15/09/2016 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis with James O'Brien. A look at the recently signed Hinkley nuclear deal and the winner of the Mercury music prize.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/09/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The deal that seals Britain's nuclear future, finally signed.


After delaying a decision on Hinkley Point, Theresa May has


I've been in Whitehall finding out who the real winners and losers


And, we'll be talking to the man who drew up the plans


The view of my committee is that it'll be an act close to insanity


on every grounds to do a blanket suspension of British arms


Crispin Blunt tells us that if the courts rule that arms sales


to Saudi are illegal, then the law needs to be changed.


I have to say, it's great to be back on the campaign trail.


She's out of her sick bed, but can Hillary Clinton recapture


the ground she's lost to Donald Trump?


We'll have the first TV interview with the Grime star who beat Bowie


Theresa May today pressed the nuclear button and gave


the go-ahead to the controversial Hinkley Point power plant.


Mischief-makers have pointed out that the ?18 billion deal means


that her Government, like her predecessor's,


is quite comfortable with the state ownership of utilities -


as long as the states are foreign - in this case, France and China.


More trenchant criticism has been directed at the project's escalating


costs and the security implications of allowing nuclear power plants


to be built in the UK by foreign governments.


Indeed, it was these concerns that prompted the Prime Minister


to delay her decision and revisit the terms of the deal


Newsnight's political editor, Nick Watt, is here.


Nick, what are the key differences between the new deal


Two levels, nothing has changed. The strike price for this deal. The


amount we pay for electricity generated by this plant, that stays


the same. In the second place, this marks the beginning of Chinese


involve am in our civil nuclear infrastructure and they could still


be on course to have a complete say over the building of the third plant


in this project, Bradwell in Essex. Downing Street is saying that the


Theresa May pause has led to two tangible changes. They are, in the


first place, after the Hinkley plant has been built, the UK Government


will take what is called a "special share" in all future civil nuclear


plants. You will hear in a minute from Sir Ed Davey the former Lib Dem


Energy and Climate Change Secretary. He tried to push for something along


those lines, George Osborne said no, didn't want to offend the Chinese.


