07/04/2016 Newsnight


Newsnight speaks to Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson about David Cameron and questions the man who is buying Tata. Plus treatment for paedophiles and satire in politics.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 07/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It took a few days, but he finally got there.


The PM says yes, he did have a stake in his Dad's offshore fund.


We'll ask Labour's deputy leader why he thinks it might be


We had a joint account. We owned 5,000 ewe anies in Blairmore


investment trust which we sold in January 2010.


We'll ask Labour's deputy leader why he thinks it might be


The Government promises the unions that Tata Steel


We'll ask the front runner to buy it, Sanjeev Gupta,


Does satire tell us more about politics than politicians do?


He's not quite in Prime Minister of Iceland territory,


but David Cameron is paddling in a pool of poo this evening,


admitting he had benefited from offshore investments


of the kind everybody in public life is now embarrassed


He had a personal stake in his father's Blairmore fund,


the offshore nature of which was exposed


But, you might argue, he thinks it's enough a problem


that he didn't want to tell us about it.


After all, we've had a series of statements this week


about his financial affairs that now look crafted to avoid lying,


but avoid telling us the whole situation.


The holding statements didn't hold, and he came on ITV to tell all.


Units in Blairmore investment trust which we sold in January 2010.


After days of evading and avoiding questions about his finance, the


Prime Minister's finally come clear about Blairmore holdings, the


company set up by his father. Samantha and I had a joint account.


We owned 5,000 units in Blairmore investment trust, which we sold in


January 2010. That was worth something like ?30,000. Was there a


profit on it? I paid income tax on the dividend but there was a profit


on it but it was less than the capital gains tax allowance, but it


was shouldn't to all the UK taxes in the normal ways. A former tax


inspector explained to us why the funds are based in places like


Panama. The idea you would get some quiet serious tax advantage, people


could invest in a fund in somewhere like Panama, and when that fund


earned income, they wouldn't be taxed on it. So income would roll


up, offshore for as long as they wanted and they would only be


taxable when they took the money out, either as dividends or by


selling their shares, in which case there would be capital gapes tax. A


major problem for the Prime Minister is how the information emerged.


On Monday the Prime Minister's spokesperson said where his money


was invested was a private matter. On Tuesday, this was Mr Cameron's


reply to a Sky News question on whether he had previously invested


in Blairmore. I own no share, I have a salary as Prime Minister, and I


have some savings, which I get some interest from and I have a house,


which we used to Li in, which we let out while we are living in Downing


Street. That is all I have. I have no share, no offshore trust, no


funds, nothing like that. A statement issued later on Tuesday


said that the Prime Minister, his wife and her children do not benefit


from any offshore funds. Yesterday, Downing Street clarified further,


there are no offshore funds or trusts with which the Prime


Minister, Mrs Cameron or their children will benefit from in


future. And that leads us to today. This is obviously not good for the


Prime Minister. First of all, he eshoed several opportunities to come


clean about this and he chose not to take them. O so today he looks


slippery. Secondly and this is less important because we know this


already, it shows how privilege his back ground was, it brings up the


job his if o father hand and the name of the fund itself is a


testament to the grandness of the Cameron family.


Blairmore is nameled after the Cameron's home, here in


Aberdeenshire. And now, a Christian retreat.


Today, above all, Mr Cameron was keen to defend his late father's


reputation. I think a lot of the criticisms are based on a


fundamental misconreception -- misconception which is Blairmore was


set up with the idea of avoiding tax. It wasn't, it was set up after


exchange controls went so that people who wanted to invest in


dollar denominated shares in companies could do so.


I am not clear why he said that this fund was set up so that investors


could put money into non-sterling assets. I am not clear why they


needed to go to Panama to do that, they could have done that in London.


One thing in particular, raises some suspicion, and that is why Blairmore


is constituted as a company with bearer share, because those shares


don't require the owners to identify themselves, so it becomes more


difficult for tax authorities to trace who has taken the income from


those companies. The Inland Revenue was once relaxed about funds like


that. Ministers wanted PMQs like Mr Cameron's father do what he did. But


one person's investing is another 's tax avoidance.


Joining us now from his West Bromich constituency is Labour's


Ho outraged you tonight? Well, I am confused really, we have had a


series of answers from the PM, that are, just seem the lead to more


questions. What I think people will expect him to do tonight, is be very


clear about what other investments and vehicles he has had as an MP.


