:00:00. > :00:10.10,000 kilograms of bomb, the biggest no-nuke ever deployed,
:00:11. > :00:12.dropped onto the tunnels used by Isis in Afghanistan.
:00:13. > :00:16.Is America trying to tell us something?
:00:17. > :00:21.We are so proud of our military and it was another successful event.
:00:22. > :00:28.Uh, everybody knows exactly what happened, so what
:00:29. > :00:35.The US military made the decision to use it.
:00:36. > :00:37.We'll ask if it's a sign of a military more willing
:00:38. > :00:45.We've been hearing for ages about the squeezed middles
:00:46. > :00:48.and the just about managing, but now the Government is helpfully
:00:49. > :01:01.We now know that Enceladus has almost all of the ingredients
:01:02. > :01:05.to support life as we know it on Earth.
:01:06. > :01:17.But should we even be looking for extra-terrestrials?
:01:18. > :01:22.GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast, or MOAB.
:01:23. > :01:27.And it was dropped in Afghanistan earlier today, aimed at the tunnels
:01:28. > :01:31.used by the Afghan branch of so-called Islamic State.
:01:32. > :01:36.The Americans have never used a conventional weapon
:01:37. > :01:38.this powerful in combat, and given everything that has been
:01:39. > :01:41.happening in US foreign policy, it is no wonder that everybody
:01:42. > :01:49.Now, don't fall for some of the hyperbole - it's huge,
:01:50. > :01:51.but it would take more than a thousand of these
:01:52. > :01:55.But does it tell us something about the willingness of the US
:01:56. > :01:57.military to flex its muscle in the world?
:01:58. > :02:03.I'm joined by our diplomatic editor Mark Urban.
:02:04. > :02:12.As a bomb, is this a big threshold through which the world has passed
:02:13. > :02:17.today? I'm not sure. The RAF's Grand Slam that was dropped in World War
:02:18. > :02:22.II was just slightly below this in size. These sort of super bombs are
:02:23. > :02:25.clearly meant to have some kind of propaganda or psychological
:02:26. > :02:29.operations effect. But if you go back in Afghanistan to the early
:02:30. > :02:37.days of American operations after 9/11 in 2001-2, they dropped several
:02:38. > :02:41.examples of a thing called the BLU82 daisy cutter which is only slightly
:02:42. > :02:44.smaller than this. So this mega- bomb theory has been tried before.
:02:45. > :02:49.You could argue that they were doing it in 2001 and they are still doing
:02:50. > :02:54.it, so the effect can't be that great. Do you think it is political
:02:55. > :03:00.signalling, or is it a political tactic or that someone has tried? It
:03:01. > :03:06.was characterised today by the White House as a thing that came from the
:03:07. > :03:09.military. It was mentioned that the commander in Afghanistan wanted this
:03:10. > :03:13.to deal with this cave system. And I think it is an iPod with other
:03:14. > :03:19.things we have been seeing. You have a military which under President
:03:20. > :03:22.Obama, there were often chafing at the bit and would be complaining to
:03:23. > :03:28.us that they felt restricted in what they could do. Now under President
:03:29. > :03:32.Trump, far less so. It seems general Matias is fully empowered to take
:03:33. > :03:33.all kinds of decisions and we are seeing the consequences of that in
:03:34. > :03:36.many different places. The announcement was certainly
:03:37. > :03:37.headline-grabbing - the use of a huge munition to attack
:03:38. > :03:47.a cave complex in Afghanistan. The so-called mother of all bombs
:03:48. > :03:50.is so big that it drops from the tail ramp of a Hercules
:03:51. > :03:59.transport aircraft. When it detonates, it creates
:04:00. > :04:01.a one-mile-radius shock wave. The White House characterised it
:04:02. > :04:04.as a military decision. The United States takes the fight
:04:05. > :04:07.against Isis very seriously. In order to defeat the group,
:04:08. > :04:10.we must deny them operational The United States took
:04:11. > :04:14.all precautions necessary to prevent civilian casualties and collateral
:04:15. > :04:21.damage as a result of the operation. A little later, President Trump
:04:22. > :04:27.was asked about it. We're very, very proud
:04:28. > :04:31.of our military. Just like we're proud
:04:32. > :04:34.of the folks in this room, we are so proud of our military,
:04:35. > :04:37.and it was another successful event. Everybody knows
:04:38. > :04:39.exactly what happened. What I do is,
:04:40. > :04:42.I authorise my military. We have the greatest military
:04:43. > :04:44.in the world, and they have So we have given them
:04:45. > :04:48.total authorisation. The new administration launched
:04:49. > :04:50.a special operations raid It stepped up activities in Libya
:04:51. > :04:57.and Newsnight understands that it has also deployed US special
:04:58. > :05:02.operators in Mogadishu, Somalia, But the biggest operational change
:05:03. > :05:08.has come in the campaign against the IS group
:05:09. > :05:12.in Iraq and Syria. There, raids have been stepped up
:05:13. > :05:16.and the rules of engagement relaxed, leading to claims that civilian
:05:17. > :05:20.casualties have In fact, the number of actions in
:05:21. > :05:26.Syria for March were down slightly. The number of targets hit
:05:27. > :05:30.by the Americans was down. But the number of civilian deaths
:05:31. > :05:33.we think likely went up sixfold. We think more than 300
