23/01/2017 Newsnight

Donald Trump's press secretary pledges to "tell

the facts as he knows them" - but berates the media for constantly

Over and over again there's this constant attempt

to undermine his creidbility and the movement he represents.

And it's frustrating, for not just him but I think

so many of us who are trying to get this message out.

On his first day in office, the new president dumps

What will this tell us about the direction

Well, Trump says he wants to help the American worker.

Over here, our own Government set out its ideas for Britain -

The former Business Secretary, Lord Mandelson, and the current one,

Also tonight, the Trident missile that went AWOL.

We'll look at the political fallout.

And Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Thomas Friedman,

If you engage with him too much, too often and too closely, he will

actually suck your brains out, because he is such an indecent

person, capable of such indiscreet behaviour.

One year ago, before the New Hampshire primary,

I asked Donald Trump, in person, what he would do

"So many things," he told me, "You wont believe it."

Well, that day - his first weekday in the White House - has come.

Just before noon he signed an executive order formally

withdrawing the US from the Trans Pacific Partnership.

It was a campaign promise and a key tennet of his pledge to deglobalise,

putting in his words, "America first".

Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, looks at what Trump's first day

tells us about a new direction for America.

Back to work on a blowy, rainy morning for the people of this city.

For the new President, after a weekend of political bluster, a day

to demonstrate that the wind of change you porters had -- supporters

had voted for had hit the White House. First one is withdrawals from

the - of the United States from the trans-Pacific partnership. Everyone

knows what that means, right? We've been talking about this for a long

time. Mr Trump signed three executive orders today, stopping a

Pacific trade deal, freezing government job recruitment and

halting funding for abortion education overseas. That follows an

earlier order to hobble the ObamaCare health programme, all

these address campaign promises, but hardly yet in a spectacular way.

That's it. I think it's important to recover from what was a really

terrible opening weekend as President of the United States,

where Donald Trump was worrying about how the media was reporting

the crowd sizes of his inauguration. I think that signing these executive

orders is, among other things, to send the signal that yes, he is

going to focus on the priorities that got him located. Also --

elected, and also on some issues that are not about him. There were

dozens of campaign trail promises that were supposed to happen today.

From starting construction of that beautiful wall on the Mexican

border, to the deportation of millions of illegal immigrants and

the labelling of China as a currency manipulator. Well, today was the day

that all of that got watered down by the reality of Washington, both

having to deal with foreign governments and, more importantly,

building up a rapport with Republicans on the Hill to get some

of this stuff enacted. On the Hill, as the business of vetting a Trump

administration continues slowly but surely, many Republicans are working

out which parts of Trump's aJane athey can -- agenda they can help to

vote through and which ones they simply can't support. It will be

interesting to see the first time the Republican Congress or parts of

the Republican Congress run into conflict with him. And surely, there

will be those times. I think when you look at a policy that is so

stridently anti-free trade, that is something that will bother some

Republicans, without question. On the issue of infrastructure

spending, the notion that we would spend $1 trillion that would be

unpaid for will be very difficult for some fiscal conservatives to

swallow. And will to the best of my ability... As this work gets under

way, though, team Trump is continuing to fire salvos at the

media, over the number of people who attended the inauguration and an ill

tempered die tribe from the President's secretary on Saturday --

press secretary on Saturday. The thing I found most disturbing was

that he spews a bunch of falsehoods and turns to the reporters in the

room and says, "This is what you should be reporter and covering." I

cannot think of at least in the time that I've been in Washington, anyone

ever standing there and lecturing the press, any government official,

and telling them, this is what you cover. At today's first formal White

House press conference, he returned to the attack. Over and over again,

there's this constant attempt to undermine his credibility and the

movement that he represents. It's frustrating for not just him, but

for so many of us who are trying to work to get this message out. Down

pours seem fitting for a day when the President showed he'll have to

obey certain laws of politics and the news media learned that it will

be shown no quarter, less a bright new dawn, more welcome to the swamp.

