24/07/2017 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines. With Evan Davis.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 24/07/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight, the President's son-in-law tells the press


We hear from Jared Kushner, as he's called to give evidence


Let me be very clear - I did not collude with Russia,


nor do I know of anyone else in the campaign who did so.


And we ask President Obama's legal counsel if there's any more to this


Also tonight: The fate of the Northern Powerhouse.


It was George Osborne's pet project, designed to upgrade the trains


of Northern England, but did it almost get


I was a Minister up when it was pretty obvious that those two


advisers to Theresa May were purely out of animosity trying to


discourage her from continuing get and apparently doing things without


her knowledge. We'll ask the Mayor of Manchester,


Andy Burnham, what he makes of that. We're all talking


about women's cricket. We'll be talking about women's


sport more generally, We'll ask a sports executive


and a former Ashes winner Washington is reeling from


an extraordinary public appearance from someone they hear much of,


but see very little. Jared Kushner is President


Trump's senior advisor. He's also his son-in-law,


husband of Ivanka. Today, he was called to give


evidence over four meetings he had Meetings critics say


could have interfered We'll ask whether the sound and fury


that surrounds team Trump and Russia At the Senate, were also hearing


protests about health reform, the bill in its last stages may not get


past with certainty this week. First, the day as we saw it here.


A man whose name is whispered throughout Washington,


But today, Jared Kushner unwillingly entered the limelight,


aiming to dispel rumours of collusion with Russia.


I am senior adviser to President Donald J Trump.


For many, it was the first time we'd heard his voice.


It sounded for a moment like a resignation speech.


The record and documents I have voluntarily provided will show that


all of my actions were proper and occurred in the normal course


Let me be very clear - I did not collude with Russia,


nor do I know of anyone else in the campaign who did so.


Earlier, Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser had been


He arrived low-key, no motorcade, to give evidence


The press were not fed as handsomely as they'd hoped.


I think one of the interesting dynamics of this process has been


the degree to which, from our point of view as reporters, if you look at


the York of this, when we ask questions over the months and longer


than months now, where their meetings with Russians? Did you talk


about these things? We will always told, no, no, no, absolutely not.


Then when you've find out such a thing happened, you have to say, why


were you guys denying this for so long? And what else would you deny


now that might later proved to be true?


He was grilled about his four meetings with Russian


contacts before the election and pre-empted his speech


with an extraordinary 11-page statement to the Select Committee,


insisting nothing inappropriate had occurred.


