12/10/2016 Newsnight


Has Brexit caused a run on Marmite? Russia, Boris and Syria. Can Trump win? Newsnight talks to the shaken baby syndrome doctor who was struck off. Plus Werner Herzog.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 12/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Major brands are pulled from supermarket shelves


A temporary blip or a new way of shopping?


We ask the man who built up one of the UKs biggest supply chains.


The election of Hillary Clinton would lead, in my opinion, to the


almost total destruction of our country as we know it.


Can Trump still beat Clinton?


Is it possible that shaken baby syndrome doesn't exist?


The pathologist who dared to ask the question faces being struck off


- the medical establishment damning in their condemnation of her.


Next week she appeals that decision -


And Werner Herzog chats happily through a semi-apocalypic


vision of the future- his latest creation - Lo And Behold.


The Internet is a manifestation of evil itself. Are you a ring I Abaul


a reliable narrator, Werner? Absolutely, and it doesn't matter if


you enhance facts or change things. When Brexit becomes about Marmite,


you can be pretty sure it will start This evening, the product emerged


centre stage of a row between a supermarket and a supplier


over the strength of the pound. Major household brands


are running low at Tesco The Anglo-Dutch company is believed


to have demanded a 10% price rise due to the falling value


of the pound and halted deliveries to Tesco when the supermarket


refused to pay more. This is a very big deal because it


is about the main thing happening in the UK at the moment, the


double-digit fall in sterling. Against all of our trading partners,


the pound is at a historic low, and this is the fundamental fact of life


for a bit. What this effectively means is that prices and incomes in


Britain have fallen relatively compared to prices and incomes in


the rest of the world, so this dispute between Tesco and Unilever


is about who bears the burden of that. Is it Tesco and Unilever or is


it the customer? But the pound has always been very good for exporting?


Yes, and we made a hacker this moment as the critical moment when


Britain change the way its industrial model works, and our


exporters took off. Our big devaluations have genuinely been at


the end of periods when we have had tight monetary policy. So they come


with big listenings of policy. This devaluation is being driven by the


fact that investors don't have as much confidence in Britain, and


don't want a hold as much sterling stuff as they used to, so it is


different beast. If they were right to have less confidence in Britain


as a trader than they do it, then it will be harder for us to do it. If


our exporters can take advantage of this change in sterling, selling


will rise back up again. Thank you for that.


Lord Christopher Haskins, former head of Northern Foods,


Lord Haskins, thank you for your time this evening. We know that


these sorts of rows emerge quite often between a supplier and a


supermarket. What makes this time different? Because first of all


there has been a huge build-up of tension between the brand companies


and the supermarkets for years and years. The supermarkets don't like


selling with brands who determine the Rawls. And you have had this


enormous war within the supermarket between the discounters and the


Tescos of this world, so the pressure is there. Thirdly, you have


the online tension which affects the supermarket business generally at


any rate, people don't want to go to supermarkets as much as they did.