Earlier, I spoke to the former candidate for the Democratic

You'll remember him as Hillary Clinton's main challenger for the

Democratic nomination. He doesn't share much in common with Donald

Trump, but they do share a certain view on anti-globalisation. So I

asked him what he made of the cancellation of such a major trade

deal today. The current trade policies that we have, which

include-and-a-half that and trade relations -- Nafta and trade

relations will be China will be a problem. We have lost millions of

decent paying jobs. I campaigned very strongly against the TPP and

I'm glad that Trump followed through and has gotten us out that of that

-- of that. If he's going to be honest with the American people, he

has to withdraw his manufacturing in countries like Mexico and Bangladesh

and Turkey and China, where he's paying very low wages. If he wants

to be honest with the American people, when he says buy American,

hire American, he's got to bring those jobs back to the United

States. For America's allies, that word "withdraw" is critical. A lot

of people are looking at Donald Trump and saying is he going to pull

America away from the rest of the world. He may want to do that, but

that's not my view. We need to maintain and strengthen our contacts

with people all over the world. I'd rather have people sitting around

the table arguing with each other rather than going to war. Climate

change is a planetary crisis in which we've got to work together.

The exploitation of children and women is a global crisis. We've got

to work together. I think trying to develop good trade policies for the

people of our country and around the world does not mean, to me, that we

should withdraw from the world or not play an active role in United

Nations or other bodies. What do you think of the words about America

first and he talked about America's carnage in the inauguration address.

That's the language used by isolationists in the 1920s. It's not

language I'm sympathetic to. We are living in an increasingly small

world. It is important that countries work together in every way

possible. If it's America first, then it's the UK first, then it's

China first, then it's Japan first. I think we need international

cooperation to make sure that we have a world at peace, a world in

which we effectively combat climate change and deal with so many of the

other serious problems facing our planet. Theresa May becomes the

first leader to meet Donald Trump. She's hoping for a trade deal with

him. How outward looking do you think Donald Trump will be with

other countries? I can't predict, I honestly can't predict. But the

United States is the most powerful nation on earth. We have got to work

with countries all over the world to address the very serious crises

facing our planet. Senator Bernie Sanders. Joining me now Republican

strategy Ron Christie and Molly Ball. This was a day with such huge

expectations, the weight of all that was going to be done, how did it add

up? Several things happened today. In policy terms it was significant

that President Trump issued some executive orders, starting to

actually implement some of his policy agenda. On the other hand you

had his press secretary do a do-over press conference, seeming to want to

atone for the disastrous press conference he gave on Saturday,

where he said a lot of things which were plainly not true and stuck a

thumb in the eye of the American media, still a very combative and

antagonistic press conference, but clearly trying to make amends. You

have an administration that is still finding its footing, that is behind

the curve in a lot of ways, that is not enjoying a conventional

honeymoon. You have Trump seeming to want to govern very much the way he

campaigned. That is the point. Where was the honeymoon. It got off to a

rocky start, not just the press conference, the CIA discussion at

the weekend. Was this a chance to reset all of that opening? I think

so. Molly's right. You notice that there's already a do-over, some of

the statements they've made and comments that they've said for the

last couple days. They need to recognise now they're no longer

campaigning. The campaign is over. The most difficult thing that I

found walking in 16 years ago, on day one of an administration, how do

we do this, how do we translate what we said to the American people -

You're supporting the Trump administration now. When he pulls

out the global trade deals and antiabortion legislation, do you

cheer? I don't. But I go by policy and what the President said he would

do and how he's acted. I think pulling out of TPP was a mistake.

This is something that President Obama negotiated in good faith with

several other nations. I think it would have helped American business

and workers. He said no, I'm going to pull out. I don't agree with

that. That was his decision This is something that Trump has been

consistent about both in the campaign and in his inaugural

address. It was a dark and divisive address, but a declaration of war on

both parties. Have you him doing things now that are in line with

conventional conservative doctrine, like abortion. Something like trade,

that is something that someone like Bernie Sanders is more sympathetic.

Instead of a declaration of war, you say this is what the American people

have voted for. He doesn't care about party politics. He wants to

talk to the people who voted him in. That's what he's done consistently.