When you talk to those in the Trump administration, they accuse critics,


Democrats, we the mainstream media, of a certain level of hysteria over


this issue. Political campaigns are tawdry things, one source told me


who has run a fuel himself. If someone offers you dirt on an


opponent, you take it, it is hard to turn a deaf ear. There is a certain


truth to that, but where does grubby politics start being something a


little more sinister? Something that, in the words


of former CIA Director John Brennan, There is a great deal of alarm among


foreign policy experts, over different administrations like John


Brennan, that this case is about if nothing else the weakening of


American power and influence internationally. Because we are as a


country if not being snookered by Russia, then at least going along


with and agreeing with Russia and a host of issues where we have not


previously agreed with them. So, what exactly is being


alleged about the Trump Well, Donald Trump's always been


much more favourably disposed towards Vladimir Putin


than his fellow Republicans. American intelligence agencies


all agree that not only was Russia behind the e-mail hacks on Democrats


last year that were so damaging to Hillary Clinton,


but that the hacks were designed specifically to help


Donald Trump win. A dossier compiled by ex-MI6 agent


Christopher Steele on behalf of Trump's opponents made various


salacious, albeit so far unverified, allegations about what motives


Donald Trump might have for working A number of Trump's closest advisers


and relatives have been caught lying about or omitting to mention


contacts they had with Russian officials or Russians


with Kremlin links. President Trump's attitude


to the investigation has He fired the FBI Director


James Comey because of - And he's been publicly


critical of the team assembled by Robert Mueller,


the special counsel tasked with investigating


those Russia ties now. Kushner maintained he joined those


meetings late, half-briefed. Protestations some heard as him


throwing Don Junior, When the family business


is running America, things get Here, Washington's summer has


erupted into the rain. That is the sound. We're sitting in a place


literally called the swamp. Familiar to viewers more as a metaphor for


somewhere Trump has promised to drain. We will talk about that now


with Obama's legal counsel when he was President and Ron Christie the


Republican strategist. Thank you for sitting through a


soaking wet shower. Jared Kushner, extraordinary intervention today


when he came in front of the cameras because we had not seen him because


the hearing was closed. And he made that point of saying, this was


basically sour grapes, he won a good campaign, Trump did it and anybody


suggesting anything else was just sort of being bitter about it. He


probably knows better. Ten days ago now, we had the release of e-mails


indicating where conversations between people claiming to be


members of the Russian government and the Trump campaign for some


collaboration to the presidency campaign, so we have genuine


questions and Mr Kushner understands that, I think. This is the trouble,


there had been so many inconsistencies, you can call them


lies or certainly on troops. People saying they have not had meetings we


now know they did, why would you believe any of this? Good evening,


Bob and I understand that having filled out security clearance forms,


you have to have a good sense of who you have spoken to and what you


spoke about and the fact he has had to amend this a couple of times


makes you wonder what else are you not disclosing to the American


people? So you are nervous as a Republican watching this? As a


Republican watching this, get it out early, tell the truth. Disclosed to


the American people everything you have done and if you have nothing to


hide, there is nothing to worry about. These amendments make me


think, what else will we uncover from this investigation? Even if a


lot of stuff is uncovered, we have an extraordinary statement from


Donald Trump saying he has the ability as President to pardon. Yes,


I don't know where he get that idea, there is significant disagreement


about it and there is nothing to suggest that. There is no precedent


for that? There is no precedent and serious reason to doubt it. It is


certainly a matter if he chose a course like that that would go


before a United States Supreme Court and I don't know he would be very


happy with the outcome. If they meeting has taken place, has it been


illegal? Why are we talking about this in terms of collusion? Many


Republicans would say these were four meetings in good faith by


anyone trying to work out if there was dirt on their opponent, what is


wrong with that? Let's take the meeting in June, arranged by Donald


Trump Junior, in Trump Tower, he received an e-mail saying Russia


wanted to help their government support Donald Trump and they came


from Moscow for the purpose of having that conversation. So right


there, you have fundamentally a question under the law prohibiting


campaigns from soliciting support from Front National is and prohibits


foreign nationals from providing support to American political


campaigns. -- soliciting support from foreign nationals. How much


more will come out? How long will the Republican Party and loyal


supporters such as yourself stand back and find excuses always to


explain what is going on? As a lawyer, I look at this and say, a


meeting does not collusion make. You need to have a sustained campaign


and effort to get something of value from a foreign sourced and we have


not seen that yet. But I will say this, a lot of people in this


building behind us nervous as Republicans, from swing districts,


and when do we cut the chord with the President and run more


independent from him for real action rather than stick with this


administration? That is coming very quickly. I look at September at the


latest, a lot of Republicans fleeing from this administration. Just go?


Just go. If you are hearing cheering off-camera, it is a protest about


the health care bill that Donald Trump is trying to pass this week.


Mike has just driven in to bully the senators into going his way. A lot


of this has been forgotten in this talk of Russia. Is that something he


gets through? What is your sense of this? It does not appear there is


any unified Republican support for an alternative for the health gap


bill passed in the Obama Administration. Senator McConnell


and speaker Ryan tries to find common ground and it is not there.


The Republican a little constituency is not comfortable with having the


health care provided under the previous statute. I think we have


lost family. That was a rainfall, not a feeble British drizzle! That


really was quite something. We will move on.


Time was you couldn't avoid the words 'Northern Powerhouse'


But then George Osborne was sacked by Theresa May


and, as it was his pet project, it seemed to fade somewhat.


And there are new worries about it now, because the Government has


announced it's potentially scaling back some earlier promised


basic upgrades of rail services around Manchester.


This goes back to a precursor to the Northern Powerhouse,


which was a project called the Northern Hub, which involved


extra platforms at Piccadilly station, better connections


between the stations within Manchester and electrification


Some of this has now been questioned by the Transport


Ironically, though, Mr Grayling did give today a tentative thumps-up


to a hugely expensive project in London, Crossrail 2.


The Northern Powerhouse very much back in the news, and you have been


speaking to one of the early Fathers of this project. This evening I


spoke to Jim O'Neill, one of the fathers of the Northern Powerhouse


project, and he told me that Theresa May is strongly committed to this


project, but interestingly, he told me that he believes that the former


joint chiefs of staff, Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy, had attempted to


discourage the Prime Minister from continuing with it. He talked about


his annoyance in government, he resigned in September over


frustration on a number of fronts, but Nick Timothy has denied these


claims, he has told me tonight it is categorically untrue and I was


responsible for saying we needed more of the same for more of our


cities. So that is the debate around Jim O'Neill, but new concerns around


the Northern Powerhouse because of these announcements. That is right,


this green light for Crossrail 2, North- South in London, and a


question over the electrification of the East- West links in the north.


