:00:09. > :00:12.The leaked email scandals that rocked Clinton's
:00:13. > :00:16.Now the US government blames Russia for cyber hacking.
:00:17. > :00:19.Was Moscow trying to influence the outcome
:00:20. > :00:26.Sterling slumps to its lowest in 30 years.
:00:27. > :00:29.Is our national currency any more than a symbol of pride?
:00:30. > :00:34.Or is this telling us something about Brexit we need to know?
:00:35. > :00:38.All becomes clear in the Ukip saga as Mike Hookem explains the two men
:00:39. > :00:40.were just "wrestling like a pair of tarts".
:00:41. > :00:49.If you get offered out in Hull and you don't go,
:00:50. > :00:52.you're a bit of a wimp, so I'm going out with him.
:00:53. > :00:54.I'm 63, I should have made a different decision.
:00:55. > :00:56.I shouldn't have made decision that decision.
:00:57. > :01:05.It was silly, but he offered me out so I was going.
:01:06. > :01:08.Meet the liberal American writer who says the Democrats have
:01:09. > :01:19.Is this why Hillary Clinton is finding the race so hard?
:01:20. > :01:23.Late this evening the Obama administration came forward
:01:24. > :01:26.to formally blame Russia for a series of cyber attacks
:01:27. > :01:27.that it believes were intended to influence
:01:28. > :01:40.The US Homeland Security Department has said it is confident the Russian
:01:41. > :01:42.government directed the recent compromise of emails from US
:01:43. > :01:43.institutions and persons - including the
:01:44. > :01:45.Democratic National Committee - which was hacked
:01:46. > :01:47.just before Hillary Clinton's Convention back in July.
:01:48. > :01:50.And how do they know for sure it is Russia?
:01:51. > :01:53.Our technology correspondent David Grossman is with me now
:01:54. > :02:02.David, what do you make of this coming now?
:02:03. > :02:12.Until now, Americans had blamed the Russians but they had done so off
:02:13. > :02:18.the record but tonight they have gone on the record with that
:02:19. > :02:24.accusation. Let me just read you a little. The US intelligence
:02:25. > :02:31.community is confident that Russia directed these e-mails. It goes on
:02:32. > :02:36.these are intended to interfere with the election process. It goes on, we
:02:37. > :02:41.believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, only
:02:42. > :02:47.Russia's senior most officials could have authorised these activities.
:02:48. > :02:52.What do they mean by influence the election? In what way? This
:02:53. > :02:59.disclosure, 20,000 e-mails and 8000 attachments from the Democratic
:03:00. > :03:01.National Convention's computers were intended to destabilise the DNC
:03:02. > :03:09.convention where they'd nominated Hillary Clinton. It shows that DNC
:03:10. > :03:14.organisation was biased against Bernie Sanders and had colluded with
:03:15. > :03:17.Hillary Clinton. It was timed exquisitely to embarrass Hillary
:03:18. > :03:19.Clinton and her team and it nearly threw it all off the rails. Thank
:03:20. > :03:22.you. Joining me now is Thomas Rid,
:03:23. > :03:25.Professor in War Studies and one of the first to find
:03:26. > :03:27.the Russian Fingerprints And Kurt Volker, former US permanent
:03:28. > :03:38.Representatvie to Nato. Many thanks, gentlemen, for joining
:03:39. > :03:44.us. Kurt, why do you think this has come out now? I think that is
:03:45. > :03:47.exactly the right question. No one had any real doubt that this was the
:03:48. > :03:51.Russian government behind it, and I think as we get closer to the
:03:52. > :03:56.election itself, I think the administration wants to come out to
:03:57. > :04:01.show that Russia is playing a direct role. In some ways that is going to
:04:02. > :04:05.call into question Donald Trump's embrace of Russia during the course
:04:06. > :04:09.of the election campaign, and I also think whereas in the past the
:04:10. > :04:14.Administration may have held back from public charges against Russia,
:04:15. > :04:20.after Russia's assault on Aleppo, I think any motivation to hold back on
:04:21. > :04:22.criticising Russia has gone away. Cilic trump supporters suspected
:04:23. > :04:28.this was timed to help Hillary Clinton right now, they would not be
:04:29. > :04:31.wrong? It is one theory and I think the first thing you have to say is
:04:32. > :04:36.what difference does it make, because it is true, and the
:04:37. > :04:40.administration is putting out what is a true story and they have
:04:41. > :04:43.evidence behind it. But it gets to the issue of timing and I think