That is exactly the way he and his team see it. The question is - how

big a group is that and is that going to be effective? I think

people voted for Trump because they thought he might be able to, because

he is so unconventional finally get something done in Washington. They

see the gridlock in Washington as a bipartisan problem and they'd like

him to overcome as a businessman. If he runs up against the reality of

governing and can't make the wheels turn, here in the Senate, where we

are on Capitol Hill, that is going to make people disappointed in him.

It's been difficult for him to get the team through. This was a point

Sean Spicer made that people he thought would be OK, like Mike

Pompeo of the CIA had that stopped from going through. Are we going to

see the same sense of gridlock now? I do. It's typical. The minority

leader of the United States Senate wields a lot of power in being able

to hold up some of the nominees that President Trump wants to puts into

office. It's the usual horse trading. This is only a marker, a

spot for negotiation for the Democrats and the new

administration. Dot Democrats have an obligation to say look, we may

not like this man, we disagree with lot he's doing, but cannot afford to

have a system, an administration that simply doesn't function for

another eight years? Without taking a side on what they sought to do,

the Democrats haven't really decided what to do as a matter of strategy.

You're talking about a delay of a few days. But the Democrats cannot

have the ability nor do they have the willingness to actually stop any

of these Cabinet nominees. So far, it looks like they're all going to

get through, which would be a remarkable thing for any President.

They started out behind. They weren't up to date on a lot of the

paperwork when they started. It does look like the entire Cabinet will be

confirmed. Then it will be on to things like the Supreme Court and

trying to find a replacement for ObamaCare. Those will be huge

battles for this administration. Great to have you here. We will hear

more about the Supreme Court and the immigration measures later in the

week, now back to you. For several decades now,

Britain has been restrained in its ambitions for any kind

of industrial policy. We got this Government's first big

statement on it today, a Green Paper called

Building Our Industrial Strategy. The mere fact of it is a big change,

but what about the contents? The chapter on energy

policy, for example, Two are reviews, one

is a roadmap and one But there is real

material in there too. Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a

hugely important moment for the United Kingdom, a moment where we

must prepare a new strategy to earn a prosperous living in the years

ahead. We have had government policies for industry before. They

were given a sendoff by new cabinet boy Harold Wilson. It didn't end

well. Instead of successfully picking winners, we ended up

desperately trying to save losers. Has the government now come up with

something effective and different? The background is an extraordinarily

large imbalance in the economy. On the latest figures for the value of

output per head, London is at over ?43,000, the average for the UK is

?25,000, and at the bottom is Wales on ?18,000. The broad problem is

this. A successful industry is a collection of players, a key

manufacturer, suppliers, the workforce. One company on its own

may not be viable, but a whole cluster in a region may be world

beating. But how on earth do you kick-start a cluster? It's like the

familiar problem of getting the dancing going at a party. By 10pm,

everybody wants to dance, but nobody wants to go first and be alone on

the dance floor. This provides a case for some coordination, industry

talking shops and the Government is on board. It is promoting so-called

sector deals to give leadership in different areas. It is actually what

Vince Cable did in the aerospace industry. The goal is to plant a few

seeds and watch forests grow. There is a lot more in

the Green Paper, notably on skills, and a new Institutes of Technology

to upgrade vocational training. Peter Mandelson held

a number of Cabinet posts, including being Secretary of State

for Trade and Industry. Good evening. What is your reaction

to the Green paper? I welcome it. Is it new? I think it has the potential

to be new. What is important about it is that it does actually

represent an attempt, finally, to bury Mrs Thatcher's purely

market-driven philosophy. The reason why that is important is I think it

provides the basis for cross-party agreement, a consensus which is

important if industrial strategy is going to endure and work in the

future. Really to work, it doesn't have to just be good, it has to be

truly transformative. Transformative and our ability to innovate and

commercialise our science space, to transform our skill raising in this

country, not just for those at university, but for the other half

of the young population but do not go to university, but also it has to

be transformative in our ability to make available patient long-term

finance for start-up and growing companies. I am trying to work out

if it is new or just a continuation of the same. Was yours

transformative? In which case, this is transformative and a

continuation? Well, I think if it had... If it had more than two

years? What is the active ingredient of a transformative one? Culture

change, legislative changes? It is certainly not more money, you never

did that either? Well, we did, and Scale matters, resources matter.