Then finally you have Brexit which throws a huge wobble, undoubtedly


what Unilever is doing is justified in terms of the economics of it, but


Tesco is worried that the others may not follow suit. They will have to,


because the costs as a result of devaluation are too big for any


company to carry. So your sense is who is going to emerge from this


stand-off as the winner? Nobody. They are all going to lose. Unilever


will have to suffer a little bit because the premiums they have got


for their products won't be as big as they could be, and the Aldis of


this world will have to put up their prices, so the relationship between


Aldi and Tesco will be an interesting one, there is oversupply


in the market, and this is its as abated by a price increase like


this. If the pound is weak at the moment, this could be a temporary


blip. This could level itself out again and we won't see these prices


this - long. I think that is unlikely, I think the pound was


overvalued before Brexit, and is now getting to its proper level. I


suspect it is going to go below its proper level and there will be a


serious problem for inflation in 6-12 months' time. So what about the


British shopper and the effect it will have on us now? It will bring


back to reality to people the consequences of leaving the European


Union. It will certainly relies that whatever benefits that may be, there


will be no economic benefits for the consumer as the result of what is


happening. As you said, you are a staunch remain, and people on the


other side will say, don't jump to conclusions. But in terms of what it


means for our shopping habits, it doesn't mean we will never have


marmite on the shelves again? No, that is where Unilever will win,


because despite the fact that people may grumble about paying more for


it, they will pay more, and that is the strength of a good brand. But


then those people have less money to spend on something else, so it will


affect shoppers' behaviour in eight substantial way, and the argument is


which of the products will survive and which will do badly. So tonight


we are looking principally at Tesco and Unilever. You think this is


going to be a pattern repeated throughout supply chains and


throughout supermarkets? Inevitably. Tesco happened to be the biggest,


but Sainsbury will be facing the same problem, the same tensions with


the likes of Unilever and Nestle. The interesting point is how the


discounters who are apparently prospering at the moment, how they


are going to deal with this situation, because they will have to


deal with these price increases. What would be your estimate in terms


of the increase on a family shop? The indication is, Unilever want to


put their prices up by 10%, so if they want to do that, it is unlikely


that the impact on inflation going forward is going to be less than 5%,


something like that. The agricultural commodity products work


in a different way, but I would have thought that we are looking at food


inflation of 5% in 12 months. At what point do you think this becomes


hard politics? I think it was HSBC who said last week the pound is now


the de facto opposition. If you see this in terms of Theresa May's


comments or statements about a hard Brexit in March, do you expect her


to modify that language to change the date, or is that now set in


stone? I think that is a big question. The politics seem to have


overtaken the economics in the last ten days. The economics may be


hitting back now. The moment the great British public realises there


is a real cost to pay for Brexit, the Government will have to take


account of that, and I suspect in the middle of next year, that is


exactly the situation we are going to be in, or there will be a crisis


and politicians who want Brexit, never mind what, are going to have


to think again. You know the inside story of how a supply chain works. I


am expecting a lot of people will be surprised to hear that marmite was


imported, or any of the other products that are not made here. Do


you think we will start buying more locally now? There is a limit, we


have always been big importers of food, 40% of our food is imported.


You can do a little bit in terms of improving domestic production, but


that could have happened at any time, there is no particular reason


why each would strengthen now. Like the doctors, we suddenly say we need


those extra doctors, we could have had them five years ago, but


suddenly because of Brexit we want them. There are fundamental


structural issues which will not go away by a knee jerk reaction to


leaving the European Union. Lord Haskins, thank you for joining us.


Can Boris Johnson stay on message four days in a row,


the Prime Minister quipped just a week ago.


The Foreign Secretary finds himself at the centre of his first


discomfort after he called for protests outside


the Russian Embassy as a response to Moscow's actions in Syria.


This was him in the House of Commons yesterday.


I would certainly like to see demonstrations outside


If Russia continues on its current path, then I believe that great


country is in danger of becoming a pariah nation, and if President


Putin's strategy is to restore the greatness and glory of Russia,


then I believe he risks seeing his ambition turned to ashes.


The Foreign Secretary stands accused tonight by Russia of Russophobic


hysteria - there's a word you never knew existed.


Then this afternoon Jeremy Corbyn's spokesman suggested protestors might


just as well target the US embassy, which he said was just as guilty


Plenty there to put to Oksana Boyko of TV channel RT, previously


Thank you very much indeed. I know it is late where you are. Have the


remarks hit home in Moscow? Absolutely they hit home, not only


in Moscow but also in Paris, his French counterpart questioned


whether it was really the job of a Foreign Minister to call for public


agitation or to organise public demonstrations, and this theme has


been really taken up either Russian Foreign Ministry. The spokeswoman


said that that played into Russia's long-held perception of the British


foreign policy and intelligence establishment trying to manipulate


public unrest and trying to use civil society for their own less


than honourable goals. I don't know if the BBC audience knows, but there


has been a well established evidence of a number of British agencies


trying to run social media accounts for the opposition, supporting the


so-called rebel groups in Syria by providing arms or by providing


training... We don't know... Or at least not objecting to the policy.