The second difference Downing Street points to is a rigorous assessment


of what is called "the ownership of critical it infrastructure" that


Bradwell plant in the future. That will be a victory for the Prime


Minister's joint Chief of Staff Nick Timothy who raised the issue of


security of Chinese involve am. Friends of George Osborne are saying


absolutely nothing has changed. It's interesting. I have been hearing


from senior Whitehall officials they say it's a bit of a set back for


Nick Timothy. They say it's difficult how you can reconcile this


deal, even as amended with an article that he wrote for the


ConservativeHome website last year on the eve of that state visit by Xi


Jinping. He wrote, "security experts reportedly inside as well as outside


Government are worried that the Chinese could use their role to


build weaknesses into computer systems which will allow them to


shutdown Britain's energy production at will." There is another feeling


in Whitehall. There is a little feeling of guilt that perhaps it was


a bit unfair of them to expect Theresa May to become Prime Minister


and almost immediately sign up to such a massive project and they are


saying, fair enough, that she had to have a pause and have some ownership


of it. Many thanks, indeed. Of course, it's not all


about politics and security. Many of us will be at least


as interested in what it all means Newsnight's Adam Parsons has been


looking at the numbers. Here's Hinkley Point a bird spotting


haven in Somerset that is the focus of our nation's energy policy. Two


nuclear power stations have already been built here, Hinkley Point A,


shut in 1999, while B is still up and running. Next door comes the


expensive, if unimaginatively named, Hinkley Point C. It's actually going


to be two reactors put together costing ?18 billion of French and


Chinese money. The biggest contribution of all might yet come


from us. The UK's electricity consumers. Here's why. When


electricity is sold by power stations they use a measure called a


megawatt hour. The electricity you needed to power 3,300 homes for a


single hour. Hinkley is guaranteed to be paid ?92. ?92.auto 50 for each


megawatt hour it generates. That assured earning figure is called -


the strike price. Created after length bey negotiation between EDF


and the Government. It's crucial. It's what EDF wanted to provide the


certainty that its investment really was worthwhile. It's also how we can


analyse just what sort of value we're getting here. What's important


to remember is the strike price was created in 2012. It goes up with


inflation. So if I could click my fingers and have Hinkley open right


now, the price of a megawatt hour would already have gone up to more


than ?95. It will keep going up in line with inflation for 35 years


after the station opens for business. Let us imagine that


Hinkley Point C does open, on time, in 2025, when inflation might have


seen the price hit ?110. In 2060 we will be paying ?95 along with


four-and-a-half decades worth of inflation. So what does this deal


really mean? I'm not going to predict the state of the energy


market in 44 years' time. You can see that over the past six years the


price of electricity has never got near the Hinkley Point point. It's


presently less than half the now famous strike price. What happens


when the price of electricity is a lot lower than the money we've all


promised EDF? That is where we come in, consumers. We are going to have


to pay more to cover that gap. How much? Well, when Hinkley was planned


it was reckoned to be a subsidy of ?6 billion. About ?10 per household


per year. That figure has mushroomed. The National Audit


Office thinks UK businesses and households will have to find ?30


billion to plug the gap. One-and-a-half times of cost of


building Hinkley in the first place. Why do it? One simple reason is that


we need new power stations. Coal ones are being phased out. Others


are simply getting old. What are the benefits? 60% of the money that is


being spent on construction is expected to go to British companies.


Future cash object tariffs imposed on coal and gas power stations might


put prices up dramatically. It might be that Hinkley one day looks rather


good value-for-money. Here with me now is Sir Ed Davey


who negotiated the Hinkley deal in the first place


when he was Climate Change Secretary It looks as if the French sent you a


wish list and you and George Osborne granted them all? Not at all. The


French didn't get what they wanted at all. They wanted a much higher


price. George Osborne was prepared to sign a deal at a higher price. I


said, absolutely no way. We had to get if Sizewell C goes ahead it will


be sub 90. I think because we will need a lot of electricity when our


coal power stations shut. We will need a lot of low-carbon electricity


because of climate change this has to be part of the answer. Along with


all the renewables. I'm proud that with the Liberal Democrats in the


last Coalition Government we had a massive expansion of wind and solar


a and I put on the agenda tidal lagoons as well. Moving into


reverse? I think the Conservatives are making a hugeror. Error. They


are putting the nations eggs in the nuclear and gas basket. They have


undermined investment energy efficiency and closed down carbon


capture storage. They are betting the nation on gas and nuclear. That


is irresponsible. Yet, of course, Germany is pressing forward into an


energy future completely devoid of nuclear. I appreciate you don't hold


a brief for the German company. How come they can do it and we can't?


They are burning a lot more coal because they have made a huge mess.


Most energy analysts would think the German model is not one to follow.


They've investeded in renewables, which is good, they have paid a much


higher price for their renewables than they we have. By taking a


low-carbon climate friendly nuclear out they are burning dirty coal.


That is not a good result for the environment. Speaking of paying a


higher price than perhaps consumer or indeed a country has to. Take a


look at this graph we have prepared for ease of understanding. That's


sort of, as you can see, clearly where the price per unit stands now.


That is the price per unit that we will be getting out of Hinkley.


Well, you don't need me to tell you there is a fairly big imbalance


between the two? The current electricity is provided by gas and


coal. They don't pay their pollution costs. They don't pay a carbon


price. If you added the carbon price on to that you would see them level


up. What I negotiated in the Hinkley price, which is not well-known, but


it's very important, is that the costs of nuclear decommissioning,


the costs of dealing with the pollution of nuclear, if you like,


the nuclear west management costs, they are in the price. You are


comparing apples with pears there. Electricity with electricity albeit


although different types. Let me explain. You haven't got the point.