More resources, money and power, should be transferred from the

centre to the regions. I think that is a very important feature of a

successful industrial strategy in the future. What is important, and

let me give an example. Towards the end of my time as Business

Secretary, I borrowed from Germany a rather interesting concept of

institutes. They were mechanisms, institutes for taking out, spinning

out research and development, what was going on inside universities,

putting it into the private sector and commercialising it. I pushed

this through in the last months of the Labour government. It was one of

the things that the incoming coalition government embraced. They

rechristened it, they became catapults, I think they claimed a

lot of credit for themselves, fine. But they lived on. What I would hope

the new government does is look at what works in these catapults and

say, right, how can we roll out what works, what is best, how can we

reform and strengthen what doesn't? At a party, I'm interested to look

back on what you didn't do and what mistakes you might have made, do you

think you neglected to the north? It's interesting that phrase

Northern Powerhouse is a phrase associated with George Osborne, the

Conservative Government in particular. We didn't ignore it, we

did one thing that was wrong, in my view. We have regional development

agencies. We now have local enterprise partnerships. In the case

of our agencies, we put a shed load of money into the regions, but we

didn't create the point of decision making fun of accountability, that I

think local enterprise partnerships... That the Northern

Powerhouse is trying to do. We had money, but we didn't have local

power, accountability, and I think they are important. Another

potential mistake, did you try to send too many people to university?

Absolutely not. Now it is more about skills and vocational skills, rather

than degrees? No. We were absolutely right to widen opportunities for

those that wanted to go to universities, not just straight from

school but from colleges, further education, following different

routes into university. What we now need to do is to create the

equivalent excellence in the technical education, the skill

raising, that we create for the other 50%. That is what I would like

to see happen now. Not conceding that as a mistake? I need to ask you

about trade. We have heard a lot about it from Emily in the States.