There was a relative confidence his financial affairs were in good order


until he had that dragged out of him earlier this evening. Now people


need to know what other shares did he have many Blairmore? Did he


dispose of any other shareholdings, has he used any other vehicles as a


way of generating income, and offshore accounts we don't know


about yet? Can I be clear, are you accusing, you think he was doing


this to avoid tax? Or do you think he in any way evaded tax, or... What


exactly is the offence that he has committed here? Well, I don't know


the Prime Minister's full circumstances, none of us do yet. We


have been getting these incremental admittances that he had an


investment in an offshore vehicle, that most people think is used to


avoid paying tax. Now, that is fine, if you are a normal investor, it


might, we might not agree wit it is fine, when you are the Prime


Minister, the most powerful man in the land, responsible for framing


tax reform, and clamping down on tax avoidance, and you have made


speeches, that you are in favour of transparency, heralding a new age


and sunlight being the best disinfectant and naming high profile


individuals who use things like this and describing them as morally


wrong, to admit you have had similar style investment lends you to the


acquisition of being a hypocrite. He wasn't Prime Minister, he sold them


before he became Prime Minister, didn't he. Is it impossible as a


human being to say I have done this, I am a poacher turned gamekeeper, it


is better if people like me don't do things like this, I become Prime


Minister and try and stop it, what is wrong with that in Well, he was


leader of the op six and the point is, he has made judgments on people


as Prime Minister, for doing what he used to do, and I don't think it is


a good look for a Prime Minister to use the line say as I do, do as I


say, not as I do. And it, the avoidance of legitimate journalistic


questions in the last three day, just means there are going to be


more questions about what his financial arrangements both as


Leader of the Opposition and as an MP. I don't think it is unreasonable


for people to ask nose questions. You suggested there may be an issue,


I am not wanting to overstate what you said, you said there may be an


issue of resignation here. Seriously? He has invested in a tax


efficient offshore fund, is that seriously something a Prime Minister


thinks about resignation over? I have not suggested that and I don't


know the facts of the Prime Minister's financial arrangements to


be able to draw that. I was asked in another interview if it was a


resignation issue, I said maybe but we don't have the facts. What I


think we need to do, is you know, what other questions does that


rather Eva sieve three days of answers give us? I think we


certainly need to know what other investments David Cameron had when


he was Leader of the Opposition. Aren't you coming to the conclusion


that anyone in very senior office, like the candidates for Mayor of


London, basically have to open up their tax returns and tell us Egg.


You are really saying you are not accepting anything he says on trust,


he just has to keep telling us until we have every last penny in his bank


account I need to be careful about this. He said tonight he thinks he


is going to get to a position where he could publish his tax return, but


that won't show what investment vehicles he had. And the issue, the


issue, the difficulty for the Prime Minister is, this is a particular


vehicle that most people think is used to avoid paying tax, and I


don't think people want their Prime Minister to be in that situation,


and I don't think they want any politicians to be, so we are


certainly moving to a point where there will have to be more


transparency for powerful people, particularly ministers who are


responsible for tax legislation. ? One last question, do you accept his


word, when he says, he paid all the tax, the capital gains tax he didn't


need to pay, because he didn't apply, and the income tax, he paid


all the UK tax, that were due, on a legitimate and legal overseas


investment? Well, I certainly hope he wasn't lying to the British


people. He certainly wasn't answering all the questions the


journalists were asking on their behalf. The point is it has taken


three days to get to this point. Had he given a straight answer he would


be be in a much better position this evening. As it happens he has


aroused curiosity and it makes you think, if he had to admit tonight,


what other shareholdings may he have, he will need the clean that up


tomorrow. we start on the cover up not the


crime. Isn't that the problem for David Cameron, he has obfuscated


over this and then had to admit it. In so far as there is political


damage it is because he didn't make a full disclosure, about exactly how


he benefitted from his father's investments, and offshore fund, on


day one, so he has created the impression that he has something to


hide, but now he has come out, and made what looks very much like a


full disclosure and is about to publish his tax return, it turns out


he had nothing to hide in the first place. I can see why Labour are


trying to do their best to make as much capital out of this as they can


and make it look like he has been engaged in an attempt to cover


something up. Now that we have the full tacts were us, which it looks


like we do, it looks like we do, it doesn't seem as if he was covering


something up. I used the word crime. You don't think there is any crime


here, you don't think there is any problem here of being Leader of the


Opposition, he was not Prime Minister, he did it before the


election made him Prime Minister, there is no problem Leader of the


Opposition, investments, in an offshore fund, that had bearer


shares which everything knows are the not the best, in an up right way


of issues documentary support for your holdings, a smell of any kind?


