23/01/2017 Newsnight


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 23/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Download Subtitles