:04:44. > :04:50.there may be something with the politics of timing. You were one of
:04:51. > :04:55.the first, Thomas to compare the fingerprints and put the blame on
:04:56. > :05:02.Russia. Talk us through that? Russian intelligence agency have not
:05:03. > :05:05.just breached the DNC but several organisations and individuals. They
:05:06. > :05:10.claim that through a leaked account and what they have done is they
:05:11. > :05:13.hacked democratic organisations which happens all the time,
:05:14. > :05:18.basically, but they have done something fresh this time, something
:05:19. > :05:22.new. They also gave this information to the public in order to influence
:05:23. > :05:27.the election. This was a first. They have done this very aggressively
:05:28. > :05:32.again and again, almost on a weekly basis. We have seen 30 separate
:05:33. > :05:36.leaks since. And when we hear it is from the top echelons of the Russian
:05:37. > :05:42.government, our people deliberately not saying Putin that implying Putin
:05:43. > :05:49.or is there a different strand there? When the leak started on the
:05:50. > :05:54.15th of June, initially it looked like a bottom-up operation, some
:05:55. > :05:57.rogue person perhaps in Russia's military agency taking the
:05:58. > :06:05.initiative. But very quickly looting was confronted and Lavrov was
:06:06. > :06:10.confronted by American counterparts and it became clear that it must
:06:11. > :06:17.have been authorised so it has been authorised by Putin. And Kurt, if I
:06:18. > :06:20.take you back to that convention in July, there was that odd
:06:21. > :06:25.intervention from Donald Trump where he appeared to be calling on Russia
:06:26. > :06:29.to hack Clinton's e-mails, he said afterwards it was a joke and it had
:06:30. > :06:34.been taken out of context, but how does that now playing to this
:06:35. > :06:39.narrative? None of this came from Trump? No, of course not. I think
:06:40. > :06:44.truly Donald Trump was making light of it and making the assumption that
:06:45. > :06:47.Russia had already stolen these e-mails and they could release them
:06:48. > :06:51.but he was making light of it. I think it plays in a more serious way
:06:52. > :07:00.in that Trump has shown a more positive disposition toward Putin
:07:01. > :07:06.and Russia, has dismissed -- diminished Russia invading Ukraine,
:07:07. > :07:11.so pointing out Russia is doing these things directly to try and
:07:12. > :07:14.influence the US election is in a way demonstrating that perspective
:07:15. > :07:19.that Trump has embraced on Russia. It is really not in sync with the
:07:20. > :07:23.Russia we are dealing with. Thomas, I know you want to come in on this.
:07:24. > :07:28.It is really important to understand that they are sending a message to
:07:29. > :07:34.the American public as much as two Russia, to journalists in the United
:07:35. > :07:38.States and Europe as well. They are saying to them, you cannot just use
:07:39. > :07:42.these leaks and treat them as facts, because we have seen these
:07:43. > :07:46.intelligence agencies, Russian, falsifying and modifying information
:07:47. > :07:49.in these leaks. Previously, until today, the door was wide open for
:07:50. > :07:53.the Russian operatives to influence the election and today it has become
:07:54. > :07:58.a lot more difficult because journalists cannot just report these
:07:59. > :08:03.as if they were factual. But as Kurt was saying, this also hints at a
:08:04. > :08:07.real breaking down of relations over Syria. The sense that any entente
:08:08. > :08:12.between the US and Russia are working together to try and solve
:08:13. > :08:18.Syria has now gone, is that right? Absolutely. You had John Kerry
:08:19. > :08:21.musing about Russia being investigated for war crimes now. It
:08:22. > :08:26.is the kind of language we have not heard before from the Obama
:08:27. > :08:29.administration. I think they have become completely despairing and
:08:30. > :08:34.frustrated and upset over the deliberate role that Russia is
:08:35. > :08:38.playing in levelling Aleppo and killing thousands upon thousands of
:08:39. > :08:42.people. I don't see that this will recover in the course of this
:08:43. > :08:46.Administration. It will be up to the next president to try and build
:08:47. > :08:49.something sustainable with Russia. We have not had a direct comment
:08:50. > :08:55.from Russia on this but what is your sense of how they will read this or
:08:56. > :08:58.respond to that? They have been denying this operation in the past.