So with those questions, I have been taking a look at the proposed


modernisation of northern railways. We are a nation of, if not exactly


train spotters, then certainly train lovers - back to the cards of the


1960s, our leaders have learned that they tamper with our railways at


their peril. Today the Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling, ushered


in end of the era of rail travel when he gave strong support to


Crossrail 2, a new link through London. But is the attention being


lavished on our capital also being matched in the North of England?


Only last week, Chris Grayling appeared to cast doubt over the


Government's commitment to the Northern Powerhouse by suggesting


that an upgraded line between Leeds and Manchester may not be fully


electrified. George Osborne, who championed the Northern Powerhouse


in government, may be disappointed. We want to build the Northern


Powerhouse, we want to make sure that our country is going across the


nation, not just in London and the south-east, not just putting all of


our bets on the City of London, and that means investing in the


transport of the North, and we are publishing a comprehensive transport


strategy that includes faster routes between Manchester and Leeds. But


the father of the Northern Powerhouse says electrification of


that line isn't everything. I kind of sympathise with many other


council leaders in the North who are saying this sort of thing, as they


have done before when previous plans for a electrification have been


delayed. I think they are being a little bit too emotional and that


they are probably not focusing on the real substantive matters. The


electrification issue over the Pennines is not really... It is a


bit of a red herring. The key to the speed is the straightness of the


line. Jim O'Neill resigned last year. Tonight, the former Goldman


Sachs executive tells Newsnight he believes that Theresa May's former


Joint Chiefs of Staff, Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy, tried to downgrade


the Northern Powerhouse out of spite towards George Osborne. He became


suspicious when the former communications director accused


Fiona Hill of encouraging staff to strip out references to the Northern


Powerhouse. Well, of course I saw that report, and it justified my


annoyance when I was a minister, when it was pretty obvious that that


those two advisers were, purely out of animosity, trying to discourage


it from continuing, and apparently doing things without her knowledge.


But now that they are gone, I think it is more likely that this Prime


Minister will be more supportive of it. Nick Timothy has told Newsnight


these claims are categorically untrue. The former Number Ten


adviser said he was responsible for saying the Government needed more of


the spirit of the Northern Powerhouse for more cities. The


former minister believes Theresa May is now wholly committed to the


project. We have a new Northern Powerhouse minister, who I have


spoken to, and I think he feels quite empowered by the PM. I think


it is going to get more notoriety than it has done for the past few


months without those two add advisers around. So perhaps our


nation of train lovers can be reassured that the Northern


Powerhouse is back on track. But George Osborne has this evening put


down a marker - if Britain is serious about its future, it needs


to recommit to those Northern Rail links.