I am not a tax lawyer, so I don't know why Ian Cameron set up the fund


in Panama, but... It was very tax efficient. The Prime Minister said


it wasn't a tax avoidance vehicle, it was set up for the purposes of


dealing in, non-sterling shares and so forth, and when it was set up in


1982, unlike what Richard Brooks said in the report earlier, you


couldn't do that. Do you think the Prime Minister is


going to have to release more, now? Tom Watson has said, basically,


every statement begets the next statement, because it follows on.


You said this was followed and final, but is it, he's now told us?


But Tom Watson had a huge list of more questions. Where does this end?


He started off by saying he was not benefiting in the present, then he


said he would not benefit in the future, it doesn't look like he has


any more shares in Blairmore. He sold his holding in 2010 and has


acknowledged he did benefit, he did make a few thousand pounds from


selling blame or shares in 2010, but that looks like the extent to how he


has benefited. -- Blairmore shares. When we look at the nation, the


relationship with the public and politicians, tax avoidance is quite


high up in the ranking of sins, between having an affair and


investing in a supremely tax efficient investment, I think the


average politician would say they would probably rather be caught


having an affair than investing in an offshore fund? Certainly, the


public dislike revelations that politicians are engaging in tax


avoidance, it confirms the generally poor view of politicians. But I


think it is not a party political issue. The Labour Party benefits


from donations from trade unions that engage in tax avoidance, the


largest single donor to the Labour Party at the time of the last


election was PricewaterhouseCoopers, Margaret Hodge herself, a tax


avoidance, said had been in involved in tax avoidance on an industrial


scale. This Government, to its credit, has done more to combat tax


avoidance than the previous government did in 13 years in


office. I don't think it is specifically damning to the Tories.


Margaret Hodge is not here to defend herself, so we will put that aside.


Put aside affairs Panamanian, and the man of the week


is Sanjeev Gupta - a potential buyer of the UK steel


Rather little is known about him, and he has a complex network


of companies registered in Singapore and one in the Isle of Man.


Many have struggled to see how he can really make a viable business


He admitted yesterday that his plans for steel in the UK were undeveloped


So earlier today we managed to get half an hour of his time,


to talk through his vision and his business.


A key factor in any deal will be whether a prospective


buyer can actually afford to run the Tata business.


I started by asking Sanjeev Gupta what his existing business


My father's business, my businesses, which I rely on are currently worth


about $1 billion. $1 billion, does that give you enough financial


muscle to take over a steel business that is losing maybe 2 million or


more pounds per day? We would not undertake the exercise if we could


not make money. We will make the analysis and a business plan, and we


believe it can be profitable. If it can, we will undertake it. The


business plan will be shared with all stakeholders, not least my own,


who all have to re-sign off, and it will be shared with other parties


like the Government and Tata. We have encountered some degree of


scepticism that the purchase of Tata Steel's UK operations, some


scepticism that it can be made to fly. I think scepticism is natural


when a business has been losing this much money and it has not been able


to make profit, despite a lot of effort. Scepticism is natural. But


my point is that the reason is exactly that, if it was just a


question of money, it would have been sold already. Tata has enough


money. The point is that it needs a new model, there is something wrong


with the model, rather than just resources. How much money do you


think the taxpayer needs to give you to make it work? The Government


cannot give money anyway, it is against EU regulation, so even if


they wanted to, they would not be able to give tax payer money towards


it. Can I ask... What we want is resolutions to the issues. We don't


want to take over liabilities, and we need a solution to the power


base. A very crucial thing you have said, that you say you don't want to


take on liabilities, you don't want to take on the pension liabilities


of the existing workers? Yes, we want a solution to that. Any


prospective buyer that wants to look at this will want a resolution. 52


companies we have counted in the UK, in the last three or four months,


they have lots of names, Natural Gas Tubes Limited, they don't seem to be


doing anything at the moment. Why have you registered 52 UK companies


in the last four months? We own the something like 20 businesses in the


UK. There are probably 15 or 20 companies, various companies doing


various things. Often you have dormant companies waiting for


acquisitions or businesses to be started. This is nothing... I mean,


there is nothing wrong or unusual about holding companies. They are UK


companies, audited and perfectly compliant with everything. I am not


sure what these questions are about. There is a degree of capacity and


complexity that has made it quite difficult. This is a private group,


and it complies with every regulation. All of these companies,


in the UK, all registered companies, public information. A private


company does the structures in the best possible way to organise


itself, all of the information is available publicly. Can we talk


about what has happened in Scotland, and what the implications are? You


have taken over two plants. That is correct. Can you throw light on the


mysterious transaction? You bought it from Tata, the Scottish


Government owned it for half an hour, or a short period in between.


