And whilst
:04:43. > :04:47.India's economy might be three times as large as Britain's income per
:04:48. > :04:51.head is just 15% of UK levels. The hot topic in Paris tonight is what
:04:52. > :04:55.is being called differentiation, which is basically a fancy way of
:04:56. > :05:00.saying should India, China, Brazil and the rest be paying into that 100
:05:01. > :05:03.billion target? What they want to make sure is that that isn't coming
:05:04. > :05:07.at the expense of the developed countries need to do. They don't
:05:08. > :05:11.want to substitute what developed countries need to do, they want to
:05:12. > :05:16.compensated. So they are working on the exact language to work on how
:05:17. > :05:20.developed countries need to play their part, and provide a finance
:05:21. > :05:23.needed, but we can expect to see from Clement Ric efforts now
:05:24. > :05:29.recognised by some of those emerging economies. The night the talks are
:05:30. > :05:32.dragging on, there is broad agreement on the cover those in the
:05:33. > :05:36.world economy but very little agreement on who will pay for that.
:05:37. > :05:39.For those most affected, there really is no plan B.
:05:40. > :05:41.The BBC's science editor, David Shukman, is in Paris
:05:42. > :05:51.David Shukman, intense horse trading up to the last minute, what is the
:05:52. > :05:55.chance, do you think, of some kind of deal by nine o'clock tomorrow
:05:56. > :06:00.morning? CHUCKLING I think no chance of that. The
:06:01. > :06:04.French have invested a huge amount of political capital in trying to
:06:05. > :06:09.crack this. They had hoped to do today but obviously failed, because
:06:10. > :06:12.some of the issues that Duncan mentioned are really so difficult,
:06:13. > :06:17.and runs so deep is a fault line through this whole process. The idea
:06:18. > :06:20.of them coming up with a new draft tomorrow morning is obviously
:06:21. > :06:24.welcomed here, but for people who have watched this process over the
:06:25. > :06:28.years, they say it is just inconceivable that it can be sorted
:06:29. > :06:33.within a fewer hours of that. Many people expect this might well run
:06:34. > :06:36.over another day in the Sunday, because the difficulties are so
:06:37. > :06:40.immense. I mean, we have heard about some of them, the question of money,
:06:41. > :06:45.that is really fraught, but let me give you another one. Running right
:06:46. > :06:48.through this process is the idea, the desire among many countries, for
:06:49. > :06:53.the text that comes out at the end of this to be legally binding. They
:06:54. > :06:57.see that as the only to give the process some teeth. But the word
:06:58. > :07:01.legally binding, that phrase, is anathema to the Americans, because
:07:02. > :07:05.anything legal might look like a treaty, which they would have to
:07:06. > :07:11.take the Congress with a very poor chance indeed of getting it through.
:07:12. > :07:14.Another really difficult question is reviewing each country's voluntary
:07:15. > :07:19.carbon plans. Under the system operating now, more than 180
:07:20. > :07:21.countries have come up with their own voluntary proposals for how they
:07:22. > :07:27.would deal with the emissions stop but Britain and others say there has
:07:28. > :07:32.to be a review of that. Every five years. China doesn't like that, the
:07:33. > :07:37.French have got a deal with that and hope to do it tomorrow.
:07:38. > :07:40.With me now in the studio is the former Labour leader
:07:41. > :07:42.and the Climate Change Secretary during the Copenhagen talks,
:07:43. > :07:44.the last big chance to find a global deal.
:07:45. > :07:50.Ed Miliband. Obviously there was huge optimism going into this but
:07:51. > :07:54.you have the memory of Copenhagen. If they don't get a deal tomorrow
:07:55. > :07:59.morning, which is the cut-off, if they don't get a deal on Sunday than
:08:00. > :08:02.it has been too ambitious. It feels like a global version of your kids
:08:03. > :08:07.homework crisis, doesn't it? With this last-minute business. But I
:08:08. > :08:11.would give some reassurance here, there have been 21 of these
:08:12. > :08:15.meetings, they have always gone into injury time, and injury time in the
:08:16. > :08:19.injury time. My personal view and I am obviously not there is that they
:08:20. > :08:25.will get a deal. From the text I saw this morning, the draft text, it
:08:26. > :08:28.will be an ambitious deal. I can't tell you that the certain that my
:08:29. > :08:33.sense is that too many countries have come too far. China wants a
:08:34. > :08:38.deal, the United States want a deal, yes, there is lots of difficult
:08:39. > :08:41.issues, in particular developed and developing countries, and if you
:08:42. > :08:46.like who bears the responsibility, finance, cutting emissions. Maybe I
:08:47. > :08:51.am an optimistic person but I think there probably will be an agreement.