Sean Spicer, this spiky spokesman, was announcing today the edict that

Trump is fine with trade deals, as long as they are bilateral,

one-on-one. He doesn't want big multilateral ones. He's fine with

trade deals as long as America gets its own way! I was going to ask,

what significance is there in a distinction between bilateral and

multilateral? Well, is Nafta, the agreement between the United States,

Canada and Mexico, a great multilateral agreement? It's not. Mr

Trump wants to get his own way. He wants trade negotiations to result

in the American way or no way. The point about America is that it is

such a big economy, such a powerful country, that when it is negotiating

with smaller or weaker economies and countries, it can often get its own

way. This is the question I want to ask... We had better watch out in

our own negotiation, it is very easy to start a trade negotiation and

then finish it at a low level of ambition, it is basically a

political agreement, for it to be truly substantive, and not just

overt trade but to create new trade, that is heavy lifting. That's really

heavy lifting, as the British Government will find when it starts

negotiating, as I hope it will do, with the United States. I suspect

what the outcome will be is the United States saying, right, we can

deal with the tariffs, minor matters, it is really the

regulations and the regulatory differences in structures between us

and the Americans that will count. What they are going to say at the

end of the day is that, you comply with our regulatory approach, and

standards, and trade will be open. That will create a big choice for

us. The more we comply with America, the greater the distance we create

between ourselves and our biggest, effectively our home market, the

European market. Lord Mandelson, famous Remainer, of course, saying

that. Greg Clark is the Secretary

of State for Business, Would you concede that your party

has neglected this area, that it has made a mistake in overlooking the

power of industrial activism? I don't think we have overlooked it

for some of the reasons Peter said. The catapults, for example, have

been a great success in particular sectors, automotive being a case in

point, where a number of businesses have got together and, with the

government, have put together research institutes that have built

their reputation for excellence. You, yourself, mention the

devolution we have had to the Northern Powerhouse, the city we

negotiated to create mares that are going to be elected in cities right

across the country. -- Mayors. These have been very important points. Get

me to the point, is what we are hearing today a new break with the

past, in which case it would imply something was wrong with the past,

or a friendly nudge along a trajectory that we have already been

on, which might imply it is to be as successful as the past years? I

think it is a break with the past of industrial strategies as they first

came to be thought in the 1970s, when it was about identifying

particular industries, often big players in those industries, getting

them in around the table and usually transferring public money. That

didn't work. It's not the approach we should take. It should be the

opposite. One of the strengths of our economy now, modern economy, is

that we have a reputation, justified, for being open to

competition, where people are challenged. There is no quarter

given to incumbents when you have an insurgent competitor. That is an

important aspect. In a sentence, is there a big idea in your industrial

policy? This is the Greg Clark doctrine that defines industrial

policy? There was a lot in there, but it was quite small beer? There

are three challenges... No, those are the challenges, it is the

policy, not the difficulties, the way that the world has changed, the

actual stuff that we do? The policies refer to different

challenges. Let me give you an example. Skills trading, what was in

your package, we fall behind, we are falling further behind competitors

in the level of technical education and qualifications that we have. It

is something that has characterised the British economy for a long time.

But it seems clear if you want to earn our living in the future,

importantly, if you want to close the gap between the top performers

and the companies, places and people in the middle, having good technical

skills is vital. As a very clear, central focus of our policy in the

years ahead, we want to do all we can, both in creating new

institutions, making sure the individuals, whether through school

and beyond... Transformative? Absolutely, it can make a big

difference, not just to productivity, but to prosperity.

Productivity, which comes from the ability to have skills, translate

into earning power, which is important for the quality of life. I

asked Lord Mandelson if it was a mistake to try to get so many people

to go to university. Would you say it is a mistake to try to get 50%?

Was it a mistake, actually, to sweep up polytechnics and put them into

university status? We kind of took out a layer that was most

vocational? The fact that people can go to university now who would have

dreamt of it before, but the places were rationed and they were denied a

place, more people from disadvantaged backgrounds go to

university now than ever before. That is a good thing and the

reputation of our university system is one of excellence. I do think

that we didn't pay enough attention to alternatives to university. Other

countries, Germany being an important case in point, has a

prestige attached to having technical qualifications. We know

that employers have vacancies now in roles that require technical

qualifications. It was something we should have done as well as making

opportunities available in universities. What is striking is

how these conversations come back time after time. How long have we

been sitting saying that we need more vocational skills? 1946, is

that when they first started saying that? I can remember these

conversations and nothing has ever quite been transformed. I just

wonder if you have cracked it this time or... I think we have to do.