:08:59. > :09:05.It is a consistent pattern that they say one thing and do another thing.
:09:06. > :09:09.The same applies to operations in Aleppo and Crimea in Ukraine. They
:09:10. > :09:15.will not say they have been caught. You looked at two burglarised
:09:16. > :09:21.buildings which had the same fingerprints. If that irrefutable
:09:22. > :09:25.now? The evidence is strong so let's make this very concrete. We know the
:09:26. > :09:32.same entity that breached the DNC has also breached the German
:09:33. > :09:34.parliament, in order to find dirt on German politicians, interesting
:09:35. > :09:38.information to leak and that happened last year. We have the
:09:39. > :09:43.malware samples, the fingerprint, the tool they left behind and we can
:09:44. > :09:49.link those. They are very strong indicators to each other. This is
:09:50. > :09:52.literally as good as a fingerprint in a burglary. Thank you.
:09:53. > :09:55.6% in two minutes, the crash of the pound last night
:09:56. > :10:04.Those who long favoured Brexit will tell you a weak pound
:10:05. > :10:08.Those who feared Brexit will tell you this has been long time coming -
:10:09. > :10:12.One thing is clear - the flash crash suggests politics
:10:13. > :10:14.and political words play a crucial part in the fluctuations
:10:15. > :10:17.Or, as HSBCs head of Foreign Exchange quipped today,
:10:18. > :10:19."the pound is now the de facto opposition".
:10:20. > :10:22.So tonight we ask how we feel about what may be
:10:23. > :10:25.Is strong currency anything more than a symbol
:10:26. > :10:29.Adam Parsons takes us through the day's vertiginous drop.
:10:30. > :10:35.Brokers and jobbers crowded together to try and sort out what the drop
:10:36. > :10:41.1967 and there's panic on the streets of London.
:10:42. > :10:45.The pound had been devalued, a change so cataclysmic
:10:46. > :10:48.that the stock market had to be closed, to let the dust
:10:49. > :10:55.Half a century later and the value of sterling is,
:10:56. > :10:59.It's been falling steadily ever since the Brexit referendum,
:11:00. > :11:06.Because while monetary policy, with superlow interest rates...
:11:07. > :11:08.Global markets took this as the Prime Minister criticising
:11:09. > :11:15.And that dragged the value of the pound down to levels it
:11:16. > :11:19.Sterling broke through some important levels we hadn't seen
:11:20. > :11:21.since 1985 and it still underlines the fact that international
:11:22. > :11:25.investors seemingly over the course of the last four or five days have
:11:26. > :11:31.Primarily moving in one direction which has been to sell sterling.
:11:32. > :11:35.In the early hours of this morning came something new,
:11:36. > :11:37.a sudden dramatic collapse in the value of the pound,
:11:38. > :11:42.a so-called flash crash, apparently caused by a computer
:11:43. > :11:46.algorithm that read an article on the internet of the computer
:11:47. > :11:49.reading it, not a person, and instantly decided to sell a vast
:11:50. > :11:57.On the trading floor, this is what a flash crash looks
:11:58. > :12:05.This graph shows us the value of the pound against the dollar.
:12:06. > :12:08.You can see, at midnight, last night, it was worth $1.26 and a bit.
:12:09. > :12:11.And then, suddenly, this vertical line shows us the dramatic fall
:12:12. > :12:15.Four minutes later, worth just $1.18.
:12:16. > :12:17.It's lost 6.5% of its value in just a few moments.
:12:18. > :12:20.Well, there is a rebound, but not a full recovery.