:08:52. > :08:55.But the actual permutations should have been sorted out on this
:08:56. > :08:59.question of the hundred billion, who pays income who gets out, long
:09:00. > :09:04.before the horse trading has been going on surely quietly before they
:09:05. > :09:07.reached Paris two weeks ago? I think it is not that the issues weren't
:09:08. > :09:10.known about, it is that the negotiations were always going to go
:09:11. > :09:14.right down to the wire, because that is the way these things are. I wish
:09:15. > :09:17.it weren't so. But this is the way these things have always been done.
:09:18. > :09:23.I don't want to sound like Pollyanna about this but it is much further on
:09:24. > :09:26.than Copenhagen. At this stage, Copenhagen was collapsing around our
:09:27. > :09:31.ears and ending up in a 3-page agreement. There are 27 pages or so
:09:32. > :09:37.of text, there are a fuel as far as I can tell outstanding issues.
:09:38. > :09:42.Critical issues. President Obama has rung the Chinese president tonight
:09:43. > :09:46.and is sort of right in there. As I say, I am optimistic. But is this
:09:47. > :09:52.simply about political will, really in the end, or is it about hard
:09:53. > :09:56.cash? I think it is about both. The reason I think there will be a
:09:57. > :09:59.agreement is the political will question is being answered in the
:10:00. > :10:04.affirmative by the countries that matter. And there is something quite
:10:05. > :10:07.interesting about this agreement, which you mentioned, which is this
:10:08. > :10:10.1.5 degrees then. 2 degrees which you mentioned, which is this
:10:11. > :10:14.has been seen as the benchmark but 2 degrees is a dangerous tipping
:10:15. > :10:19.point. I think if they can come out with 1.5 degrees as the benchmark
:10:20. > :10:24.for this. That will really mark a new beginning. But there is a whole
:10:25. > :10:31.issue as well as to why China and India should be getting any
:10:32. > :10:35.compensation. They are a growing industrialised country, why are they
:10:36. > :10:40.going to get money back out? This is the very compensated issue of loss
:10:41. > :10:43.and damage, how Duport countries get compensated for loss and damage done
:10:44. > :10:46.by developed countries? My sense is that China and India are not really
:10:47. > :10:52.asking for cash in this, maybe that is part of it, but in the end this
:10:53. > :10:57.is about the Marshall islands will disappear potentially if we go above
:10:58. > :11:01.1.5 degrees. This is about the most vulnerable countries. And about
:11:02. > :11:05.having some magnanimity in this but what there isn't either is
:11:06. > :11:08.sanctions. And that I think is a hugely problem because who would
:11:09. > :11:13.administer them and who would pay for them? I think that there aren't
:11:14. > :11:16.sanctions, I would prefer if there was a tougher regime but you are
:11:17. > :11:20.trying to do something so difficult, and frankly you are pushing the
:11:21. > :11:24.boundaries of political will. Let me say on this legally binding point,
:11:25. > :11:29.though, my sense is that there is broad at least implicit agreement
:11:30. > :11:32.that ministers will not be put in jail if they don't meet the targets,
:11:33. > :11:39.right? But the fact that countries have to put forward pledges, the
:11:40. > :11:44.first time that has ever happened, and the way they will be monitored,
:11:45. > :11:47.adding that will be legally binding. Again, that is a significant step
:11:48. > :11:53.forward from where we were six years ago. I don't have skin in the game,
:11:54. > :11:56.in the sense that I have helped negotiate this agreement but I
:11:57. > :12:02.recognise progress when I see it. If there isn't a deal on Sunday or
:12:03. > :12:13.Monday... It will be very bad. Before we finish, a quick word on
:12:14. > :12:20.Stop The War Coalition. The you think our Labour leader should be a
:12:21. > :12:25.member? Honestly that is a matter for him. I am not going to
:12:26. > :12:30.commentate. Jeremy Corbyn has a long-standing association with this