:05:34. > :05:36.civilians died in March We've never seen numbers
:05:37. > :05:41.like that before. I think that is the clearest
:05:42. > :05:46.indication yet that and civilians are at greater risk
:05:47. > :05:49.of harm because of that. Early reports suggest
:05:50. > :05:54.that it was a military decision to drop such a big weapon
:05:55. > :05:57.in Afghanistan, and that seems to be the pattern of a president who has
:05:58. > :05:59.devolved considerable powers to the Pentagon to prosecute
:06:00. > :06:01.a more aggressive campaign Kurt Volker is the former
:06:02. > :06:20.US Ambassador to Nato Do you think this is a significant
:06:21. > :06:24.change in the relationship between the government of the US and the
:06:25. > :06:29.military? Have they unleashed the military to do what they will? I
:06:30. > :06:33.would phrase that differently. There is a change, but the change is to
:06:34. > :06:38.give the military a clearer and more ambitious mission and to then give
:06:39. > :06:44.them the authorisation to carry that out, not to act without any
:06:45. > :06:48.constraint of law, not to act in ways that would have the US
:06:49. > :06:53.committing war crimes, but to say the mission is to destroy Isis. The
:06:54. > :06:58.mission is to stabilise Afghanistan. Go and do that. What we had
:06:59. > :07:01.previously was a lot of micromanagement of decisions. What
:07:02. > :07:05.ordnance will we use? How much free reign with the military have? The
:07:06. > :07:08.mission for Isis was to degrade rather than destroy it? This is
:07:09. > :07:14.giving the military a clear mission and giving them authority to carry
:07:15. > :07:18.that out. Do you welcome that? I certainly do. It is important not
:07:19. > :07:21.only for the military to be effective, it is an important signal
:07:22. > :07:27.to adversaries, whether it is Isis or the Taliban, that they will now
:07:28. > :07:33.face an American and a coalition force that is prepared to do what is
:07:34. > :07:38.necessary to do the job. That will have an effect on their morale,
:07:39. > :07:42.psychology and operations. It will give momentum back to the
:07:43. > :07:45.international effort. You have used the word I was going to put in my
:07:46. > :07:51.next question, which is signalling. Do you think that is an important
:07:52. > :07:58.part of a military strategy? You mentioned Syria and Isis. The one a
:07:59. > :08:01.lot of people are thinking about is Kim Jong-Un and North Korea. Do you
:08:02. > :08:07.think there is any element of deciding on these things in order to
:08:08. > :08:12.say to someone like him, watch out? It does start as an operational and
:08:13. > :08:16.effectiveness question. What does it take to be effective? Here, it is
:08:17. > :08:20.targeting the mission in Afghanistan, targeting Isis and the
:08:21. > :08:25.Taliban. That is the starting point. That said, when you are conveying to
:08:26. > :08:28.the world that the United States is willing to take decisions and act
:08:29. > :08:33.and will be effective, that is a signal that will be picked up by
:08:34. > :08:36.people around the world, probably in a fortuitous way. Someone like Kim
:08:37. > :08:41.Jong-Un in North Korea will be thinking twice about the seriousness
:08:42. > :08:46.and effectiveness of the US. What do we think about the civilian deaths?
:08:47. > :08:51.We have been hearing more of them in Syria. One of the things Obama
:08:52. > :08:55.wanted to do was to improve the reputation and image of the US
:08:56. > :08:59.around the world. It seemed that every civilian death paying him
:09:00. > :09:03.personally. I wonder whether that pendulum is going to swing back the
:09:04. > :09:07.other way and the US will take some brand damage if it is shown to be
:09:08. > :09:13.more willing to have collateral damage. Actually, it speaks well of
:09:14. > :09:17.President Obama that he was so pained at civilian deaths. We should
:09:18. > :09:20.do everything possible to minimise that. We have to balance this in
:09:21. > :09:26.terms of proportionality and achieving the mission. The reason we
:09:27. > :09:31.are in Afghanistan, the reason we are in Syria is because of Isis Arma
:09:32. > :09:35.because of the Assad regime, because of the chemical weapons used in
:09:36. > :09:41.Syria, what they have done to their own populations. Without US
:09:42. > :09:44.involvement, there are already 11 million refugees that have spilled
:09:45. > :09:50.out of Syria fleeing the conflict, 500,000 people killed. So I agree
:09:51. > :09:54.with the sentiment that we need to do what we can to minimise civilian
:09:55. > :09:59.casualties, but we can't minimise to the extent that we are not having an
:10:00. > :10:03.impact on the conflict. Do you think the president knew this was about to
:10:04. > :10:08.happen this afternoon, or do you think he has delegated so much that
:10:09. > :10:12.he is told afterwards or sees it on CNN? I don't have a window into the
:10:13. > :10:17.way the briefings work inside the White House. I do believe he is
:10:18. > :10:20.someone who is going to give the military and General Mattis in
:10:21. > :10:24.mission and say, go do it. I also believe General Mattis and others
:10:25. > :10:28.will be briefing constantly. They will be letting the president know
:10:29. > :10:32.the status of operations. So in normal circumstances, I think he
:10:33. > :10:35.would have been briefed. Ambassador, thanks very much.