We have no evidence of that. But let me ask you simply, is Boris Johnson


welcome in Moscow? Well, Russia will deal with any official. We do not


have this concept of welcome or not welcoming anyone. Russia's Foreign


Minister Sergei Lavrov just today said that Russia is planning a


meeting this coming Saturday with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, and


those are countries that have enormous differences with Russia


when it comes to Syria, but Russia is ready to engage anyone if that


will help to bring peace to Syria and to minimise the civilian death


toll. So if Boris Johnson wants to do that, I'm sure he will be


welcome. It is very interesting, Oksana, to hear Jeremy Corbyn's


adviser saying he thought the ball might as well protest the US


embassy. Is he right? Well, again, I am not in the


position of deciding who is right or wrong, but if you actually cover


that conflict and you try to be objective, and look at this conflict


from all the sides, you would recognise that every major power


that intervened in that conflict has committed mistakes, let's put it


that way. I don't know if they could be called war crimes, but Americans,


Turks, Russians, Syrians, they did indeed kill civilians on the ground.


If you look at the American advance on my beesh, there are lots of


reports of mass casualties there, so if you look at the act of all


parties, you can see that all of them have the actions that have led


to civilian casualties. D6 Putin is scared of protest outside the


embassy is? LAUGHTER


The question is maybe very British, but the answer would be very


Russian, no, he's not. Thanks for joining us.


This time next month, whatever happens overnight,


the world will be looking at a brand new US President.


Tonight, Donald Trump contemplated losing for the first time,


telling voters that if he failed to win the Presidency it would be


the single greatest waste of his time and money.


So much of the last year has focused on the personalities


A billionaire businessman and reality TV star


and the first woman ever to have made it this far.


But tonight, after a couple of extraordinary new polling


numbers, we want to bring you the State of the Race


Is it still possible for Trump to win?


And why might the battleground states now include places that


haven't changed their political allegiance for the last 60 years?


It is not just the images which are the same every election, but that


most of the states vote the same way by miles, red for republican and


blues a Democrat, so the Republicans will always get Texas and the


Democrats always get Delaware. This is a reminder of how Obama was


victorious in 2008. Taking those traditional


swing states of Ohio and Florida. Romney just managed to take Indiana


and North Carolina off him. And even in this, the year of Trump,


a lot of projections of the result Except over the last couple


of days, two extraordinary Today's poll has Trump at just 26,


level with Hillary Clinton, and only just outstripping


the independent candidate, McCain won it with 59% of the vote,


Romney with 55% to Obama's 41%. Now Trump is beating Hillary


by just five points there, and this guy is winning the race


there with the under 40s. What would you do if you were


elected? About Aleppo? What is Aleppo? You are kidding? No. This is


a big crowd. The winner is the first to reach 270 electoral college


votes, the trouble for Donald Trump, even if he holds everything that


Mitt Romney won, he is still 64 votes short, and Clinton comes to


the race with a blue walk at the last six elections have seen 18


states plus Washington, DC always voted Democrat, that is around 220


electoral votes even before the race even starts. It could be there are


shy Trump supporters out there who are not telling pollsters what they


really think, but if that is true that there needs to be an awful lot


of them to deliver him the presidency.


Joining me now, Democrat pollster Celinda Lake from Washington DC


and Republican strategist and pollster Frank Luntz -


who works continuously with focus groups -


Frank, I heard Trump speak of the massive electoral disadvantage she


has, is that right in mathematic terms? -- he has. The Republicans


have the bondage in terms of who comes out to vote, but the polling


only matters in terms of who comes out to the polls -- have the


advantage. It is almost impossible to move. He has deteriorated so much


in the last ten days that it will be a serious uphill climb if he is to


make it close on election day. The Democrats must feel they have this


comfort ring, the blue wall, if she is already on 240, what you make of


polls like Utah and Alaska which almost like they could be in play?