:12:21. > :12:25.What this shows us is a picture of sterling under attack.
:12:26. > :12:30.Here's what's happened since the referendum.
:12:31. > :12:33.The value of the pound has dropped sharply but at the same time,
:12:34. > :12:39.Well, because most of the money earned by the FTSE's big companies
:12:40. > :12:42.So, profits are worth a lot more as the value
:12:43. > :12:47.So, could we be heading towards a time where the pound
:12:48. > :12:51.Well, I den think we've seen the trough in sterling, yet,
:12:52. > :12:55.so we still have some more pain to come, which of course means UK
:12:56. > :12:59.I wouldn't suspect that we would get those parity thresholds
:13:00. > :13:03.being reached but further depreciation against the US dollar,
:13:04. > :13:07.I wouldn't be surprised if we trade down to 118 or even as low as 115.
:13:08. > :13:11.And I think in the shorter term, if we are going to see some
:13:12. > :13:17.of the selling pressure dissipate then we probably need to see some
:13:18. > :13:20.of the politicians rolling back on some of this hard Brexit talk
:13:21. > :13:22.which is really destabilising markets.
:13:23. > :13:24.Over in the States, the Chancellor was in his familiar sanguine mood.
:13:25. > :13:27.But markets will go up and down, markets respond to noises off
:13:28. > :13:31.and as I said earlier this week, we are going to go through a period
:13:32. > :13:33.of volatility now, there will be lots of commentary
:13:34. > :13:37.going on and we can expect to see markets being more turbulent.
:13:38. > :13:42.But hold on, is a weak pound really so bad?
:13:43. > :13:44.Well, one leading economist has told Newsnight
:13:45. > :13:49.The effect of a fall in the pound will make
:13:50. > :13:52.imports more expensive, so, people in the UK are more likely
:13:53. > :14:02.People overseas are likely to find our goods cheaper
:14:03. > :14:06.and more attractive, so they are more likely
:14:07. > :14:13.Tonight's jackpot is an estimated ?139 million.
:14:14. > :14:20.And one final benefit of a weak pound, the Euro millions lottery
:14:21. > :14:23.is paid out in euros, win the jackpot and it will be worth
:14:24. > :14:27.?7 million more than this time last week.
:14:28. > :14:37.Bonne chance, as they say in the Eurozone.
:14:38. > :14:39.That's more than enough of a silver lining.
:14:40. > :14:42.Joining us now Alistair Heath, from the Telegraph, Vicky Pryce,
:14:43. > :14:43.Economist, and Rupert Harrison former Treasurer advisor
:14:44. > :14:48.and chief of staff to the Chancellor, from Washington.
:14:49. > :14:58.Is it all so bad when you see the pound coming down this quickly or do
:14:59. > :15:02.you look at the upside? For an open economy like the UK, the currency
:15:03. > :15:07.acts like a shock absorber, so when you get hit by a shock, the currency
:15:08. > :15:15.goes down and there is a silver lining. The export products might
:15:16. > :15:24.benefit by selling more. There is still the original shock. People
:15:25. > :15:30.around the world are waking up to the risks that Brexit poses to the
:15:31. > :15:34.economy. Fewer people will invest in the UK, it is expected. That is not
:15:35. > :15:38.a good thing. The fall in the pound can have a silver lining but the
:15:39. > :15:42.shock that caused it is something we should be concerned about. In a
:15:43. > :15:47.slightly old-fashioned way, do we get too hung up on the pound as if
:15:48. > :15:51.it is somehow reflecting our national pride or a sense of
:15:52. > :15:55.virility in a funny way? I agree, we shouldn't look at it that way at
:15:56. > :15:58.all. People do but they shouldn't. There is a certain pride about
:15:59. > :16:02.having a strong currency and in many ways it can be good because it means
:16:03. > :16:07.you are richer, you can buy many more things from abroad than
:16:08. > :16:10.otherwise would be the case. Having a weaker currency makes you pour
:16:11. > :16:14.almost immediately. The concern I have is that the pound was going
:16:15. > :16:19.down because there are issues about whether we know where we are going
:16:20. > :16:22.from here on in -- makes you poorer almost immediately. After a long
:16:23. > :16:25.period of thinking maybe we would never leave the EU, it is going to
:16:26. > :16:32.take some time before we trigger article 50. In order to start the