:10:36. > :10:37.The Oxford Dictionary's word of the year for 2011
:10:38. > :10:41.It was the group identified by Ed Miliband as needing a bit
:10:42. > :10:44.of tender loving care, working people, often
:10:45. > :10:54.Mr Miliband famously struggled to define the group.
:10:55. > :10:59.It was around average income, he said, not on six-figure salaries.
:11:00. > :11:02.Well, hard-working families have long been politically appealing.
:11:03. > :11:05.Then Theresa May famously talked of JAMs - the just about managing.
:11:06. > :11:07.Then JAMs became OWFs - ordinary working families.
:11:08. > :11:10.But it is only now that any government has tried
:11:11. > :11:17.As part of its thinking on grammar schools, the Government has tied
:11:18. > :11:19.itself to a definition of who they are.
:11:20. > :11:22.It's the group of working families on below average income,
:11:23. > :11:26.Is it useful to think about this group as a defined tribe?
:11:27. > :11:33.We'll discuss that shortly, but first here's Chris Cook.
:11:34. > :11:40.Today, we got some clarity about an important question. Who exactly are
:11:41. > :11:45.these ordinary working families that the Government keeps going on about?
:11:46. > :11:50.We want to provide a clear analysis of the situation of how these
:11:51. > :11:56.children of ordinary working families are faring in our education
:11:57. > :12:00.system and for measuring how our wider reforms can do better for
:12:01. > :12:05.these families and so better for the country. This group, the OWFs, our
:12:06. > :12:11.success soars to a previous favourite of Theresa May's, the just
:12:12. > :12:15.about managings, or Jams. Let's think about who we are talking about
:12:16. > :12:19.when I talk about the just about managing. These are people who have
:12:20. > :12:22.a job but worry about their job security or have a home but worry
:12:23. > :12:36.about paying the mortgage. Who, then, goes in the jamjar? Who it is
:12:37. > :12:49.and General Mattis? -- who is and OWF? Below median income, but not on
:12:50. > :12:54.free school meals is an OWF. What is median income? The median income for
:12:55. > :12:58.up two parent family with two teenage children is ?33,000. For a
:12:59. > :13:03.lone parent with one young child, it is ?70,000. The amount varies with
:13:04. > :13:09.your family type. Education purists have been puzzling today about why
:13:10. > :13:12.the Government is so interested in these so-called OWFs. That is
:13:13. > :13:16.because the research that ministers have published doesn't really make
:13:17. > :13:20.the case that the OWFs have been particularly overlooked. For
:13:21. > :13:24.example, the OWFs, unlike the poorest children, don't seem to have
:13:25. > :13:30.particular trouble getting into good schools, be they comprehensive or
:13:31. > :13:34.selective. And while it is true that across England, the richer you are,
:13:35. > :13:38.the better your grades seem to be, and that is a particular problem for
:13:39. > :13:44.the OWFs. It is not unique to them, it is a problem for the whole
:13:45. > :13:50.education system. But the OWF analysis helps the Government Selt
:13:51. > :13:55.grammar schools. A lot more OWFs schools getting to selective schools
:13:56. > :13:59.than the poorest. But many remain sceptical. We have looked at the
:14:00. > :14:03.outcome of all of those living in selected areas and factored in the
:14:04. > :14:07.losers as well as winners. Where you have an area with a concentration of
:14:08. > :14:11.grammar schools, the children who don't get into those schools suffer
:14:12. > :14:15.a GCSE penalty by comparison with similar children who live in a
:14:16. > :14:18.comprehensive area. What we see from this new ordinary working families
:14:19. > :14:22.group is that while they may have their access to grammar schools,
:14:23. > :14:26.actually, the majority of them would expect not to get a place in a
:14:27. > :14:29.grammar school. That means that they would not be benefiting. They would
:14:30. > :14:34.be in the group that are missing out. Ms Greening today hinted at
:14:35. > :14:37.measures to address the fact that grammars do take disproportionate
:14:38. > :14:41.numbers of wealthier children. But the politics get a little muddy
:14:42. > :14:47.here. Some of her supporters don't want her to push too hard there. I
:14:48. > :14:51.certainly don't think quotas are a good idea and I would be concerned
:14:52. > :14:55.to see a dramatic reduction in the pass mark. I think we should be put
:14:56. > :14:59.back -- pragmatic about how we do this, but it would be reasonable to
:15:00. > :15:03.say to existing grammar schools and to new ones, let's try our hardest
:15:04. > :15:09.to make this system is fair as it can be. We want to make sure that
:15:10. > :15:13.opportunities are open to everybody who can benefit from them. There is
:15:14. > :15:20.another reason to focus on the Jams, though, or the OWFs, - politics. In
:15:21. > :15:24.focus groups all the time, people talk and define themselves as the
:15:25. > :15:28.people stuck in the middle who are too well off to get the support that
:15:29. > :15:32.poor people get and not well enough to manage without it. They feel
:15:33. > :15:35.neglected by politicians. It is certainly helpful for this Prime
:15:36. > :15:40.Minister to pitch to people in the middle. There may be a more coherent
:15:41. > :15:56.group at the ballot box and they are in the classroom. Chris Cook, there.