That includes electricity plus the waste management costs the pollution


costs. That doesn't. You have apples and pears. No, it's right. The price


to the consumer. It doesn't deal with the cost of dealing with


climate change. It's the cheque we write or the direct debit we sign to


our electricity people. You are misleading people. You have to deal


with price, you have to deal with keeping the lights on. Which clearly


Hinkley does. You also have to deal with cleaning up our energy. We have


to tackle climate change. So when you look at energy policy you have


to do all three. You are looking at one there. That is why you are


misleading people. We are not misleading people we are telling


them what they will be paying for their electricity than what they are


down-the-line. I fully understand the point you are making. The


question is why the National Audit Office estimates ?30 billion worth


of, they use the word "subsidy" to could be a sweetener coming from the


consumer to EDF effectively to the French state, to the French


government, 85% owned by the French? One of the reasons why EDF took such


a long time to director this and the director of finance resigned from


the board, I don't think everyone in France think it is's a good deal for


the French. Why might that be? Again in the price I ensured that the UK


consumer pays nothing, nothing, unless and until the power station


generates. It's supposed to be 2025, it could be later. How much later? I


don't know. Of course I don't know yet. Roughly an idea of when it will


be up and running? I don't know. You signed the deal? Listen you don't


know about nuclear plants. The reason why I'm telling you this


important point. If it's overrun, we don't bear the cost. The French bear


the cost. If there are overruns, delays the UK consumer is completely


protected. That has never happened in a nuclear deal before. There is a


possibility that this thing never gets built, right. In what


circumstances would that happen? At the moment, this worried me when I


was Secretary of State. The EPR hasn't been built in Finland or


Paris or hasn't been built in China. I was worried if it doesn't get


built we might be laboured and burden with the cost. The deal makes


sure the French will have to take up the cost if they don't build it.


Unglittering track record, why would you sign up to be the latest


customer? We are not bearing the risk. The thing that we had - There


is a risk our capacity won't increase if the plant isn't built. I


appreciate that might not incur financial costs you have described a


system - I was coming back to that. You don't know the question. The


ones you cited are behind schedule or might not happen.