Andy Burnham, the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester,


Good evening to you. Did you get the sense, in period from last summer to


this summer, that there was a sidelining of the whole Northern


Powerhouse thing in central government? Oh, very much so, and I


heard a rumour in Westminster that the phrase Northern Powerhouse had


been banned from press releases and speeches, and that was confirmed at


the weekend by the former press officer at Number Ten. And it


worries me greatly, because we have sensed ever since George Osborne


left that there has been oh real commitment to the north in the


current government. I cannot see anyone speaking up for the North,


and to be fair to George Osborne, he did at least do that, and he


deserves credit for that, but I have become buried worried about the lack


of commitment to the North, and indeed the promises it made. It


promised people a powerhouse, and everyone is asking, where is it? How


serious do you think the announcement is that there may not


be the extra platforms at Piccadilly station and there may not be the


entire electrification of the Trans-Pennine route? I think the


Government would be making a major mistake if it and estimates the fury


that people here feel when they see those announcements last week and


then here today that billions more will be spent on London. You know,


number one, Crossrail 2 was not in the Conservative manifesto, so on


what basis has it gone to the front of the queue haired of the North? I


think many people in our country would see those links across the


North as a high priority. But number two, all of this has been announced


since Parliament went up. I would have loved to see Chris Grayling


announced the scrapping of various schemes for electrification


alongside Roswell two, because there would have been uproar. I will


contact MPs in Greater Manchester and across the North, because while


this may be the Government's view that it can cancel the schemes and


give the green light to Crossrail, I do not think it will be Parliament's


view, and MPs need to seek a vote to see whether MPs agree that this is


the way to proceed with rail investment in our country. Jim


O'Neill, the one who was saying that he thought it was being sidelined,


he didn't think it was any longer necessarily being sidelined and that


the short-term staff around a electrification and the Northern Hub


project, the predecessor project, that is not the point, and it has


not been abandoned - you are talking like they have abandoned it, but


they are still officially committed to it, right? I very much hope that


Jim is right, I am not necessarily here to play party politics. If they


had said that they would make commitments to the north and honour


that, I would be the first to say thank you, because this is where the


need is, the North cannot become a powerhouse economy unless there is


serious investment in our rail and transport infrastructure, and that


is the point that Jim O'Neill has correctly made this evening. But we


can't wait forever, we need improvements now, that is why


electrification is important, and it is why we need more capacity at


Manchester Piccadilly. People travelling across northern cities


who will have other long commute home tonight, they will be furious


watching your programme, hearing the news that the Government has cut


back on rail investment in the North on the day it has given the green


light to Crossrail 2. I think they will peel that the Government is not


listening to what people are saying, they are not governing for the whole


country. Do they have any other vision for the North? Post-Brexit


Britain, coming up with an economic model for the whole country is what


everybody says is the gold - do they have a plan for the North of


England? Well, if they do, I have not heard it yet, and if everyone


would hear it, it is me, because I am listening very carefully to what


they say. Another example of why I am getting worried - David Davis


gave me a commitment that he would meet me shortly after the mayoral


election alongside that newly elected mayors to talk about Brexit,


and that has not happened. We are hearing rumours about education


funding post-16, that they may try to change that. So we have no


evidence at the moment that they are committed or have a vision for the


North, but they need one, they need to help the Northern economy have a


positive future outside of the European Union, they need to help us


invest in new industries like digital, advance manufacturing, but


I have not seen any evidence of that yet. But none of it is possible


without investment in 21st century infrastructure. Andy Burnham,


thanks. In Kabul, dozens were killed


in a suicide car bombing today. The numbers killed in terror attacks


there are horrifying. 49 dead in March when gunmen


attacked a military hospital. 150 killed by a truck


bomb at the end of May. The people of Afghanistan


are bearing an insufferable burden, caught between the Taliban and IS,


who sometimes claim responsibility for attacks,


and an unpopular central government in Kabul that doesn't


control the whole country. Remember, the Afghan war


goes back to 2001, so it's 16 years


of unresolved conflict now. The British withdrew in 2014,


the Americans still have a presence. Our diplomatic editor,


Mark Urban, has been looking


at the state of things. this time attacking


government workers in a bus. and it comes at a time when policy


in Washington is deadlocked and the Afghan security


situation worsening. The Afghan national security forces


are suffering completely unsustainable casualties in the war


over the past year as well. They also simply can't sustain


in terms of replacing lost troops or troops lost to casualties


or simply leaving the army. And they're losing


territory as well. There's been a slow rolling back


of government authority from 72% of the country's districts in


November 2015 to 60% this February, and an expansion


of insurgent-held districts Things this year


have deteriorated further. For the British, insurgent gains


in Helmand province have proven particularly


hard to swallow. Guerilla groups taking over


districts like Sangin or Musa Qala, where hundreds of British soldiers


lost their lives. There have been


other Taliban gains, major attacks have happened in


Ghor and Badakhshan provinces. What I'm seeing there, really,


is what has always been the case, It's being held, the Afghans


are doing a fantastic job there, but at the extremities


it's much harder. to see Afghanistan's security


in isolation from Pakistan. The Afghan government has often


blamed a major attacks in Kabul on proxies of Pakistan


military intelligence, and the Trump administration wants


to increase pressure on Pakistan - So that ranges from withholding


more military assistance but also much more sort of robust,


hard-nosed options. They're trying to put