:16:33. > :16:36.process of leaving. We now have a timetable. The words we had in the
:16:37. > :16:43.Conservative Party conference were quite... Direct. Direct in terms of
:16:44. > :16:47.hard Brexit minded, if you like. It is funny, during the summer a lot of
:16:48. > :16:52.people said, you see, it's fine, Brexit will be fine, we taking it in
:16:53. > :16:54.our stride, we are bigger than that and almost this delayed reaction
:16:55. > :17:01.that nothing happened for three months until she triggered the
:17:02. > :17:05.starting gun. Now we are seeing what is going to be a year of
:17:06. > :17:08.uncertainty. Clearly, there will be a lot of uncertainty but the
:17:09. > :17:13.interesting thing is this, before Brexit, before anyone thought the UK
:17:14. > :17:17.would leave the EU, the IMF was saying the pound was 12% - 18%
:17:18. > :17:22.overvalued. They thought the pound needed to fall because the UK, for
:17:23. > :17:26.many years, has suffered from quite a major weakness, which is that we
:17:27. > :17:33.consume too much compared to how much we produce. In other words, we
:17:34. > :17:36.have been living beyond our means for years. Our deficit last year was
:17:37. > :17:40.the highest of any G-7 country. You are delighted? I am not delighted
:17:41. > :17:44.but it is a sensible readjustment. I do not like the fact that the
:17:45. > :17:49.markets are so febrile. I am worried about things like the flash crash
:17:50. > :17:53.and cost. But we are already poorer than we thought we were, for many
:17:54. > :17:57.years. This is effectively the reality sinking in. I don't think it
:17:58. > :18:01.is to do with Brexit, it is the catalyst but not the cause. Is that
:18:02. > :18:05.right, Rupert, all that is worrying the people is the speed of the
:18:06. > :18:08.dissent? That if it was a slow descent but roughly to the same
:18:09. > :18:13.place we would not be worrying at all, we would see it as an upside? I
:18:14. > :18:18.do not think it is that simple for two reasons. There is a very real
:18:19. > :18:21.consequence for a fall in the pan for people watching. The things that
:18:22. > :18:25.you buy that manufactures overseas will cost more. The new iPhone has
:18:26. > :18:30.exactly the same dollar price as the old iPhone but it will cost ?50 more
:18:31. > :18:36.in the UK because of a weaker pound. That will be reflected across all
:18:37. > :18:39.sorts of items including food and fuel for their car. Secondly, the
:18:40. > :18:43.thing that we should perhaps be more worried about than the fall in the
:18:44. > :18:47.pound itself is what it means for international perceptions of the UK.
:18:48. > :18:51.I'm in Washington for the IMF meetings and I am finding myself
:18:52. > :18:55.this week doing a lot of explaining. Lots of people are saying what on
:18:56. > :18:59.earth is going on in the UK? They are hearing messages about
:19:00. > :19:02.immigration. There was quite a lot of perhaps naivete around the world
:19:03. > :19:08.that the UK was heading for a soft Brexit, that we would stay in the
:19:09. > :19:10.single market. People are increasingly understand that is
:19:11. > :19:14.probably not going to be the case. This wonderful line from the HSBC
:19:15. > :19:17.analyst who said the pound is now the de facto opposition, it will be
:19:18. > :19:22.the pound that tells this government when it is going too far. Not
:19:23. > :19:27.really, because the pound should have been lowered in the first
:19:28. > :19:30.place. If it gets to parity? If it gets to parity, the pound would be
:19:31. > :19:35.undervalued, yes. You would be horrified at that point? I would be
:19:36. > :19:40.very surprised. The pound is more or less fairly valued now but if it
:19:41. > :19:43.falls further it would be undervalued. There is a perception
:19:44. > :19:46.problem and the government needs to be more explicit as to what it once,
:19:47. > :19:50.nobody understands what the Theresa May government's position is on
:19:51. > :19:54.Brexit, stay in the single market, the customs union? Bizarre rhetoric
:19:55. > :19:59.on immigration, quite worrying also. I am pro-Brexit. It will work out in
:20:00. > :20:03.the end. In the old days, they used to be flights of capital and we used
:20:04. > :20:08.to go to the pound when times were uncertain, why isn't that the case?