:15:57. > :15:58.Phillip Blond is director of the ResPublica think tank,
:15:59. > :15:59.and one of the brains behind the Conservative's
:16:00. > :16:03.Polly Billington was special advisor to Ed Miliband,
:16:04. > :16:05.who as Labour leader promised to stand up for the
:16:06. > :16:12.Jams, and Alfs we are using them interchangeably, we prefer Jams
:16:13. > :16:16.because they make better graphics, but there was a shift? As I
:16:17. > :16:20.understand that there was a shift when the mandarins, now not popular
:16:21. > :16:24.with Theresa May, looked at what just about managing looked like,
:16:25. > :16:31.firstly there was not enough of them and secondly they looked too poor to
:16:32. > :16:35.switch to voting Tory anyway. Out is a slightly broader... A broader
:16:36. > :16:42.term, includes more people and does go further up the income scale. Big
:16:43. > :16:46.question, is it useful to focus on this group because we are talking
:16:47. > :16:51.about one third of families. I think it is worth asking who has politics
:16:52. > :16:54.been about since the times of Mrs Thatcher? I would argue
:16:55. > :17:00.predominantly for the most part it has only been about the top 10% and
:17:01. > :17:04.the bottom 10%. And arguably all policy and politics has really been
:17:05. > :17:10.in the interests of the top 10% and the concern for the bottom 10% is
:17:11. > :17:15.done so to justify that settlement. So I think the concern with
:17:16. > :17:19.something else is more than welcome and is desperately and urgently
:17:20. > :17:26.needed because if unless you can eat actually speak to those who haven't
:17:27. > :17:31.spoken to before, things like Brexit, Trump, going beyond button
:17:32. > :17:35.or become explainable. What is clear is that we have significant groups
:17:36. > :17:39.in this country who feel something and fair is being done to them, who
:17:40. > :17:45.feel they are being ignored so it is not wrong to try to centre policy
:17:46. > :17:50.around them, and I think in part, you know, this is to be welcomed. Is
:17:51. > :17:59.that what your former boss tried to do, Polly? What I think you have a
:18:00. > :18:03.problem with here, is you will come unstuck of your politics and policy
:18:04. > :18:07.are not aligned. So pretty much everyone will think of themselves as
:18:08. > :18:11.being part of the squeezed middle, that is part of their campaigning
:18:12. > :18:14.allure, the same with the just about managing. People think they are
:18:15. > :18:18.ordinary then they are extraordinary, they think they are
:18:19. > :18:22.ordinary working people are not working, they think they are a
:18:23. > :18:27.family when they are not family. So you can include everybody. If your
:18:28. > :18:31.policy only affects a small number of people, and everyone else will
:18:32. > :18:36.think, wait a minute, I thought this was for the many, not the few, and I
:18:37. > :18:39.am not entitled to it. That is where things get unstuck. What you have
:18:40. > :18:44.you with this grammar school policy which in principle I would be
:18:45. > :18:48.against anyway, you have one where only one third of places are
:18:49. > :18:52.available for this 50% core of people. How can that be seen as a
:18:53. > :18:59.progressive their policy when two thirds of the places will be kept
:19:00. > :19:06.for the 50% that are the richest? But the basic question is, why would
:19:07. > :19:10.you focus on the people who are between half and 20% rather than the
:19:11. > :19:16.bottom 20%. What is the effective argument that says, I should be more
:19:17. > :19:22.worried about the person who is 60th in the list of poor people rather
:19:23. > :19:26.than the person who is... You can deploy a range of arguments to make
:19:27. > :19:32.this point. I repeat, these other people who have been ignored over
:19:33. > :19:37.the past goodness knows how long. I thought Ed Miliband, who's made some
:19:38. > :19:41.great contributions to Conservative thinking, really hit it right with
:19:42. > :19:48.the squeeze medal. But where Labour went wrong was that they came with a
:19:49. > :19:54.small-bore offer, only speaking to those on limited incomes, or those
:19:55. > :19:57.on benefits, let's go mad, look at the now famous elephant graph which
:19:58. > :20:05.shows basically over the last 30 years that globalisation has not
:20:06. > :20:09.benefited middle or working-class people only super rich people and
:20:10. > :20:13.the poor in the third World. So he makes the argument quite
:20:14. > :20:18.convincingly that these people haven't experienced any real
:20:19. > :20:23.increase in incomes for long time. That's why it makes sense to speak
:20:24. > :20:27.to them. Not only that but if you look at modern Britain today it is
:20:28. > :20:33.like a ladder where the runs on the ladder of further and further apart.