You went to a shop that failed to satisfy a single customer and


handled them the largest of all deals. The largest man made


structure on the planet some estimate. I was going to answer a


question. You are right if it doesn't make sure if it isn't built


the costs are born by the French not the British. Which we have done. We


had to make sure we had enough alternative power if it doesn't get


built. Hold on. I was arguing we need carbon capture storage, on


shore wind, solar, tidal lagoon and other options as a mixed diverse


approach and why the Tories are making such a drastic mistake


because they have cancelled effectively onshore wind. They have


cancelled CCS. They are taking all these options off the table. I


ensured they were there to protect the country's interests You signed a


long-term. Deal for a nuclear plant that we didn't necessarily need and


the Tories back-tracking on environmental policy means we really


needed it now and we might not get it? We do need it. Is that an


accurate analysis? No. I signed a deal for nuclear powerer we don't


need. You said we you could cover the capacity with the other things


you introduced? If you are dealing with the big issues of how we power


our homes and factories you don't put all your eggs in one basket. Do


you? Would you be that irresponsible? No, I wasn't. I


ensured both to deal with climate change. We had low-carbon sources


and lots of options. That is the sensible cautious thing to do to


make sure you protect Britain. The Tories are playing fast and loose


because they have taken low-carbon renewables off the table and they


are putting all their eggs in this basket. While this deal in itself


may be a good thing. They are actually, overall energy policy is a


disaster. By the time the ramifications are clear nobody


responsible for the deal will be in office just like you aren't at the


moment. Thank you very much indeed. Joining me now is Axelle Lemaire,


the French Minister of State for She's in town for to drum up


bilateral business, especially We'll get on to that momentarily,


but I wonder whether you could give us a quick insight into how


the French people - and particularly the unions -


feel about ?12 billion of French money being spent on a nuclear


power plant in Britain? I've tried to fight the answer to


that question. I was in London today and I couldn't find the answer


because I have not heard anything from the unions. I think that deal


is good news for the people who want work and it also gives a long-term


prospect for the bilateral cooperation between the countries


and I believe that is exacting what we need at the moment. Even when you


have heard our former Secretary of State think France is children all


of the risk. What I find interesting, when I come here I hear


that it is a bad deal for the French. When I go to France, I hit


it is a bad deal for the British so I sent it is a fair deal for all. It


is more environmentally friendly and it gives clean energy. In France,


energy is cheaper as well so I don't know about your price prospect but


what I can say is that it is important to have a diversity of


energy sources and we have to get ready for long-term prospects. So


everyone is a winner. Shall we move on to what you encountered in


London, I presume for the first time post Brexit as a minister for


responsible T4 entrepreneurial activity, have you detect a change


in tone in entrepreneurs and in the city in particular league? I met


different people, individuals are worried but there is this strange


feeling of, is there a Brexit or is there not a Brexit? It seems from


the outside that life goes on. I thought to myself, what is


happening. But when you really ask questions, what business people tell


you is that in the longer term, the current uncertainty will block their


decisions. For example, should they invest in new equipment? Should they


hire new people or not? How easy will it be to employ people coming


from abroad? It is very important in the sector to be dependent on


skilled people. There are a lot of questions... You can't answer them


until Article 50 is triggered. Does the French government have a


position on when they want to see it triggered? It is not for us to have


a position also the sooner the better. I know where you will take


me, that I sound tough, it is not a question of sounding tough, but I


read that the French are tough and the Germans are soft but because


what is in the interests of Britain of the British people, of France and


Europe. I think uncertainty is not good for anyone also if you look at


the economic figures of the British economy of this summer, it seems


pretty good, you might think low pound, good exports, many tourists,


no problem. In the longer term, no investment? Less margins for


companies, less capacity to invest. I think the longer we wait, the


harder the consequences can be also that is really why we want that


article 50 to be triggered. The noises from the Treasury suggest


early next year, some critics, Herman Van Rompuy had said not until


the German election is out of the way. Ideal scenario? Tomorrow,


Christmas, New Year's Eve? I feel you are asking me to answer a


question but I don't exacting know what the question is because it is


what is the deal in the negotiations. When will be triggered


be pulled? That is not for me to answer. What would suit York Leon


Taylor best? -- your Klingon tell -- clientele. What I observe that the


British government wants and needs time and this can be understood. But


it is not good to wait for too long. But my real concern, I feel the real


political question has not been addressed between freedom of


movement of people, and access to the single market. This real


question has not been addressed. As long as the British government will


not have the question, we will not be in a position to negotiate. Any


thanks. -- many thanks. Now a story we have covered


a lot on this programme. Select committee reports


on the legality of UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia are looking a lot


like buses tonight. You wait ages for one then


two come along at once. Confusingly, the first -


a joint effort by the Business and International Development Committees


- deemed it "inevitable that any violations of international


humanitarian and human rights law by the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen


have involved arms Some expected this to trigger


a demand for all such But the Foreign Affairs Select


Committee today published a rival report insisting that the legality


of arms sales to Saudi should be The chair of that committee,


Crispin Blunt, has been speaking to Newsnight's foreign


correspondent, Gabriel Gatehouse, with some frankly remarkable results


but before we hear about them, I thought it would be helpful


to pick Gabriel's brains about how this strange select committee


stalemate came to pass. Some background on this, the Saudi


led coalition's action over Yemen started last March after who the


rebels, took over half the country will stop the action is backed by


the UN Security Council so it is legal under international law. Both


sides have been accused of committing your -- war crimes with


the UN can add with figures that 60% of civilian casualties have been


caused by the air strikes by the Saudi led coalition. This programme


and others have reported instances of attacks on civilian


infrastructure, factories and schools and the like. Where Britain


comes into this is that we note that Britain itself a lot of weapons to


Saudi Arabia, a 30 fold increase in our sales of weapons in the first


year of that war compared to the same period in the previous year.