:20:09. > :20:12.What is clear is that we haven't got a clue where we will be going. That
:20:13. > :20:19.is a problem. You are right, is something that we all agree on. Life
:20:20. > :20:22.after Brexit is simply too uncertain right now but it also suggests,
:20:23. > :20:26.there are quite a lot of disagreement as to what it means
:20:27. > :20:29.within the government, that there is no confidence in our leaders, if you
:20:30. > :20:32.like, that they know where they are taking us in terms of economic
:20:33. > :20:35.policy. In those times of uncertainty, you sell the pound, you
:20:36. > :20:39.will not invest in this place. That is exactly what is going on.
:20:40. > :20:44.Unfortunately, what it also does, it increases cost to businesses.
:20:45. > :20:49.Perhaps he is right, that the pound was overvalued, but we tend to
:20:50. > :20:53.import an awful lot of things into our manufacturing process. Import
:20:54. > :20:57.costs are rising substantially. Current account right now, it is
:20:58. > :21:01.widening. The data from August suggests it is getting worse instead
:21:02. > :21:04.of getting better. Actually, we are not solving anything through this
:21:05. > :21:08.devaluation. Interesting, Rupert, the cost of the iPhone, you
:21:09. > :21:12.mentioned, and we heard in the film, consumers will be buying more
:21:13. > :21:16.domestically, do you think that is going to happen, could that happen?
:21:17. > :21:21.That we stop buying from overseas? It will happen. We saw this a bit
:21:22. > :21:25.after 2008, 2009 when we had a big devaluation of the pound in response
:21:26. > :21:28.to lower growth expectations. Concern about the UK banking sector.
:21:29. > :21:36.Over the years that followed that, we saw benefit, but is disappointed.
:21:37. > :21:39.Expectations were disappointed because the manufacturing response
:21:40. > :21:42.wasn't as big as people hope. That speaks to the fact that global
:21:43. > :21:47.economy is quite different from what it used to be. In the UK, we don't
:21:48. > :21:50.sell things that, you know, when it only depends on price. We sell
:21:51. > :21:52.products where it depends on quality, long-term relationships
:21:53. > :21:57.with your customers. Just devaluing your currency by itself is not
:21:58. > :22:02.enough, necessarily. Let me... We might just after the financial
:22:03. > :22:06.crisis. The bigger question, what to put this briefly to you all, when
:22:07. > :22:10.the world is looking at us with a weak pound, it is impossible not to
:22:11. > :22:14.see yourself for all the benefits and you can talk about it whatever
:22:15. > :22:18.you want, it feels as if we are in a position of weakness, isolation or
:22:19. > :22:22.weakness. We are not in a position of isolation, that is wrong.
:22:23. > :22:25.Weakness? We're not in a position of weakness. Our economy has problems
:22:26. > :22:29.and it needs to be resolved but Brexit does not create that
:22:30. > :22:33.weakness. The Europeans have made very clear that they will go for
:22:34. > :22:36.hard Brexit themselves in a sense not really giving anything to us.
:22:37. > :22:40.Which means we have actually in a strange way isolated ourselves and
:22:41. > :22:44.made more difficult to have dealings with Europe. The world's trade
:22:45. > :22:48.environment is slowing down. Nobody knows where this will actually end.