:20:34. > :20:36.And unless you are at the very top, you are experiencing relative
:20:37. > :20:40.decline or relative stagnation almost anywhere on that ladder so
:20:41. > :20:46.people feel, wherever they are, the middle is by definition... People
:20:47. > :20:52.are feeling penalised so I think it is good politics and if the
:20:53. > :20:56.Conservatives come up with a... Which I would encourage them to do
:20:57. > :21:00.so they don't sacrifice policy... I don't think this is that and that is
:21:01. > :21:02.part of the problem. If you talk about something everyone identifies
:21:03. > :21:09.with India to offer doesn't meet that, you won't get anything out of
:21:10. > :21:12.it. The only way you can persuade everyone else to consider giving
:21:13. > :21:18.money to a certain group of people is that it is somewhere in the
:21:19. > :21:21.national interest. I want an example apart from grammar schools, what's
:21:22. > :21:25.an example of something you would do we would say, this is not about
:21:26. > :21:30.people in the top half and not about people in the bottom, it's about the
:21:31. > :21:34.people in between. Just one example of policy. Massively expanded
:21:35. > :21:40.maternity and career rights for women. Women, when they leave a job,
:21:41. > :21:46.they want to look after their children, as many do, they often go
:21:47. > :21:54.back part Time low wage, no longer on a career path. Set of victory and
:21:55. > :22:01.a massively expanded career -- so if we expand massively career path that
:22:02. > :22:08.would help all women in that area. Polly, can you think of an area?
:22:09. > :22:12.Financial security more generally, Phillip makes a good point but if
:22:13. > :22:15.you think of accessing work that is more secure, because work is
:22:16. > :22:20.becoming more flexible that means people spend more time feeling a bit
:22:21. > :22:25.on the edge, and making sure that people have something they could
:22:26. > :22:29.fall back on, not for ever but while they are flexing between jobs, the
:22:30. > :22:33.fact that more people are experiencing that flexibility, not
:22:34. > :22:39.just hipsters on their laptop but the people on the street corner
:22:40. > :22:46.waiting... We have no through life education option for people. We
:22:47. > :22:51.educate ourselves intensely at 221 and then nothing. What we have to
:22:52. > :22:57.develop, and this will be another Jams policy is a 2- life education
:22:58. > :23:05.officer so anyone can retrain at any point in their lives. With robotics
:23:06. > :23:09.and AI, everyone will suffer. Lots to say about the Jams and the Alfs.
:23:10. > :23:19.It's going to be hugely important weekend in Turkey, a referendum on
:23:20. > :23:20.the weekend could transform the country from a slightly
:23:21. > :23:25.dysfunctional parliamentary democracy to a full on presidential
:23:26. > :23:30.system. The man who stands to reign supreme is President Erdogan, very
:23:31. > :23:32.much to the concern of civil libertarians and liberal
:23:33. > :23:36.secularists. He has dominated Turkish politics for 14 years, an
:23:37. > :23:43.authoritarian rationalist seeking the backing of the nation to
:23:44. > :23:47.potentially put more emphasis on the authoritarian. Practically, there
:23:48. > :23:51.will be no Prime Minister, he will be the leader of his party and the
:23:52. > :23:56.president so there will be no one who can limit his powers. In the
:23:57. > :24:02.dying days of the Ottoman empire through the new Republic of, or
:24:03. > :24:04.Ataturk or the later years, the Turkish people have repeatedly found
:24:05. > :24:11.themselves with strong leaders, or that aspire to be, President Erdogan
:24:12. > :24:15.fits that bill. It does not like opposition and has cracked down on
:24:16. > :24:20.the press. This former editor of an opposition newspaper is now exiled
:24:21. > :24:29.in Berlin. Politically he is the kind of leader, like Putin or Trump,
:24:30. > :24:35.who hates criticism, and takes every kind of criticism as an insult to
:24:36. > :24:40.himself. Last summer's attempted coup briefly raised the prospect of
:24:41. > :24:43.turmoil in Turkey, a violent Kurdish insurgency and attacks by the
:24:44. > :24:48.Islamic State group have all been used to justify a state of emergency
:24:49. > :24:49.so would a newly empowered president be better equipped to face these
:24:50. > :24:55.challenges? And would it bolster Turkey's
:24:56. > :24:57.power in the Middle East? If Turkey is able to play
:24:58. > :25:00.a stronger, assertive role in those countries in the multiple conflicts
:25:01. > :25:02.engulfing the region, then that is a good thing
:25:03. > :25:04.for the region. But only if a stronger Erdogan
:25:05. > :25:07.means a more stable, I spoke earlier to Ilnur Cevik,
:25:08. > :25:18.chief adviser to President Erdogan. Started by asking him if we should