-- do you make. We have polled for the Utah Democratic party and I


would say that is very much in play. These are idiosyncratic states, Utah


has a heavy more modern population, religious group which Mitt Romney


was a part of, and which has despised Donald Trump from the


beginning. Gary Johnson has real appeal there. There is no question


Trump has put into play states like Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina,


that have not been in play before, and I think the interesting question


is what happens down ballot. The presidency, while not be taken for


granted, and my good friend Frank is right, the Democrats have to focus


on getting their vote out, but the question on the table is what


happens underneath. Where do the disaffected voters go in the Senate


and the house races? A spectacle it, presumably. What about postal voting


and early voting? -- a split ticket. About a quarter is done ahead of


time, and some states it could be 40-50%, a state like Oregon, which


votes 100% by postal ballot, but make no mistake, the election has


already gone and the voting has all the begun in the central states and


even though Donald Trump did relatively well, I use the term


relatively in the last debate, his negatives are so high and the


hostilities towards him so great across the country, he will need an


absolute... I don't use a home run, but he will need, if you can help me


with cricket. Poker, inside strip. That is better. You have got to


watch Florida, Pennsylvania, Clinton is now up, and Ohio, where they are


even, and only one state Iowa, where he is leading, which is a


traditional democratic state. I mentioned this idea of the shy Trump


supporters, we are very sceptical of pollsters in this country, is it


possible that we have just overlooked this, and that there is a


very good ground war and a passion which replaces a ground war which


could carry him through? There is no ground war, that will carry him


through, the grassroots organisations are in a shambles.


There is a very good ground ball on the side of the Republicans. You are


right, there are two things going on, and I also believe in the secret


Trump vote. In online surveys he does better, than in person surveys,


especially with women. You could ask how could any woman vote for Donald


Trump? But the other thing, who is going to turn out to vote? There are


enthusiasts on beat Trump side who will turn out to vote, but Democrats


have a great grassroots organisation -- the Trump. We will fight to get


the unmarried people and the people of colour out. If there is a big


female vote which doesn't admit to pollsters that they actually quite


like Trump. I have been challenging that. They are very few voters who


are undecided, they are uncommitted, the differences undecided are going


back and forth between Clinton and surname Aqua, they are not many of


those that, but the uncommitted say they will not vote but they haven't


committed to a candidate -- Clinton and Trump. She is winning the


uncommitted vote by two to one. The working-class votes at which has


been the bulk of the Democratic support for the last 20 years, Trump


is doing better amongst them the most Republicans ever do. And that


is the only thing he has got left which could put him over the top.


You would still call the Republicans the party of the right or has that


disappeared? We would call the Republicans the party of the wrong.


Yes, they are the more Conservative Party and that hasn't disappeared.


In presidential politics it is also about character and about


temperament and who is qualified to lead. And whether you have the


character to be president, and in the end I think a lot of women in


particular will ask themselves to things, is this man a bully, can I


let my daughter watch the President of the United States on TV? Do I


trust this man with the nuclear" Mark three check marks against him.


-- the nuclear codes? What about the turnout question of what is this


doing to political discourse and how willing people are to spend the


money on the bus? It is giving everyone a headache, everyone is


feeling like a child of divorced parents who does not want to live


with either of them, make no mistake, 53% of people have an


unfavourable opinion of Hillary Clinton, that's never happened to a


democratic candidate, but it just happened 63% have an unfavourable


opinion of him. If Trump had been locked in the Tower of London jail


for a hundred days he would have been elected because the election


would have been all about her. Now, she's not defending Hillary Clinton,


she is attacking Trump, if it is about him, he loses, if it is about


her, she loses. So they should both shut up. And God help us all. Thanks


for joining us. A pathologist who questioned


whether Shaken Baby Syndrome exists will appeal next week


against a decision by the General After 32 years in her job,


Waney Squier was denied the right to practice after she was found


to have strayed beyond her field of expertise - accused of giving


deliberately misleading She claims that she's been silenced


because she challenges the establishment -


and the medical orthodoxy around When is it right for doctors to


challenge established science? That is the test for the judges next week


when pathologist Waney Squier appeals against being struck off.


She is coming here to the Appeal Court to try and clear her name.


Seven months ago the General Medical Council through the book at her.


They called her irresponsible, dishonest, and a liar, but she says


she is only in trouble because in an out-of-court she dares to call


Shaken Baby Syndrome rubbish. Around 250 people a year face criminal and


family court cases on the basis of Shaken Baby Syndrome. The theory


goes that the babies who suffer three symptoms together, blood over


the brain, bleeding behind the eyes, and brain damage, must have been


violently shaken. But sceptics like Waney Squier said there is no good


science behind the theory. We got in touch with a number of experts who


regularly give evidence for the prosecution of Shaken Baby Syndrome


cases but none of them would appear on Newsnight. Now 350 scientists


have written to the British medical Journal questioning the decision to


strike doctor Waney Squier off and they include Professor Peter Fleming


the man who cut cot deaths. And a pioneer of evidence -based medicine.