One of the reasons we have published a Green Paper is it's important if

you have a strategy it has to endure. Peter mentioned the

proposals he put forward didn't last very long, because he wasn't there

to champion them. I think it is important that you build a strong

consensus, you do this with businesses, you do this with

employees and employers. As you say, there is a great recognition that

this is long overdue. I think now is the time you need to make this

transformation and this is an opportunity, especially in the

context of Brexit, to be bold and say this is overdue and we are going

to make the change. You posited today as a post-Brexit plant,

everything in there we could do in the EU or out of the EU... Or have

we gained opportunities in this area as a result of Brexit? The first

thing to say is it is a set of policies we want to do anyway. You

need to look forward and look at the strengths of the British economy,

project them forward, but look at things like technical training. I

think there are opportunities when it comes to public procurement, for

example, there is a vast bureaucracy that often excludes small businesses

from competing for Government contracts because of the scale of

the red tape you go through. That is one area in which I think you can

lighten the load on small business, very important to have this

competitive, contestable economy. Greg Clark, thank you very much, and

Lord Mandelson, thank you both. One Trident missile,

that took off on a course of its own back in June,

has given Theresa May one of her Yesterday, she obfuscated

on whether she knew Today, she admitted

she did know about it. What we know is that

the Trident-armed submarine HMS Vengeance underwent what is known

as a demonstration and shakedown Then, yesterday, it was reported

that one of its test The Prime Minister was

reluctant to acknowledge There are tests that take place

all the time, regularly, Her reticence may reflect

the fact that, within weeks of the Florida test,

Parliament was asked to vote on renewing

the UK's Trident programme. A failed test might have been useful

ammunition in the debate. Today, opposition politicians

demanded to know whether there Contrary to reports in the weekend

press, HMS Vengeance and her crew were successfully tested

and certified as ready to rejoin We do not comment on the details

of submarine operations. Our political editor,

Nick Watt, was watching Fill us in on everything we know as

to what happened. I've been told that something did go wrong off the

coast of Florida last June, but it was not catastrophic. The Government

has had a tricky 36 hours or rather not explaining in public what

happened. We have to look across the Atlantic to find out. There was a

report on CNN this afternoon. They quoted a US defence official as

saying that this Trident missile test did end in failure, but that

when that happened standard procedures kicked in and essentially

the missile autodestructed, it blew itself up and it changed its course

from heading towards the West Coast of Africa to head back towards the

US. The UK Government appears to be using that success of that emergency

procedure to say there was no malfunction. They are saying the

missile did what it was supposed to do. At the end of this entire

testing process, the crew and that submarine were certified as

successful and HMS Vengeance is now back at the sea. Nice of the

Americans to tell us what happened with our missile. Where do you think

this leaves Theresa May? Ministers are bullish about Trident and

Theresa May's performance. Some Tories are saying this hasn't been a

great 36 hours. Julian Lewis, the Conservative chairman of the Commons

Defence Select Committee, the most ardent supporter of Trident who says

it should be shrouded in secrecy said, "We need a Franker account for

the Government." There are some Tories who are saying that the Prime

Minister's prchs on Sunday when she didn't answer those questions was

unconfident and evasive and a more agile response from the Prime

Minister might have avoided such a big row. But it is important to say,

a nuclear deterrent only works when your adversary thinks you can

annihilate them. Ministers say if you have open commentary about

weaknesses you are only playing into the hands of your adversaries.

Thanks very much. The American group Liberty Media

completed their takeover of the sport - and this

is the really big one - they replaced Bernie Ecclestone

as chief executive. Yes, the man who has been running

Formula One for decades has now been pushed upstairs,

to become chairman emeritus. I'm joined by one of the most expert

journalists on the subject of Formula One, very good to talk to

you. What's happened, what's going on, why did he go? Essentially,

these new owners, Liberty Media are looking to really start a new dawn

for Formula One. They've made probably the most significant change

and riskiest change you could make to the sport. They didn't take long

over it. No. How fine a fettle is the sport in at the moment? It has

its ups and downs. Is it in an up or down? It's in a pretty precarious

place. Normally you have the situation where you have 11 teams.

The teams are in trouble. One of them recently went bankrupt Manor,

based in the Midlands. So that's not good. The other ten that remain are

in stable shape. With the circuits, Silverstone, which is home to the

British Grand Prix is well documented to be in a spot of

bother. There is a race in Malaysia looking to leave, Singapore looking

to leave. The races provide the second largest, close to the largest

source of revenue for Formula One, basically around a third of its 1. 7

billion turnover. How will history journalling Bernie Ecclestone? Did

he stay too long? The thing with him is that he really built up Formula

One from an enthusiast's sport into the world's most watched annual

sporting series. He signed virtually all the deals that bring in the

revenue. He's 86. You would have thought they could have kept him on

just to see out his tenure rather than the gamble of replacing them.