:25:19. > :25:20.be worried the proposed constitutional changes will give
:25:21. > :25:23.President Erdogan much power. Not really, because actually
:25:24. > :25:25.what he is doing is, the president at the moment
:25:26. > :25:39.has dictatorial powers. He has the powers of a junta leader
:25:40. > :25:44.because the presidential powers were given, designed for a junta
:25:45. > :25:51.leader after the 1980 coup. But let's just be clear,
:25:52. > :25:53.does President Erdogan, after the referendum,
:25:54. > :25:55.if he gets his way, he will have power to appoint
:25:56. > :25:57.half the senior judges, his own vice presidents,
:25:58. > :26:00.he will be able to make law? He can only appoint only four
:26:01. > :26:06.of the judges and seven judges are being appointed
:26:07. > :26:08.by the Parliament. By the Parliament,
:26:09. > :26:10.of the senior judges, yes, He can hire and fire civil servants
:26:11. > :26:17.and of course he can make The reason why constitutional
:26:18. > :26:22.experts are worried about it is precisely because it
:26:23. > :26:27.gives them so much power. The presidential executive orders
:26:28. > :26:35.can be overruled by the Parliament. If there is any law that clashes
:26:36. > :26:40.with the executive orders, then, the law overrides
:26:41. > :26:43.the executive order. Why do you think so many
:26:44. > :26:48.constitutional experts and others are worried as hell
:26:49. > :26:51.about what Turkey looks like it's Truly, it's hard to understand
:26:52. > :26:56.why, because we wanted To bring a new system, scrap
:26:57. > :27:06.the military drafted constitution, But we didn't have the
:27:07. > :27:12.majority to do that, so all we could do is suffice
:27:13. > :27:18.with the changes that will just bring a clear-cut distinction
:27:19. > :27:23.between separation of power and allow the president to run
:27:24. > :27:27.the country while the legislative And was the president wrong
:27:28. > :27:37.when he said on February 12th that the referendum would be
:27:38. > :27:40.an answer to the coup and that those who vote No,
:27:41. > :27:43.vote against him in the referendum, will be siding with the coup
:27:44. > :27:46.and siding with terrorists, as some of the AKP party leaders
:27:47. > :27:49.have been saying? The coup was a stark reminder
:27:50. > :27:58.of what is in store for Turkey The coup was a kind of,
:27:59. > :28:05.unfortunately, referendum by the people who flocked
:28:06. > :28:07.into the streets and They braved tanks, they braved F-16
:28:08. > :28:15.fighters, and the people of Turkey And now we are saying that we're
:28:16. > :28:21.switching to a new system Would you be happy if President
:28:22. > :28:30.Erdogan saw out another full two terms under the new constitution
:28:31. > :28:32.and would thus have been Does that strike you as good
:28:33. > :28:38.governance, good leadership Well, if the people vote for it,
:28:39. > :28:45.if they are satisfied with the way he runs
:28:46. > :28:48.the country, why not? They may get fed up with him
:28:49. > :28:51.in the next two years, nobody knows. And if Erdogan shows bad leadership,
:28:52. > :29:10.let's put it this way, if people are unhappy with the way he's
:29:11. > :29:12.running the country, the Parliament can easily take
:29:13. > :29:14.the country to early elections. The EU does not seem very
:29:15. > :29:16.enthusiastic about these constitutional changes,
:29:17. > :29:18.to say the least. Does it bother
:29:19. > :29:25.you that the EU and your prospect of EU membership is receding
:29:26. > :29:27.further into the distant, Not really, because we're not sure
:29:28. > :29:31.where the EU is going anyway. We are trying to get
:29:32. > :29:33.into the EU, while you guys The irony is, we have been pushing
:29:34. > :29:43.and pushing and pushing and they haven't accepted us
:29:44. > :29:46.for the past 54 years. We've been at the doorstep,
:29:47. > :29:48.being treated like beggars. And our people are very,
:29:49. > :29:54.very unhappy about that and we see our friends back
:29:55. > :29:59.in Britain with Brexit coming out of the EU, and we are saying,
:30:00. > :30:03.is it really worth all the effort? But we will see after
:30:04. > :30:10.the referendum, the president will sit down with the EU leaders,
:30:11. > :30:14.and I think we will really ask for an account of what has
:30:15. > :30:16.happened until now. Ilnur Cevik, very nice to talk
:30:17. > :30:21.to you, thank you very much. A pause for thought now,
:30:22. > :30:23.because it's time for Viewsnight. Tonight, heart surgeon
:30:24. > :30:26.Stephen Westaby wonders whether we are unwittingly
:30:27. > :30:30.pushing his profession into a culture that
:30:31. > :30:33.runs away from risk. Politics is destroying
:30:34. > :30:39.British heart surgery. British heart surgery used to be