And an internationally renowned paediatric pathologist. On Shaken


Baby Syndrome the two sides could not be further apart. In March GMC


said that doctor Waney Squier's evidence was deliberately


misleading, dishonest, and it had the potential to subvert the course


of justice. Her fellow pathologist disagrees. The problem is that in 40


years we have not been able to demonstrate the traditional theory


of Shaken Baby Syndrome and other things that were not considered


before are being demonstrated like shortfalls cabbages similar


features. -- can reduce similar features for the signs of archers --


science advances frequently for the they were upset they were losing


cases because of defence experts like her questioning Shaken Baby


Syndrome. Do you still give evidence in these cases? No, I don't. Why


not? Because I'm afraid of the possible consequences. Did you


believe this day would come when you were inside? No. In March Newsnight


spoke to Suzanne Holdsworth, her conviction for the murder of toddler


Carl Fischer was overturned after Waney Squier re-examines the


evidence. It felt like I'd won the lottery. It was amazing. Something I


never thought I would do. So if it wasn't for people like Waney Squier,


people like me with the imprisoned still. -- would be in prison still.


Today there are few experts willing to challenge Shaken Baby Syndrome.


In cases where science effectively determines guild or innocence, how


fair can a trial be if the defence scientists are silenced in court?


It is the real case of science against the law, the tribunal was


pretty damning in what it found. John went through that. You have


been reckless and irresponsible. That is correct, yes. You don't


think they shouldn't be looking into you in this way, presumably? It is


the role of the GMC, to look into this sort of complaint, but I


challenge the determination and I'm taking this to appeal and that will


be held next week. Do you accept any of these findings, that your


research did not support your opinion, that you went outside your


field, you were looking at things you shouldn't have? No, I don't. But


I think... I don't want to discuss by own case now because it is coming


to appeal next week and I don't think it is appropriate for me to do


so. There are far more important issues we need to discuss and that


is the fact that there is the evidence to support this hypothesis


of Shaken Baby Syndrome and yet it is still being used every day in our


courts as the basis on which is very important decisions are made about


whether people might go to prison or babies are going to be taken away


from their families. What should they use, then, if they


are going to try to ascertain what happened? If they say your research


doesn't stand up and you say their research is not solid enough, what


should they go on? We need a thorough independent review of


shaken baby syndrome. The courts need to know that there is no


scientific evidence to support it. There never has been. It has been a


hypothesis for 40 years, and research over the last four decades


has not provided any evidence to show that this hypothesis has any


validity at all, and it is not right that it should be still used in


courts when it hasn't any validity, and this must be investigated. We


need to have a real, full inquiry into it. Why would the GMC go to


these lengths? This isn't a personal vendetta against you, presumably, it


is a council trying to get the job right? The circumstances of the


complaint against me were that the police were concerned that they were


losing convictions because people like me were popping up and


challenging shaken baby syndrome, and there have been attacked on


people who challenge shaken baby syndrome not only in this country


but in the United States and around the world, because we are a minority


and we are challenging what is a mainstream hypothesis. And what do


you think will happen as a result of if you are struck off, if the appeal


doesn't go your way? It is very concerning, because as we have


already seen, other people who would be in a position to come and give


evidence in the courts in these cases won't do so. There are many


people who could give very helpful evidence to the courts, but they are


frightened to do so because they may suffer the same fate, which leaves


us in the shameful position where our courts cannot get defence


experts to come and assist in these cases where parents are being


accused of abusing their infants. But it seems like those on the


shaken baby side won't talk either. This sounds like an extraordinarily


dangerous position to be in where we don't know how to get to the truth


of this because both sides are either being silenced or choosing


silence. And that is obviously wrong. If the other side don't wish


to speak, why not? We need a public debate, a public inquiry to see what


is really behind shaken baby syndrome and if it is suitable to be


used in court. Waney Squier, thank you for coming in.