:22:49. > :22:51.There is a negotiation going on. We have nowhere else to sell to the
:22:52. > :22:56.goods trade has declined in the first half of the year. We are in a
:22:57. > :22:57.weak position right now in terms of a negotiating stance. Thank you for
:22:58. > :23:00.coming. In case you were confused
:23:01. > :23:02.by what happened in the European parliament yesterday,
:23:03. > :23:04.today it all got much weirder. Ukip's Mike Hookem emerged to deny
:23:05. > :23:06.punching Steven Woolfe, the Ukip frontrunner
:23:07. > :23:08.who ended up in hospital, and clarified that instead they had
:23:09. > :23:12.wrestled like "a pair of tarts". After an office conflab on what that
:23:13. > :23:15.actually looks like, So we sent Secunder Kermani
:23:16. > :23:19.to find Mr Hookem and see Ukip has had its fair share
:23:20. > :23:26.of embarrassment over the years. Mike Hookem MEP, is at the centre
:23:27. > :23:32.of one of its largest. Previous favourite for party leader,
:23:33. > :23:33.Steven Woolfe, is still in hospital in Strasbourg,
:23:34. > :23:35.following an altercation with Mike Hookem yesterday
:23:36. > :23:37.in the European Parliament. Hookem's back in Britain, now,
:23:38. > :23:46.despite rumours on social media. ..Because there was all kinds
:23:47. > :23:50.of stuff going around yesterday, You were jumping in the back
:23:51. > :24:02.of lorries, according to Twitter. Yeah, I was on a rubber dinghy
:24:03. > :24:05.in the middle of the I was being pursued
:24:06. > :24:09.across France by the gendarmes. He says it all began
:24:10. > :24:11.during a discussion between Woolfe and other MEPs over Woolfe's
:24:12. > :24:13.admission he recently considered He took umbrage and stood up
:24:14. > :24:25.and said, "Well, if that's going to be the tone
:24:26. > :24:27.of this meeting, maybe And his words were mano
:24:28. > :24:30.el mano. So, he;s now heading out the room,
:24:31. > :24:42.taking his jacket off. So, I went into the ante-room
:24:43. > :24:44.with him. And what's going through your mind
:24:45. > :24:50.when he said mano a mano? Well, I'm from Hull,
:24:51. > :24:52.if you get offered out in Hull and you don't go,
:24:53. > :24:57.you're bit of a wimp. I shouldn't have made
:24:58. > :25:05.that decision. But he offered me
:25:06. > :25:08.out, so I was going. He come at me and it was
:25:09. > :25:20.just a bit of a tussle. The door opened, I stepped back
:25:21. > :25:24.and he fell back into the room onto a colleague that was stood
:25:25. > :25:26.in the room. He didn't hit his head, I'm sorry,
:25:27. > :25:32.he never hit his head on anything. He is being quoted as saying
:25:33. > :25:35.you threw a punch. If I had a tussle with him,
:25:36. > :25:46.would that cause a seizure? So when he said mano a mano,
:25:47. > :25:57.was that uncharacteristic for him? And probably won't be
:25:58. > :26:08.saying it to me again. When Woolfe's released
:26:09. > :26:10.from hospital, he and Hookem have The damage done to Ukip
:26:11. > :26:14.and its reputation at a crucial time for the party could take
:26:15. > :26:19.much longer to repair. For American commentators
:26:20. > :26:21.on the left right now, one question seems to override all
:26:22. > :26:23.others. Why isn't Hillary Clinton
:26:24. > :26:25.hammering her Republican Why do his blunders and hypocrisies
:26:26. > :26:32.seem to leave no mark on the man, Why do his blunders and hypocrisies
:26:33. > :26:41.seem to leave no mark on the man. Tonight, another video of Trump's
:26:42. > :26:44.past has emerged that would sink One writer argues it may have less
:26:45. > :26:52.to do with HIM and more to do with HER -indeed,
:26:53. > :26:55.to do with the failings of the Democrats and Obama as a whole
:26:56. > :26:57.over the last eight years. Thomas Frank is a political analyst
:26:58. > :27:00.and commentator who's new book argues that the Democrats have badly
:27:01. > :27:02.let down the people. Nice for you to come in. I won't
:27:03. > :27:06.talk about Americans. Most Europeans still can't
:27:07. > :27:12.understand why Hiallry Clinton isn't Against somebody who seems to trip
:27:13. > :27:19.himself up the whole time. Like a demagogue out of a movie from the
:27:20. > :27:23.1930s. He has done so many things that was destroy an ordinary