:30:40. > :30:50.the best in the world. We were at the centre
:30:51. > :30:55.of research and innovation. Over the past 35 years,
:30:56. > :30:57.I've performed almost 12,000 But now heart surgery has been
:30:58. > :31:07.suffocated by a culture of blame. British heart surgeons
:31:08. > :31:14.are becoming a rare breed. After the Bristol children's
:31:15. > :31:16.heart inquiry and the hospitals scandal, NHS
:31:17. > :31:27.England decided to publish surgeons' death rates
:31:28. > :31:28.under the banner of Mortality rates were published
:31:29. > :31:32.hastily, newspapers named The implication was that surgeons
:31:33. > :31:39.have responsibility for every death. Most deaths actually occur
:31:40. > :31:41.when a common post-operative This happens most at nights
:31:42. > :31:44.and weekends in the presence Surely the best surgeon should
:31:45. > :31:55.have the highest death rates Now we have an elephant
:31:56. > :31:59.in the consulting room. Surgeons are becoming risk
:32:00. > :32:01.averse and the sickest Prospective surgeons are now
:32:02. > :32:04.discouraged from entering such In 2000, 70% of heart
:32:05. > :32:07.surgery trainees came So the NHS now relies
:32:08. > :32:12.on heart surgeons who have He has recently written his memoir -
:32:13. > :32:50.Fragile Lives - about his work Now, this next story
:32:51. > :32:55.should probably have been the lead on this programme,
:32:56. > :32:59.but it is just possible that it is a lot of hype
:33:00. > :33:04.and one to be ignored. The news is that Nasa has made
:33:05. > :33:06.a pretty dramatic statement about the possibility of life
:33:07. > :33:08.existing inside one Nasa tells us that its Cassini
:33:09. > :33:12.spacecraft has flown within 120 kilometres of the moon Enceladus,
:33:13. > :33:18.where they use metric measurements, and they have found hydrogen
:33:19. > :33:21.molecules, which was the last piece of evidence they were looking
:33:22. > :33:24.for that microbial life may exist. In a moment, we'll discuss
:33:25. > :33:26.whether humans should be looking for alien life at all -
:33:27. > :33:32.but first, we are joined from Washington by Dr
:33:33. > :33:43.Mary Voytek, the head How big a moment is this? This is an
:33:44. > :33:47.incredible moment. We have been waiting for evidence just like this
:33:48. > :33:53.since we first discovered that there were oche world outside of our own
:33:54. > :33:58.Earth -- ocean worlds. The mantra of Nasa has been, follow the water. If
:33:59. > :34:01.we find lots of water in these oceans, we find evidence of the
:34:02. > :34:06.building blocks of life and now we have found a source of energy. What
:34:07. > :34:14.is the terrain we are talking about and how similar is it to anything
:34:15. > :34:16.you might find on this planet? The hydrogen is being produced because
:34:17. > :34:25.the core of Enceladus is very porous. So ocean water can move
:34:26. > :34:30.through it, get heated by energy from the core, interact with the
:34:31. > :34:38.rocks and then vent in some fashion into the overlying ocean water. A
:34:39. > :34:41.good example of this is what we find in our deep oceans, known as
:34:42. > :34:47.hydrothermal vents. We are not sure that we have these tall structures,
:34:48. > :34:51.but it's the same kind of chemistry. As you may know, when we discovered
:34:52. > :34:57.these 40 years ago, we found them because they were surrounded by
:34:58. > :35:01.incredibly complex and beautiful ecosystems, giant worms, shrimp,
:35:02. > :35:07.fish, basically supported by energy coming out of these fluids from
:35:08. > :35:12.beneath the surface. I am not going to ask you to put a percentage
:35:13. > :35:18.chance on it, but when we say life is possible, does that mean we can't
:35:19. > :35:25.rule it out, or does it mean we are talking 50-50? Give us a sense of
:35:26. > :35:30.how likely it would be. Well, this is the first step in knowing that
:35:31. > :35:38.this environment could support life. Whether or not life emerged, it is
:35:39. > :35:42.probably likely that it has emerged somewhere. I am not sure if it is on
:35:43. > :35:46.this particular moon or if this moon has had enough time. On our own
:35:47. > :35:50.planet, recent results suggest that life emerged maybe within 400
:35:51. > :35:56.million years of the formation of our planet. We think that this moon
:35:57. > :36:00.might be as young as 100 million years, we are not sure of its age.
:36:01. > :36:04.So we have all the ingredients, we are just not sure if there has been
:36:05. > :36:08.enough time for life to have emerged and started to take advantage of
:36:09. > :36:15.this food source. Where would this life come from? This hasn't come
:36:16. > :36:19.from a meteorite flying around the solar system and planting life, this
:36:20. > :36:24.is life evolving out of the chemistry of the soup it sits in?