You know how we like to send you off to bed with a song in your heart?


Well, how about this: a solar flare will one day turn the Internet


haywire, leading to the end of civilisation as we know it.


That cheery prospect is raised in a new documentary, Lo Behold,


by the acclaimed and idiosyncratic filmmaker, Werner Herzog.


He'll be talking about it as part of a UK wide screening of the film


tomorrow night at the BFI London Film Festival.


Here's our own inscrutable cineaste, Stephen Smith.


We have a certain reverence. In his adventures in the Internet with


artificial intelligence, Werner Herzog's gift for the unexpected


doesn't desert him. He finds a robot maker in love with his star centre


forward. This year is robot eight. Its pattern includes four green dots


on top, and it is one of my favourites, actually. Beautiful. Do


you love it? Yes, we do. Menus night met the jet-lagged but pretty much


in control Werner Herzog earlier today, we asked a well-known


football fan if robot layers could be the real thing. If robots becomes


mechanically so good that they can run like a human, then they can do


it, because strategically, they are very far advanced, and you see


computer programmes, how for example they have a free kick, and how they


strategise positioning, it is very impressive. Sooner or later,


somebody would have to teach them how to cheat. They may already be


cheating. We do not know exactly. But we do know that whatever is


within human beings will eventually end up on the Internet, and in our


anonymity, the human race is a very vile and very debased, and it is not


the Internet that is debased, it is the human people. Werner Herzog's


beautifully composed oeuvre, which I have done my best to emulate, is


surrounded by fan boy reverence. Is it possible that somebody has missed


the humour? When you are sitting in the theatre, you feel the rubles of


laughter, nobody can miss the humour. The biggest laughter is when


you have dissed monks in saffron robes against the empty skyline of


Chicago. Then we met some stragglers left behind. They are all on their


smartphones. Have the monks stopped meditating? Have they stopped


praying? They all seem to be tweeting.


Laughter doesn't stop from beginning to end during this sequence. It is


like our programme! That is good to. We wanted to get a quick exterior


shot of Herzog in his native habitat. There is probably a long


German compound noun to describe his good cheer in the face of adversity.


Nobody cares about my films. The example... What is that? The last


time he spoke to the BBC, someone shot him with an air rifle.


Strangely enough, I seem to be a statistical anomaly. I have


attracted disasters. You would never guess from close kin


ski's tentative performance that he and director Hertzog what always at


loggerheads. There was the steamship that Herzog hauled over a mountain.


Nobody believed in moving the ship over the mountain. A delegation of


actors and technical people came to me.


Give it a go! And tried to dissuade me from my own


madness. And it was suspicious. The only thing that counts is what you


see on the screen. When he is not directing, Herzog has


been known to lend some middle European menace to the multiplex.


You say nothing, but I see defiance in your eyes. That is a look I have


seen many, many times when the soldier comes and you watch how he


dies, it will change you. You will want to forget me then.


Sources close to Herzog told us he wouldn't disparage an offer to play


James Bond baddie. Let's close with an aphorism.


It is better to ask the question that is deep and strange and


unexpected than having an answer to everything.


Werner Herzog on the rights of question to ask. Let's just take you


through the papers before we go. In the times, a story that ministers


are hiding a report on migrant numbers, it suggests that only 1% of


international students break the terms of their Visa by refusing to


leave, research which they say threatens to undermine Theresa May's


plan to crackdown on student recruitment. They also go with the


Marmite row. The Financial Times has the story about the UK facing ?20


billion Brexit divorce Berlin Brussels budget wrangle, and it also


highlights the Marmite. The Daily Mail has why did Will Young walk-out


on Strictly and Theresa: I'm siding with Britain's who voted for Brexit.


Now don't go away - No Such Thing As The News


But we leave you with a postscript to the current craze for dressing up


In Whitehaven, Cumbria, the local fancy dress store has


deployed someone dressed as Batman so the local children can sleep


But based on our brief research, we think it might not end well.


You shouldn't have made Captain Clown mad!


OK, captain! Give it the old heave Ho.


This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.


Good evening. High-pressure has dominated the charts, but low


pressure is coming our way.


Download Subtitles