Earlier this year, four select committees came together to look at


the question of if our arms sales to Saudi Arabia are still legal. This


was made up of MPs from Ball committees, foreign affairs,


defence, international development and business -- four committees.


Last week we got a leaked draft report with some strong language


which said there was credible evidence of violations of human


rights and it called for a suspension of sales. Within got the


leaked tabled amendments, many written by Crispin Blunt, which


appeared to get rid a lot of that language, crucially the call for the


suspension of arms sales. There was to and disagreement amongst MPs and


Crispin Blunt led a war cabinet of some saying that the committee could


not come to an agreement. What happened was an most unprecedented


situation to of these two rival reports, the one from business and


international development calling for a suspension. Both of them


calling for an international investigation but crucially, Crispin


Blunt's did not call for that suspension. We have had a lot of


talk about process but I wanted to talk about substance so I went to


seek Crispin Blunt in his constituency this afternoon and here


is some of our conversation. What's at stake here are two things


- the rule of law and what's And under the rule of law,


there has been an illegal armed It's very important for people


to understand the context... The Saudi intervention is backed


by the United Nations so therefore But they are also obliged to abide


by international law. They are obliged by international


humanitarian law. Your colleagues say there has been


very credible evidence of violations The issue is about whether there has


been an actual breach of international humanitarian law


that would then bring a responsibility on the British


government to act I don't believe this part of the law


has been tested in this way before. Obviously the proper place for that


to happen is the courts and that's what the Foreign Affairs


Committee are saying. Your colleagues in the other


committee say that, while we wait for the courts to decide that,


we should suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia in case arms


that we sell them are being used That has completely


disappeared from your report. It has because the view


of my committee is that it would be an act close to insanity on every


ground to do a blanket suspension of British arms


exports to Saudi Arabia. The kind of bombs we know,


the kind of bombs sold by Britain to Saudi Arabia which we


know have been dropped And the implications of that, some


of those are laser-guided bombs, giving the Saudis the capability


through a proper targeting process to actually hit


what they are intending to hit. And if we stopped supplying those


weapons, they then may have to turn to less guided weapons,


the kinds the Russians have been using in Syria for example


where the accusation... If we are contravening our own laws


by selling weapons to Saudi Arabia that are being used in contravention


of international humanitarian law, and the test is very low,


if there is a clear risk that these weapons might,


might be used in contravention of international humanitarian law,


then we must stop doing it. Then we are going to have to see how


the judges interpret that. The practical consequences


of that are actually It would mean our relationship


with the Saudis and the influence we have over them about the joint


interests we have is that they are rigorous in making sure


there are no breaches That they put their Armed Forces


under the same kind We clearly don't have that influence


because look at all these The context this has got to be in,


and this is exactly why the Foreign Affairs Committee has


probably come to a different conclusion to the others,


is that this is actually about our wider relationship


with Saudi Arabia as well as the more narrow relationship


about the Saudis moving to our standards in terms


of conducting a military campaign. But our relationship


with Saudi Arabia is irrelevant Then surely we have


to change the law? Do you think we should


change the law? That is in the Foreign Affairs


Committee report. If it turned out that the courts


decided we were in breach of our law, we would have to,


we should then look So we should soften our stance


on the criteria under I think some people may look


at all of this evidence that has accumulated over 18 months


of what has been going on in Yemen and conclude that either


you are naive, gullible, They might think that


you were naive And the people who come


to the other conclusion. Because there is a war


going on in the Yemen. This is about international legal


authority trying to suppress And the illegal armed rebellion has


to be addressed otherwise it is the law of the jungle


and the people in the Yemen are then victims of whichever


militia, armed group, can impose their will


on those people. Time now for our weekly glance


across the Atlantic and another valiant attempt to identify the most


crucial developments of the last week in America's escalating


presidential election. According to the polls,


the battle between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is getting closer


by the day while both candidates apparently remain


committed to the tactics of attacking their opponent's


weaknesses in preference, perhaps, Steve Hilton, CEO of Crowdpac,


a political crowd-funding and data site, and David Cameron's former


adviser now based in America, joins us from San Francisco,


and the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Mary Jordan,


who's covering the contest for the Washington Post,


is in Washington DC. Thank you both for joining us.