:12:31. > :12:35.organisation, he has a long-standing opposition to different types of
:12:36. > :12:39.intervention. If I may say, I think our party's focus should be on
:12:40. > :12:43.taking the fight to the Tories and working out the ideas that will win
:12:44. > :12:44.as the next general election, not Jeremy Corbyn's political
:12:45. > :12:49.engagements. Well, tonight, Jeremy Corbyn
:12:50. > :12:51.was the guest of honour at a Stop the War coalition
:12:52. > :12:53.fundraiser in London. The former chairman of Stop
:12:54. > :12:55.the War for four years, until his election as leader
:12:56. > :12:58.of the Labour Party in September, was due formally
:12:59. > :13:00.to hand over tonight. He told the dinner guests that
:13:01. > :13:03."the Stop the War Coalition has been one of the most important democratic
:13:04. > :13:05.campaigns of modern times". He had been urged not to attend
:13:06. > :13:08.the dinner by former Labour frontbenchers Caroline Flint
:13:09. > :13:09.and Emma Reynolds, and the Green Party MP
:13:10. > :13:12.Caroline Lucas stepped down as a patron of Stop the War over
:13:13. > :13:15.statements made in response An article was published
:13:16. > :13:18.on its website, which said that France had "reaped the whirlwind"
:13:19. > :13:21.of Western support for extremist Our reporter, Secunder Kermani,
:13:22. > :13:25.has been at the south London restaurant where the event
:13:26. > :13:33.is taking place tonight. What has been going on, set the
:13:34. > :13:44.scene for us. So, Stop the War coalition
:13:45. > :13:47.supporters have been enjoying a three-course Turkish meal
:13:48. > :13:51.in the restaurant behind me. It's the annual Christmas
:13:52. > :13:59.fundraiser, but this year it's caused controversy,
:14:00. > :14:07.because Jeremy Corbyn He had been the chair of this
:14:08. > :14:17.coalition. That's controversial
:14:18. > :14:20.because Stop the War have been heavily criticised for a number
:14:21. > :14:22.of recent articles, including saying Paris attacks were reaping
:14:23. > :14:25.the whirlwind of western policy Now the group took the articles
:14:26. > :14:33.down, they say that doesn't represent their official line,
:14:34. > :14:37.but earlier this week it emerged that Green MP Caroline Lucas had
:14:38. > :14:41.stepped down from a leadership role partly because of
:14:42. > :14:43.what they had said. And there have been calls
:14:44. > :14:46.from a number of Labour MPs for Corbyn to disassociate
:14:47. > :14:48.himself from the group. One Shadow Cabinet member told me
:14:49. > :14:50.he thinks Corbyn should not But his supporters say it's a big
:14:51. > :15:06.smear campaign by the right wing
:15:07. > :15:11.of the Labour Party. Right-wing Labour, helped
:15:12. > :15:13.by the media, has made it divisive. The Stop The War committee was not
:15:14. > :15:16.a controversial organisation at all until a war was begun
:15:17. > :15:20.in England against Jeremy Corbyn. A war waged by the media,
:15:21. > :15:22.waged by the BBC and waged by the right wing
:15:23. > :15:24.of the Labour Party. So, when you have people
:15:25. > :15:28.like Caroline Lucas, reconsidering their position
:15:29. > :15:31.with Stop the War, doesn't it make It has nothing to do
:15:32. > :15:37.with the committee. I think the Greens may well be
:15:38. > :15:41.worried that Corbyn is winning a lot Nothing to do with the controversial
:15:42. > :15:44.statements that are being affiliated There have been no controversial
:15:45. > :15:50.statements made by Stop the War Now, some of the criticism of Corbyn
:15:51. > :16:03.comes from other figures But it's also fair to say a lot
:16:04. > :16:09.of this boils down to fears in the right wing of Labour that
:16:10. > :16:12.groups like Stop the War, which have a strong socialist
:16:13. > :16:14.worker party presence, for example, are entering
:16:15. > :16:17.into and changing the direction Corbyn's supporters might say he has
:16:18. > :16:30.a huge mandate for the political and that comes because of,
:16:31. > :16:36.not in spite of, his links to groups It must have been pretty devastating