:27:24. > :27:27.politician. This Titanic won't sink. We are taking him seriously as you
:27:28. > :27:31.are as a potential winner of the presidency. It's possible it could
:27:32. > :27:35.happen. It seems unlikely. I think Hillary Clinton will win, for the
:27:36. > :27:40.record. The Donald Trump phenomenon is striking, this is amazing this is
:27:41. > :27:49.happening. What it represents, to a large degree, is the desperation of
:27:50. > :27:51.a large chunk of middle America de-industrialised form
:27:52. > :27:54.industrialised parts of the United States and it is the largest shift
:27:55. > :27:57.of working-class voters in the United States away from their
:27:58. > :28:01.traditional home in the Democratic party to the Republican party. This
:28:02. > :28:05.has happened over a long time. Why have the Democrats lost them? That
:28:06. > :28:09.is half of the question and a big part of it is the Democrats refuse
:28:10. > :28:12.to ask that question of themselves, by the way. Democrats have lost
:28:13. > :28:15.them, because they basically look at what is happening to these people
:28:16. > :28:19.and say, you know, there's nothing that can be done to save your way of
:28:20. > :28:22.life. In the middle class in America is crumbling. That is just
:28:23. > :28:26.globalisation. That's just technology doing its thing. But at
:28:27. > :28:30.the same time, Democrats have embraced this kind of liberalism
:28:31. > :28:35.that is... Clearly, a liberalism of the rich. OK? They aren't concerned
:28:36. > :28:41.with working-class voters any more but they are very concerned with the
:28:42. > :28:45.attitudes and tastes of, say, the professional class in America. OK,
:28:46. > :28:48.but if the answer was to move away from globalisation, that was the one
:28:49. > :28:52.that Bernie Sanders was screaming for a year and it didn't work in
:28:53. > :28:53.terms of winning the nomination. LAUGHTER
:28:54. > :28:56.You about the entire Democratic party came together to stop him, you
:28:57. > :29:01.know, you realise, that is what happened. This takes us back to the
:29:02. > :29:07.first order, the e-mail scandal. As we now know, I should say. -- first
:29:08. > :29:11.story. So, you basically think Bernie Sanders would have won that
:29:12. > :29:15.nomination? I don't think so but the challenge was worth making. This is
:29:16. > :29:19.the Democrats that need to look inside and ask themselves why this
:29:20. > :29:24.is happening. They also have to re-evaluate their long history. One
:29:25. > :29:28.of the issues that Trump talks about are the lousy trade deals as he
:29:29. > :29:30.likes to put it that our country has signed. There is no figure in
:29:31. > :29:35.American history more closely identified with those trade deals
:29:36. > :29:39.than Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton's husband, a Democrat. When he signed
:29:40. > :29:43.off on the first of those lousy trade deals, he did it over the
:29:44. > :29:45.opposition of his own supporters and organised labour. He stuck the knife
:29:46. > :29:51.in their back and people remember that. You think that Trump is a
:29:52. > :29:55.product of Obama as well? To some degree. He is a reaction to Obama.
:29:56. > :29:58.We have the financial crisis in America, it originated in my country
:29:59. > :30:05.and came here, you're welcome! Thank you! President Obama was elected in
:30:06. > :30:09.this great wave of hope and enthusiasm in 2008. I thought he was
:30:10. > :30:13.going to be my generation's Franklin Roosevelt, to come in and put things
:30:14. > :30:18.right. Instead, here we are, almost eight years later. For a large part
:30:19. > :30:23.of the American public, the recession has never ended. The
:30:24. > :30:26.American stock market is doing phenomenally well, wealthy people
:30:27. > :30:29.have seen everything bounce right back. But for a lot of ordinary
:30:30. > :30:31.Americans, there has been no recovery. Great to have you here,
:30:32. > :30:33.thank you very much. That's all we have
:30:34. > :30:36.time for, goodnight. Have a great weekend, we are back on
:30:37. > :30:51.Monday. Good evening. The weather is looking
:30:52. > :30:52.relatively settled and