Steve, highlights, low lights, somewhere in the middle, what have


you chosen for us tonight? There is a lot to talk about but the one I


particularly wanted to start with was something Hillary Clinton said


last Friday, the date she was diagnosed with pneumonia, I'm not


sure if that had anything to do with it. She had allegedly said this in


private fundraisers all summer but in public at a glitzy fundraiser in


New York with the entertainment provided by none other than Barbara


Streisand, she told us exactly what she thinks not just of Trump butt of


his supporters and I think we have that clip.


You can put half of Trump's supporters into what


I call the basket of deplorables.


Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic,


The basket of deplorable is. Is it a good or bad move? I think it is


honestly a really big mistake. Aside trying to say that this is good for


her campaign because it put into the conversation some of the more


off-putting element of Donald Trump's rhetoric but in truth what


it does is surely true voice of what has become a very arrogant ruling


elite and it's not just the Democrats. You hear this talk from


the Republican establishment who also hate Trump almost as much as


Clinton does. They are showing that this election is dividing up in more


interesting ways than we have seen up till now where you have working


people who feel that whoever they voted for the last few decades,


nothing has got better in their lives. And the elite has been in


charge. We have seen as borne out by the data this week, new income


figures published show that 50% of all Americans earn less today than


in 1999 and in fact the bottom 10% earn less today than in the 1980s


and I think that is really driving this enormous sense of anger and


resentment at the ruling elite which she then insulted. And yet she does


speak some truth, Donald Trump suddenly leaves himself open to


accusations of xenophobia and his core support Jim to the rafters and


he has attracted support from the likes of former grand Wizard of the


KKK -- support him. What she is speaking the truth or making a


mistake or something subtler than that?


Most definitely it was a huge mistake. Trump made an ad out of


that. People had it on their T-shirt "the deplorables" this is clearly a


huge mistake. She broke the rule in politics. It's OK. In fact you're


supposed to condemn racism and homophobia, but you don't condemn


the voters that you need in order to win. In this case half of them. We


are short of time tonight. I apologise. Mary, tell us what it is


you have chosen to focus on from this week's electioneering? It's


been a stealar week for Donald Trump. As you said he is pulling in


the polls. Why don't we go to the clip today where he was capitalising


on the fact that Hillary Clinton has been out with pneumonia. Where he


used a TV doctor to tell all of the country that he is superbly fit. So


theatrical and, in some ways, ridiculous.


If your health is as strong as it seems,


Well, I have really no problem in doing it.


One is the report and the other is from Lenox Hill Hospital.


He's turning it into a game show, Mary Jordan. Is he winning it? Well,


he may be winning it. He is a reality TV star, right? He shows the


country over and over again how masterful he is at using TV. He went


on TV and got an hour of it today to tell the country that his


testosterone, get this, is really high. He has so much stamina. He can


hit a golf ball better now at the age age of 70 than when he was 30.


He got a huge amount of air time out of this. I think he's a winner. It


doesn't matter for a lot of voters that this doctor, Dr Oz has been


condemned by people in the Congress, British medical journals, he's


baseless. He is the guy for instance you should take coffee bean pills to


lose weight. It doesn't matter. He got a lot of air time. I think it


would help him. He is fully qualified. Is it another chapter in


post-truth politics. I think it is. It's beyond parody. To be serious


for a second the real health story was Hillary Clinton's actually


health episode, as it has been described. It will have an effect on


perceptions among the undecided voters about whether they want to


take a risk on her versus Donald Trump who does, through this


projects an awe are of strength whatever you think of him. Many


thanks indeed for your time tonight. Speaking of winners.