You're a Bernie fan. They've given him chairman emeritus. He's hands on

with the deals really, broadcasting, races, it's a big gamble. Thanks

very much. One of the most celebrated

and articulate prophets of globalisation is the New York Times

columnist Thomas Freidman. He specialises in finding

simple theories to explain the complexities of the world,

and with a lot to explain at the moment, he's just come

up with a new book - It describes how three forces

are accelerating the processes that drive our lives -

technology, globalisation and climate change -

explaining, well, everything. He's a three-time Pulitzer

Prize-winning journalist, I sat down with him earlier to talk

about, well, everything. You get that much acceleration,

you get a lot of phenomena at once. For instance, in America,

or northern England, I suspect, in the Midlands,

a lot of people lately, because it draws a lot of people together,

they went to the grocery store and there was someone wearing

a different head covering. In American terms, it

wasn't a baseball cap. Really good by me, but maybe

odd for some people. Then they went to the men's room

and, lately, there seemed to be someone of a different gender

at the stall next door. I happen to welcome

that, LGBT rights. But that came very fast

for a lot of people. Then they went to work,

and somebody rolled up a robot next to them that seems to be

studying their job. So if you think what anchors

people in the world, where they live, where they work,

who they associate with, there has been a lot of tumult

in all of those areas as a result Now, Trump, President

of the United States. Many would say he has

been put there to slow down these accelerations

of what your book is concerned. Do you think Trump can slow

this down, can stop it? So, my three accelerations,

they are like a hurricane. Trump I believe, is selling

a wall to the hurricane. What my book is selling is an eye,

an eye that moves with the storm, draws energy from it,

but creates a platform of dynamic stability in it,

where people can feel connected, You are the personification

of the global elite. You are travelling everywhere,

you write about globalisation. Do you acknowledge that you,

personally, didn't do enough to talk about helping the whole population

living in the eye of these storms of these great accelerations,

as opposed to just getting on with it and forgetting

that there were lots of people that maybe weren't as enthusiastic

about it as you? If you read my books,

there isn't a book, whether it is Lexus

and the Olive Tree, World is Flat, this book, That Used To Be Us,

that I wrote a few years ago, that didn't make

the very simple case. Globalisation is everything

and its opposite. It's incredibly empowering,

it can be disempowering. It creates opportunities,

it is also very authoritarian. My whole argument, all along,

was that you got to get the best out I never wrote a book that

wasn't about exactly that, about safety nets, education,

retooling, reskilling You spent a lot of your career

covering and being involved It is obviously another area,

quite apart from globalisation and all the other things we be

talking about, where Donald Trump appears to be marking quite a big

change to previous regimes. Israel appears emboldened,

to some extent, by the arrival What is your view about

what is going on in So, Donald Trump is the first man

to win the American presidency with only one sentence,

basically, on every issue. His paragraph on Israel, basically,

is I'm going to move their embassy, in Tel Aviv, to Jerusalem,

and acknowledge that was the capital, even though it's

in dispute and we've never done that Basically, to give

Israel carte blanche. That means, basically,

encouraging Israel to go from a two-state solution

to a one-state solution. Here's what Trump

doesn't understand. Here's why that is

incredibly reckless. As long as the debate

within Israel and the broader, global world Jewish community

was over two states, then it was a debate

between left and right. You think the line should be here,

I think it should be there. It was a debate

between left and right. When you go from a two-state

solution to a one-state solution, A South African Israel,

or a democratic Jewish Israel? When that happens, you will blow up

every synagogue, every Jewish Because that debate will rip apart

the entire Jewish community. So, what's your advice

to members of that community? Friends don't let

friends drive drunk. Right now, in my view,

the Israeli right that's governing And America did the kindest thing,

Obama did the kindest thing it can to a friend that is driving drunk,

that was to try to sober them up. How do you think the press should

react to Donald Trump? Well, I'm a columnist,

I fortunately just now write one column a week,

instead of two, which is really If you engage with him too much,

too often, and too closely, he will actually suck

your brains out. He is such an indecent person,

capable of such indiscreet behaviour, that you can totally get

caught up covering His differentiation between truth

and fiction is just constantly My philosophy is watch his

hands, not his lips. Always just watch what he's

doing, and focus on that. If Democrats, if liberal Republicans

who opposed him wanted to feed him, they'd better not lose the signal

in the noise. The signal is this guy

came out of nowhere, he won the Republican nomination,

he won the presidency and he won it by connecting at the gut

level with a significant If liberals, liberal

Republicans and Democrats, don't figure out their own way

to connect up the gut level of those people,

we have eight years of this 9am, that's when the Supreme Court

give their verdict on the Article 50 case. I suspect we'll be talking

about it tomorrow evening. Good night.

Good evening. Another wintry night out there. Areas of frost and fog in

particular. The fog causing most of the issues. Warnings in force from

the Met Office. Most of England and east Wales can be