What was the purpose of that complicated transaction? The


Scottish Government, very helpfully, acted as the middleman, the broker.


What did they do by buying and selling it to you? We didn't


negotiate the deal bilaterally, it was a back-to-back deal. The


Scottish Government negotiated the deal with Tata and we negotiated


with the Scottish Government. Did they take any risks, did they take


the pension liabilities away from the company before selling it to


you? Is there something the Scottish taxpayer... There was different


versions negotiated. In the end, what was finalised was a clean, back


deal, they took no risk. There is a very bad experience in the not too


distant British memory of Rover, which fell out of business, put on


the market by BMW, who owned it, a buyer came forward, everybody wanted


the buyers to make it work. They took it over, they got a lot of


help, the Government promoted the purchase of the company for ?10, and


then it failed several years later. It left everybody much worse off


than perhaps if it had failed earlier. I just wonder, if the


British had been stung by that experience, and maybe whether they


think, or many will feel, the same is going to happen here, that you


will take it over, we will hope you can make it work, and somehow, at


the end of it all, it will fail in a few years' time, rather than now. Is


that prospect, do think, for steel in the south-west? Any buyer that


comes forward, the businessman must be examined very carefully. This


business has not been easy, it is not an easy environment to make


money in steel. The turnaround plan must be something that is different.


Now before we move on, let's have another look at that


On June the 23rd, the UK will make its most important


political decision for a generation - whether to leave or remain


But if you're struggling through the quagmire


of competing arguments, we'll do our best to help.


Over the next two months, Newsnight will be devoting a set


of special programmes to some of the key issues,


like migration, security, the economy and sovereignty.


But we can arm you with some of the information


So join us for the first of these special shows this Monday.


Our subject on Monday will be sovereignty.


Can you stop a paedophile before they've abused a child?


That's the aim of a unique clinical trial in Sweden, in which


researchers are hoping to prevent potential abusers ever carrying out


an offence with just a single injection.


Researchers at the Karolinska Institute, one of the world's


leading medical universities, believe that a drug called


Degaralix, which stops the brain from making testosterone can combat


hyper-sexuality and aggression, turning off the need to seek out


The drug has been tested on five Swedish men who called


a sexual offenders' helpline because they were concerned


about their paedophilic inclinations, and now a trial


using 60 volunteers, half of who will receive


the drug and half a placebo, is to take place.


The trial raises ethical questions about if therapies can be introduced


for the most dangerous offenders before they have broken the law.


To discuss the approach I am joined now by Belinda Winder,


a forensic psychologist, who has pioneered a trial of giving


libido-repressing drugs to sexual offenders in prison in Nottingham,


and Gabriel Shaw, Chief Executive at the National Association


for People Abused in Childhood, Napac.