:16:37. > :16:42.for a regional museum in north west Holland when, 11 years ago,
:16:43. > :16:45.an art heist denuded its walls of 24 Dutch Golden Age paintings,
:16:46. > :16:48.which disappeared into thin air. But it must have been just
:16:49. > :16:50.as astonishing when two representatives of a right wing
:16:51. > :16:52.Ukrainian militia turned up at the Dutch Embassy in Kiev,
:16:53. > :16:55.demanding 50 million euros Gabriel Gatehouse has been delving
:16:56. > :17:01.into a murky world where art theft and Eastern European
:17:02. > :17:08.politics collide. They are getting ready for Christmas
:17:09. > :17:12.in the little town of Hoorn. In the 17th century, this
:17:13. > :17:15.was a place of wealthy merchants. These days, Hoorn gets
:17:16. > :17:18.by on the memories of that golden age, the architecture,
:17:19. > :17:26.the artefacts, the paintings. A decade ago, art thieves broke
:17:27. > :17:29.into the local museum. They came at night,
:17:30. > :17:33.locking themselves inside. They made off with 70 pieces
:17:34. > :17:36.of antique silverware So, they took out all the paintings
:17:37. > :17:43.out of their frames Since we have not heard
:17:44. > :17:50.of the collection for over ten years, we believe it
:17:51. > :17:54.is very well prepared. Probably the thieves did not know
:17:55. > :18:00.what they were stealing. This is not the Rijksmuseum
:18:01. > :18:04.and these are not Rembrandts. The theft at the time hardly made
:18:05. > :18:07.waves outside of the local newspapers because they were by
:18:08. > :18:10.lesser-known artists, contemporaries of the old Dutch
:18:11. > :18:14.masters but not quite the real deal. But then, out of
:18:15. > :18:17.the blue, came news. We were very happy because it was
:18:18. > :18:26.the first sign of life about our paintings but then,
:18:27. > :18:31.when we heard they were in the Ukraine, we immediately thought,
:18:32. > :18:37.well, this is making things not Not a lot easier
:18:38. > :18:41.is an understatement. Dutch officials were approached
:18:42. > :18:48.by a commander from The paintings had been
:18:49. > :18:53.found, they were told, while fighting
:18:54. > :18:57.pro-Russian separatists. The museum approached
:18:58. > :19:00.an art investigator, who travelled to Kiev
:19:01. > :19:07.to meet the commander. He told us his soldiers had found
:19:08. > :19:10.these paintings in a war zone and somehow related to somebody
:19:11. > :19:16.befriended to the former president, The Ukrainians sent
:19:17. > :19:22.through a photograph of one of the paintings with a copy
:19:23. > :19:25.of that day's newspaper, So, Arthur Brand started
:19:26. > :19:31.secret negotiations. Newsnight has seen some
:19:32. > :19:33.of the correspondence. The paintings might be returned,
:19:34. > :19:36.the commander suggested, They talked about a finder's
:19:37. > :19:42.fee, 10% of the value. The trouble was the Ukrainians had
:19:43. > :19:49.fastly overestimated the artworks. Well, I could prove to them these
:19:50. > :19:52.paintings were not worth more I showed them auction results
:19:53. > :19:57.of similar paintings Boris said, "Well, my soldiers
:19:58. > :20:04.will not accept this." The other time he said,
:20:05. > :20:08."The people who have sent me When news reached the museum
:20:09. > :20:20.that the pictures were being offered for sale elsewhere, they feared that
:20:21. > :20:23.time was running out. We asked our BBC colleagues in Kiev
:20:24. > :20:33.to track down Boris. He never asked for 5 million euros,
:20:34. > :20:38.he has never even seen TRANSLATION: I do not have to wait
:20:39. > :20:49.contact with the people who allegedly found this collection,
:20:50. > :20:52.I never did. I only had one way
:20:53. > :20:56.contact with them. When I tried to call them back,
:20:57. > :21:00.the numbers do not exist. The museum says there's a web
:21:01. > :21:02.of influential figures Apart from Boris,
:21:03. > :21:06.the commander, they have named a former head of Ukrainian
:21:07. > :21:10.intelligence and the leader If you take the murky world
:21:11. > :21:19.of international art theft and mix it with the chaos of the conflict