Just before we came on air tonight, the winner of this year's


prestigious Mercury Music Prize was announced.


It wasn't, as some predicted, the late, great David Bowie,


He won the ?25,000 prize for his album Konnichiwa.


Stephen Smith sent us this dispatch from the ceremony a little earlier.


It came down to a contest between two black stars. We as a jury


decided that if David Bowie was looking down on the Hammersmith


Apollo tonight... APPLAUSE And, let's face, maybe he


is. We've seen traces of his influence in many of the bands


you've seen perform here tonight. If he was looking down at the


Hammersmith Apollo tonight, he would want the 2016 Mercury Prize to go to




# That's not me # That's not me...


# Yeah, I used to wear Gucci # That's not me


# True I used to look like you... # Hello, Skepta. Newsnight, home of


grime. How do you feel? We are not supposed to ask that question. How


do you feel? Um... You looked overwhelmed in there? Yeah. I don't


know. Have you ever dreamed of something happening all your life


and it happened. It doesn't happen, but for you it did? Umm. It's like.


I don't know... It's really reassuring to me to follow my mind


and follow what I think. That got me to this point. It's reassuring. I'm


happy for my team. So many people behind this guy that helped,


Konnichiwa the album. We get to celebrate tonight. Did you hear what


Jarvis said about David Bowie. What did you make of his remarks there?


Definitely. I understand, as an artist when you are trying to work


and putting something out. Getting to the point... Me, personally, I


would have been happy to release an album just before I passed. I hope


he feels fulfilled and I hope he's happy. Every artist should just


strive to be putting out the best work they can because anything can


happen. You can go any time, which is the reason I said rest in peace


to David Bowie. Rest in peace to Amy Winehouse. I feel I'm representing


London in the same way. Yeah, I hope that, yeah, I hope that he's happy


man. What about the status of grime though? It's not always had a great


press, some people perhaps misunderstand it. So what does this


win do for the June are, do you think? We were young. We were young.


Like, I think that people... Like, older people need to stop separating


themselves from young mind or thinking one day they weren't crazy


as well. It's all about understanding. We were young. People


didn't want to understand us. We were expressing ourselves. They


should have embraced it. It should have happened a long time ago. They


didn't. It took me to grow older, realise my value and know my worth


and I can carry myself the way I need to and spread therd word of the


London streets in a nice manner. What about your mum busting some


moves up there? Yeah, yeah! APPLAUS


Shouts out to my mum. I love you. You are the reason for this. It


sounds a cliche. I wouldn't be here without you. Thank you very much mum


you can dance as much as you like. A little word for Newsnight.


Newsnight. What channel. BBC Two? Sure, no problem. Tell us about this


evening and those dance moves. Oh, my gadness. What can I tell you Does


he get it all from you? Yes. Yes. He gets his creativity from dad. He got


the dance move, the confidence, the get-up-and-go from me. Did you ever


worry about him being in this scene? Did you hope he would have some


other kind of job or have you always been behind him? Not really. When we


raise them we want them to do what they want to do and we supervise. We


didn't train them, we raised them. That's about it for tonight.


you with a taste of this year's Mercury Prize winner.


You've heard him speak, but here he is, in all his Grimy


glory, performing at tonight's ceremony.


# They want to know how I did it with no label no A-list


# I'm like ring, ring, ring and it's shutdown


# Went to the show, sitting in the front row.


# In the black tracksuit and it's shutdown.


# Boy better know when it's shutdown...#


The heatwave is ending with a bang with severe disruption to the


south-east including the London area tomorrow morning due to severe


thunderstorms. Watch this space. It could be nasty. Wet to other eastern


areas through the day with


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with James O'Brien. The Hinkley nuclear deal has been signed, and the Mercury music prize winner has been announced. Plus a look at the row over selling arms to Saudi Arabia, and a panel on the US election.

Download Subtitles