Good evening. Belinda, you have been using a different chemical mix, but


does it work, I suppose that is the first question. The medications we


have been using, yes, they work to reduce sexual arousal. First, I want


to take issue with the first question about spotting a


paedophile, we need to be clear that many paedophiles do not offend


against children. Many people have entrenched preference for children,


they will know about this from puberty, but they never offend


against children. We then have some paedophiles who are struggling not


to offend against children. Some blues that struggle. Some


paedophiles do not really care in terms of the damage they do. -- some


blues the struggle. They will go on to offend. We should applaud the


good group of paedophiles that never offend against children. Many people


who offend against children are not actually paedophiles, they are


people that are sexually indiscriminate and will offend


against any available outlet, and children are easy pickings. That is


an interesting starting position, I just want to see if you agree with


that, is that how you view the spectrum of conditions? That is


right. Belinda laid it out very carefully. One of the concerns I had


about the story was that there is a thought that it might be a magical


silver bullet, that by giving a drug, it would be a panacea to


everything. Let's remember that the abuse of children is not purely or


solely driven by sexual desire. There is a whole range of issues. It


is about power, control, coercion and manipulation. It can't just be


seen as you have this drug and it cures everything. I want to be


clear, do you accept that there are, if you like, and benign paedophiles


that deserve sympathy rather than condemnation? There are people that


have urges, but it is about what they do with them, the


self-determination. Let's go back to the drugs. People will hear what


you're saying, that there is no such thing as a paedophile that deserves


respect, they might say, but I want to park that. The drugs work in


affecting the way that people who worry about the inclinations, they


were? They work on reducing sexual arousal, sexual preoccupation,


thinking about sex constantly, and having persistent urges for sexual


outlets. They work on reducing that aspect of sexual offending. It is a


big aspect of sexual offending, but not the only aspect. You probably


have two people here that will agree with each other. Do you think that


they should be promoting these drugs to people that worry about their


inclinations? It's about child protection, anything that helps


protect a child from the risk of harm has to be welcomed. Let's


promote it, yes. If we take it more widely, it is about resources. You


can understand survivor anger, if it was felt that too many resources


were being placed on this issue, whereas we know that there is


support for survivors, who have been traumatised and abused as children,


and it is just not there, it is patchy across the UK. There is a


balance to be struck with scarce resources. Where do you place the


most? The idea is also promoted that you might say to convicted


paedophiles, people that have abused children, maybe your sentence will


be shorter if you agree to some kind of treatment. The survivor community


thinks... What? Do they say that as a practical way of proceeding, or


no, no way do you trade off? The first thing is that survivors are


not a homogenous group. That is a bit dangerous. Survivors can


differentiate, as Belinda said, about who feel they have these urges


and will not offend, and those that well. For convicted paedophiles,


this is the other concern, the drug works because people have identified


and have self referred. They want to be helped. For people that do not


want to be helped, how are you going to apply this? It is all about


cooperation, taking it properly. I have concerns it may not be the


answer for convicted offenders. You have been trialling this in prison.


Tell me how you do it. Do you say, you get something in return? People


do not get anything in return, the only thing they get is the benefits


of medication. Many guys in prison do not want to reoffend, they don't


want to return to prison, they do not want to offend against children.


They are not paedophile offenders, necessarily, they are men offending


against children, which includes paedophiles. It might sound like


language, but it's important society takes on board the different parts


of terminology. We will leave it there, thank you.


There have been some unlikely leading men over the years,


and none more so than the star of a new musical which opens


The spotlight falls on the Labour leader in Corbyn the Musical,


a light-hearted romp which also features Dianne Abbott,


Declaration of interest - the show, at Waterloo East Theatre,


was co-written by a former Newsnight producer, but don't


Does political satire do a better job of connecting politics


with people than election campaigns and PMQs?


Our man in the stalls is Stephen Smith.


# The world in my hands # Sleep safe at night


# Mow with the left, we are getting it right


# Didn't sell out, # I didn't give in


# You needed a hero # You got Corbyn. Jeremy Corbyn, as


you never thought you would see him. As the star of a musical comedy.


# Austerity is mean. # I did a portrayal of Peter Mandelson


last year. I was kind of Peter Mandelson this


time last year and now I am Jeremy Corbyn this year.


# You're with the left, we're getting it right. #


Isn't this liberating. I am having such a great time. It is feel good


romance of year, the show spares no expense to recreate a motorbike tour


of east Germany that Mr Corbyn supposedly took with Diane Abbott.


It must be terrible to be trapped behind there. Imagine never to be


able to visit the other side. The The story going on a trip to east


Germany which may or may not have happened. Have you done your


research like the former Newsnight journalist you are? Of course I have


done my research. Even better than when I was on Newsnight if that were


possible. We will leave that! We have found that the motorcycle trip


probably didn't happen. Whoa. They went on holiday together. They did.


They defy they went to east Germany that is for the reasons we describe.


We are here now, I can't wait to experience the life of a Communist


country. I was so excited... Showing her as not just Diane the


politician, Diane the human, the slightly sexual predator. It is a


bit fruity? It is. At times, at times. It is family fruit. If the he


lands up in... Are you capable of speaking English? I went to Eton. So


yes. Boris is in it. Boris is the opposite of or bin. It is no a nasty


musical. It is funny. It pokes fun at Conservatives and Labour, and you


know, if you can't laugh about politics, what is point of being in


it I am standing as I have stood before in this election on a single


issue. The one way system round our supermarket. One way? No way. The


director of this political comedy says the genre can take audiences to


places that the news media fails to reach. Long after it was possible to


do anything about it. People say to me, can't you co-something about


Brexit. I can't think how you could get into that as an issue. I think


that political stories tend to work really well when they are chamber


piece, so when you find the room you weren't in, the meeting that you


weren't at, when you get that glimpse behind the scenes into


moments of decision making or crunch points, in a way it is a media's


role I think to give its access to what politicians do, very publicly,


so to those moment of great event, sometimes it is theatre's role to


get behind the scenes and imagine ourself into those spaces so we can


look at humanity of making those decisions.