:36:25. > :36:30.Absolutely. The idea of panspermia is something we talk about, which is
:36:31. > :36:36.sharing a Genesis on one body by ceding the second one. That is
:36:37. > :36:41.something that could happen between the Earth and Mars where there has
:36:42. > :36:46.been a significant amount of material exchanged. This is very far
:36:47. > :36:53.from us. Enceladus is a billion kilometres away, so the likelihood
:36:54. > :36:59.that there would be seeding from Earth out there is almost nil. So we
:37:00. > :37:01.would be talking about a second Genesis. Mary, thanks for joining
:37:02. > :37:07.us. Professor Nick Bostrom,
:37:08. > :37:09.director and founder of the Future of Humanity Institute,
:37:10. > :37:14.at Oxford University where he looks at understudied existential threats
:37:15. > :37:19.to the future of humanity. He wrote: "Where are they -
:37:20. > :37:22.why I hope the search for extraterrestrial
:37:23. > :37:36.life finds nothing". Do you really feel that you don't
:37:37. > :37:39.want us to find it? I think no news is good news as far as the search
:37:40. > :37:42.for extraterrestrial life is concerned. It would be tremendously
:37:43. > :37:48.exciting and scientifically interesting, but I think it would be
:37:49. > :37:51.a bad omen for our own future. Explain this to us, because it is
:37:52. > :37:57.quite a complicated argument. Why would it be bad to discover worms on
:37:58. > :38:01.another planet? In a nutshell, the idea is that we look out at the
:38:02. > :38:07.universe and we see a grand total of zero advanced to extraterrestrial
:38:08. > :38:12.civilisations. As far as we know, it looks empty out there. We know there
:38:13. > :38:15.are a lot of planets and moons. So there has got to be some great
:38:16. > :38:23.filter or something that takes these billions of planets and moons a hard
:38:24. > :38:27.that for life that then produces zero space colonising civilisations
:38:28. > :38:30.that we would have seen. There are two possibilities. This great filter
:38:31. > :38:34.could be behind us in our evolutionary past. Maybe it is just
:38:35. > :38:39.really hard for life to produce even the simplest organisms or to evolve
:38:40. > :38:43.more compact life. Or it could be in our future. Maybe all this
:38:44. > :38:47.sufficiently advanced civilisations destroyed themselves before they can
:38:48. > :38:55.colonise the universe. So if we do find life, it might be a sign that
:38:56. > :39:00.they are poised to destroy us? Which would be bad news. The other
:39:01. > :39:07.argument, maybe inspired by films we have seen, is that we become
:39:08. > :39:12.infected. If we find a little thing there and bring it back here, is
:39:13. > :39:18.that a plausible risk? It is a small risk, but a risk. On the one hand,
:39:19. > :39:22.we might discover a lot of useful stuff by investigating the different
:39:23. > :39:27.biochemistry. Maybe we could find new drugs or organisms that would be
:39:28. > :39:30.useful. But you can't rule out the possibility that this life would
:39:31. > :39:33.have discovered some different metabolic pathway that is more
:39:34. > :39:39.efficient than Earth's so if you brought it back, it could outcompete
:39:40. > :39:45.our microorganisms. As somebody who thinks about the future of humanity
:39:46. > :39:49.in quite a deep way, how likely is it, do you think, that we will
:39:50. > :39:53.encounter intelligent life at any point? A lot of people speculate on
:39:54. > :39:59.UFOs. Is that tiny? It is very small. Of course, a lot of
:40:00. > :40:02.cosmologists think the universe is literally infinite, in which case we
:40:03. > :40:05.can be pretty sure that there is intelligent life out there, but it
:40:06. > :40:09.might be so far away that we will never come into contact. But isn't
:40:10. > :40:13.that why we haven't encountered these intelligent species, it is
:40:14. > :40:22.because it takes too long to get around? But we know that even within
:40:23. > :40:25.a reasonable sea, and remember that the timescales are very large
:40:26. > :40:28.because the universe has been around for billions of years, so that would
:40:29. > :40:33.be a long time to cover quite far. Even within the radius that we know
:40:34. > :40:36.a civilisation could have travelled, there are billions of planets and
:40:37. > :40:38.none of those has produced any space-faring civilisation so far as
:40:39. > :40:44.we can tell. Mick, thanks very much. Now, before we go, all of that data
:40:45. > :40:47.about life on Enceladus came Cassini was launched in 1997,
:40:48. > :40:50.and has been sending back astonishing information and images
:40:51. > :40:52.ever since it reached It will run out of fuel this autumn,
:40:53. > :40:59.and for its final, doomed, mission, it has been programmed to plunge
:41:00. > :41:02.through Saturn's rings and burn out as it enters
:41:03. > :41:05.the planet's atmosphere. This is what Nasa thinks
:41:06. > :42:01.the mission will look like. Some of us may end up being a little
:42:02. > :42:05.disappointed with the weather on Good Friday. It is looking pretty
:42:06. > :42:08.overcast and there is some rain on the way, but most of it should be
:42:09. > :42:10.light and it will not last all