:21:20. > :21:23.in eastern Ukraine, what you end up with frankly is not
:21:24. > :21:27.a huge amount of clarity. I have seen documents that show
:21:28. > :21:30.that the Dutch authorities are taking these allegations
:21:31. > :21:33.of high-level involvement by politicians and intelligence
:21:34. > :21:36.agencies in Ukraine Sleepy Hoorn now finds
:21:37. > :21:44.itself in the eye of Next year the Netherlands will hold
:21:45. > :21:49.a referendum on whether Ukraine should be closer
:21:50. > :21:53.integrated into the EU. Conspiracy theorists are muttering,
:21:54. > :21:55.could this whole scandal be a Russian plot to
:21:56. > :22:00.scupper their chances? Meanwhile, the local museum just
:22:01. > :22:05.wants its paintings back. Hoorn and this region played
:22:06. > :22:07.a major part in the rise of the Dutch Republic
:22:08. > :22:15.in the 17th century. It was a harbour town and,
:22:16. > :22:17.through trade, people We tell this story
:22:18. > :22:23.and these 24 paintings, We miss them every day
:22:24. > :22:31.because they tell such important Even in Trump terms,
:22:32. > :22:42.it's been quite a week for the billionaire real estate
:22:43. > :22:44.mogul who wants to be the Republican
:22:45. > :22:46.presidential candidate. A man who loves a headline,
:22:47. > :22:49.it seems any headline, he made plenty of them with his call
:22:50. > :22:55.to ban Muslims entering America, and now according to Democratic
:22:56. > :22:56.presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, he is no longer
:22:57. > :23:01.funny, but dangerous. And today our Ambassador
:23:02. > :23:04.in Washington slapped him down too, denouncing Trump's assertion
:23:05. > :23:07.that the UK was disguising a massive Muslim problem, and that there
:23:08. > :23:13.were police no-go areas in London. But the latest CBS poll,
:23:14. > :23:17.taken before his anti-Muslim tirade, among Republican voters
:23:18. > :23:21.he is the man to beat, To discuss all of this, we have
:23:22. > :23:31.from Washington Mark Krikorian, of the Conservative Center
:23:32. > :23:33.for Immigration Studies, and from New York,
:23:34. > :23:45.Catherine Rampell, columnist Good evening to you both. Mark,
:23:46. > :23:51.first of all, why do you think Donald Trump gets such traction for
:23:52. > :23:59.his ban on Muslims entering the United States? Well, in general, he
:24:00. > :24:05.gets a lot of traction because of the broad and deep contempt that
:24:06. > :24:10.much of the public holds all believe in. A lot of the attacks, whatever
:24:11. > :24:15.they are attacking him about actually strengthen him because the
:24:16. > :24:20.people attacking him have been utterly failed in their
:24:21. > :24:23.responsibilities as a political and business elite so they have no
:24:24. > :24:31.credibility, specifically on the Muslim issue. Obviously the
:24:32. > :24:38.terrorist attack in California made that salient but our political
:24:39. > :24:42.leaders have refused to address the issues raised by radical Islam. The
:24:43. > :24:48.president will not even call radical Islam by its name and so that simply
:24:49. > :24:53.opens up the kind of opportunity for somebody like Trump, who presents
:24:54. > :24:57.himself as a straight talker and all of this, regardless of how clumsy
:24:58. > :25:02.and corsee years when he talks about this stuff, he is the only one
:25:03. > :25:10.addressing people's concerns and so he is the one who attracts a lot of
:25:11. > :25:14.people's support. Does Mark have a point about elites? What he
:25:15. > :25:19.represents is somebody who is not part of the elite when so much
:25:20. > :25:27.American politics is seen as being a caucus in Washington? It is true and
:25:28. > :25:32.it is not true. He is a billionaire. It is hard to get more elite than
:25:33. > :25:36.that. He is very influential. Here's a reality TV star. If you are
:25:37. > :25:39.talking about the incumbents in Washington, yes committee presents
:25:40. > :25:45.himself very much as an outsider and he is an outsider in that respect.