# A lawyer is never more than six feet away. #


# All our children engage in gender nonspecific play. Feet away. #


# All our children engage in gender nonspecific play. #


? Well it takes us into the Camelot, the Brigadoon of his north London


postcode. And perhaps some will see him in a new light.


Jez, we can-can. # It is the place for which I truly


care # Islington


# I will fight to save my people there. #


It doesn't seem that long ago, we were all talking


Seeing value in taking time over things.


Well, it took a bit of time, but the counter


A book that takes an optimistic view of our hurried lives.


It sees some of the downsides of rushing things -


in the media for example, what's been called the 24


But ultimately it comes down in favour - acceleration


is something we have actively chosen, says the author,


Good evening to you. It is a grand sweeping boobs, because you explain


everything. In terms... Try to. Let us take an example, politics today


and Donald Trump, because you managed to squeeze this into the


kind of accelerated lives thesis, how does that fit? So Trump is in


some ways a product of acceleration and the dislocation to the economy,


the fact that people are angry and feel they are losing out is because


you know, the fast paced globalised economy, there are people who don't


do well from that. He uses Twitter, he doesn't have campaigners, he


reaches people directly with this technology, but it is more than


that, Trump is perfect instant politician, silver in the US did a


fascinating thing, he found that Trump as we would expect dominated


the news cycle day after day but he never dominated it with the same


story. When he was insulting the Pope, by the next day the caravan


had moved on to something else. He could chuck these grenades and move


on to the next one. So you are kind of quite sympathetic to the great


acceleration, but I am guessing you are not like a big Donald Trump fan?


You have kind of talked against your own thesis here, this is what you


get. Yes, so I think, I mean, as you said my thesis is there are bad


things and good thing, but one of the things with the media it does,


it is not so much everything gets faster, what it does it poll rice,


you have the sort of fast paced breaking news stuff but you have


more people than ever doing good considered, long reads or writing


analysis pieces or like, I mentioned naught silver, doing data driven


study, there is more good stuff out there as well as the... That is


because books have shrunk down into long reads. Let us take another


example. This is an interesting one. This, and you do devote a section o


which is dating and relationships. I think people would worry that


swiping right on tinder, or constantly going online to sort of


or speed-dating as the kind of, the sort of end point, I mean, you, can


you see any advantage in dating in numbers in that way? Absolutely,


dating is horrible. In many way, if you are out there on a the market


you are trying to find the right person, it takes ages and you have


all the meetings with people and you don't quite click, just increasing


the number of people you meet is sort of pretty good. Being able to


have that thing with speed-dating, so knowing, OK this person and I


click and you know, the two of us should never have met in first


place, rather than having to... Even online dating isn't that efficient.


People, you spend a lot of time honing your profile and scrolling


and looking for, and looking for Mr Right and rejecting this one. Who


wants online dating when you have tinder? That is instant. It leads to


a hook up culture, people are more likely to go out and have a good


time, but it is hard to begrudge then that, I don't think there is


much evidence people don't want to get married and settle down. You


talk about The Great Acceleration. Are you talking about your life,


because it is Metropolitan, I can think of lots of people, elderly


people at home who have quite pleasantly paced lives, they are not


rushing round I have been accused of being London-centric, the larger the


community we are in the faster the pace of our live, it isn't, I hope


it is not just me. Erne I meet says gosh, yes, I feel my life is getting


out of control. It is speeding up. Apart from the people who go off and


live in the countryside and good luck to them. Thank you.


That is all we have time for. I will be back with more tomorrow, just to


say The Papers are all going very big on Cameron, the Telegraph, I did


have money offshore, the Mail, PM. I did profit from tax haven. He


finally admits to link to father's fund. And the Guardian using one of


its yellow backed headline. I will be back in this seat


tomorrow, until then very good night.


Hello. Another day of sunshine and shower, the showers have been fading


through the evening and that will continue through the night. The


winds fall light. It is going


Newsnight speaks to Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson about David Cameron and questions the man who is buying Tata. Plus treatment for paedophiles, satire in politics and the speed of life.

Download Subtitles