:25:46. > :25:49.Americans are upset and, to some extent, rightfully so about economic
:25:50. > :25:54.stagnation and other economic anxieties. Here's not really
:25:55. > :25:59.addressing those. I am interested what you are saying about him being
:26:00. > :26:08.a billionaire. He is not beholden to anyone. No one is holding him back.
:26:09. > :26:11.That is his argument. Americans believe that our current political
:26:12. > :26:16.incumbents in the Republican and Democratic parties who are not
:26:17. > :26:20.looking out for their interests, only in the interests of people and
:26:21. > :26:24.corporations that give the money. I understand that Donald Trump is
:26:25. > :26:29.quite appealing because he claims he is self-funded. He is not entirely
:26:30. > :26:35.self-funded. For the most part here is independently wealthy and it is
:26:36. > :26:40.not focus groups or particularly advised by outside experts. Is that
:26:41. > :26:48.because Washington does not by and large address these are people who
:26:49. > :26:51.are not in the Beltway, who are in far-flung states who do not
:26:52. > :26:55.understand what these people are talking about right now? A lot of
:26:56. > :27:01.people are talking that lack of jobs and problems with the economy.
:27:02. > :27:08.Donald Trump taps into that. Coming, Mark. It is more than just an
:27:09. > :27:13.economic issue. You're right that he has not actually... He has talked
:27:14. > :27:19.about economic issues, that is the core thing. What he represents in a
:27:20. > :27:23.crude way is, he is a nationalist. What he is saying I think he is
:27:24. > :27:30.correct despite all of his other floors, much of our elite has become
:27:31. > :27:34.post-American. They're not that interested in the interests and
:27:35. > :27:38.problems and concerns and fears of regular folks and making sure that
:27:39. > :27:49.Americans are the ones who basically win if there is some kind...
:27:50. > :27:57.Comeback on that. I just want to say, he is certainly appealing to
:27:58. > :28:03.Americans anxieties. Whether he is offering policy solutions, I am very
:28:04. > :28:07.doubtful. A lot of his solutions seem to be scapegoating various
:28:08. > :28:15.minorities. Is he actually what Hillary Clinton said, before he was
:28:16. > :28:20.dismissed as being funny but now, Hillary Clinton says he is actually
:28:21. > :28:25.dangerous. What you think about that? That is silly. I am no fan of
:28:26. > :28:30.the guy that the idea he is dangerous is absurd that the these
:28:31. > :28:34.dangers to anybody, he is dangerous to the political cartel both parties
:28:35. > :28:41.have in running the country. In that sense, he is a threat to them. The
:28:42. > :28:45.idea that he is a budding Mussolini or something is rather laughable. It
:28:46. > :28:50.is the hyperbole that helps people and his own supporters are more
:28:51. > :28:55.likely to support him when he is attacked by people. That is indeed
:28:56. > :28:59.what the Republican inner circle has really got to worry about. If they
:29:00. > :29:04.attacked him too much, then perhaps he comes out fighting. There are
:29:05. > :29:10.moves, are there not, to try to shut him down. There are moves afoot to
:29:11. > :29:16.try to curb Donald Trump. What do you know about that? He is very
:29:17. > :29:24.divisive, even in the Republican party. He has a solid core of
:29:25. > :29:28.support amongst an unhappy populous. An anxious group, economically and
:29:29. > :29:33.otherwise anxious group. He is certainly playing to that crowd.
:29:34. > :29:38.There are a lot of Republicans, more moderate and otherwise, who are very
:29:39. > :29:43.turned off by his rhetoric, by his tone, by the fact he has been
:29:44. > :29:48.scapegoating again, not just Muslims but Mexicans in China and immigrants
:29:49. > :29:53.at large. There are a lot of people who were disturbed by the fact he
:29:54. > :29:57.could actually... If you were Republican, he could turn all
:29:58. > :30:01.publicans away from the Republican Party and he became a nominee, they
:30:02. > :30:05.would turn to Hillary. This week, Tate Modern's Chris
:30:06. > :30:08.Dercon profiles Juergen Teller, whose images of the rich and famous
:30:09. > :30:11.over the past three decades have And we should say there is some
:30:12. > :30:25.strong language in this programme. In the 1990s, Juergen Teller's shots
:30:26. > :30:29.for the music and fashion industries