the screws on Islamabad, including things like expanding


the scope of drone strikes to try and target Taliban


and other militant leaders in parts of Pakistan outside


of the Tribal Areas, where drones have previously


not been flown, and that would provoke a real sort


of crisis in US-Pakistan relations. And as the campaign


against government bases in rural Afghanistan has stepped up,


insurgents have used the type of tactics


we've seen in Syria and Iraq. Here, you can see a light truck,


circled there, heading into a police base in


Helmand province late last year. It penetrates right into the base


through the gate there Now, late last week,


a more sophisticated tactic one of the key places in the British


campaign to secure Helmand province. There's a ring of security posts


around the town, and the Taliban attacked it


with three truck bombs, captured Humvees,


lightly armoured vehicles, one of them driven by the son


of a local Taliban leader. They then followed up


with an infantry attack. It's very hard for lightly


armed police and troops I think what's needed is to continue


to invest in the specialist capabilities which will make


all the difference for the Afghans in this campaign and will give them


the edge over the Taliban. So the British have


announced, I think, The Americans, as you say,


are considering their options - I think General McMaster,


James Mattis, General Nicholson, these are very competent,


wise individuals US Marines have been involved


in the recent Helmand fighting, drawn in by the deterioration


in security. President Trump and his military


advisers, meanwhile, are deadlocked about whether thousands


more should be sent - but what none of them want


is for the Afghan government to collapse under this


new insurgent onslaught. Mark Urban with a rather grim


assessment of the situation. Lord Dannatt oversaw Britain's


operations in Afghanistan as Chief of the Defence Staff


from 2006 to 2009. He is now a crossbench peer,


and he joins me from Norwich. A very good evening to you. Do you


recognise that the country there is slipping away? Well, I certainly


recognise, on the basis of the film you have just shown, that the


situation remains very difficult, and as is expected, it remains one


that we have to fight, or the Afghan security forces have to fight with


great intensity. I think the proportion of the country that the


film showed, of 10-12% under Taliban control, is entirely consistent with


what we expected. Kandahar province, Helmand province, these were always


the heartlands of the insurgency against the Kabul government, so it


is not at all surprisingly this is where the focus of the fighting is.


And then of course you have got very, very sallies forth by the


Taliban into Kabul to catch the headline - very successfully, I may


say, courtesy of the international media - of what goes on in Kabul.


You said the Afghan army needs to fight. Let me be clear. We, the


British Government, may have ended our combat operations in 2014, but


the British Government did not end its support to the Afghan


government. There were over 500 British servicemen still serving in


Afghanistan. Principally running the Afghan National Army officer


training Academy. Many international diplomats and other experts


supporting the Government activities. We have not abandoned


Afghanistan. We have changed our support to Afghanistan because


frankly, Afghanistan remains an extraordinarily important player in


the stability of that part of the wider region in that part of the


world. You can go to districts like Musa Qala in Helmand Province, many


British troops died trying to keep those districts. They are now


occupied by the Taliban. How much does that upset you? Of course, in


the narrow context of the families of those who lost their loved ones


in fighting those tactical battles, it upsets me hugely. But in the


wider context of the wider operational and strategic effort to


try and stabilise Afghanistan, to become a significant player in that


part of the world, it is understandable. The loss of life of


any individual leaves a shattered family and extraordinarily


regrettable. But in the bigger picture, I'm afraid casualties have


to be accepted. Afghanistan is very important in that part of the world,


Musa Qala tactically is important, as is Sangin, but if we lose control


of those places, in the wider picture, it matters a lot but it


does not necessarily matter in the big picture. Do you have an idea of


what we should do about Pakistan? By all accounts, it is causing much of


the instability in Afghanistan. We were not sorting out the one without


finding a solution to what the other one is trying to get out of that? I


cannot agree this wider issue means test needs to be tackled


energetically on the wider diplomatic circuit and extraordinary


pressure should be brought on Afghanistan. The ambivalent attitude


that Pakistan has had towards the situation in Afghanistan, the ISI


has played both sides against the centre, this is quite extraordinary,


quite unacceptable, and the United States, United Kingdom, united


European Union, anybody else with influence should bring it on to


Pakistan to say, let's get settled on this. Because you not helping.


And I also, a parallel conversation, with slightly less intensity, should


be brought on India as well. Do we have much influence in this, does


the Foreign Office have the power to knock heads together? You would


think in Pakistan, you might have, but I wonder whether we do. In the


bigger context of Brexit, we think we want to be a big player in the


world, maybe we should be, maybe we are a big player in the world. India


and Pakistan are part of a sort of heritage, we do have influence in


those parts of the world, I think our international diplomats should


be on and off the jets very rapidly banging heads together in that part


of the world to say Afghanistan mattered in the 19th century, it


mattered in the 20th century and it sure as hell matters in the


21st-century. Thank you very much. You will already know that England


won the Women's Cricket It was a well-timed victory


in a dramatic match, giving a big push to women's team


sports, ahead of the women's Euro football tournament


and the Rugby World Cup this summer. It feels like it's been a year


in which there has been growing spectator interest in women's sports


but, true as that is, we are still clearly at the stage


where, on programmes like this, we often end up discussing women's


sport as a progressive social trend, So where does women's sport go,


and how fast can the business, With me now is the former England


bowler Isa Guha and Joanne Adams, the Chief Executive


of England Netball. Good evening. Am I right, Isa, it


has been a big year for women's sport? You were playing in the World


Cup when? In 2005. Won in 2009 in Sydney and we did get a fair bit of


coverage, but it quickly dwindled away and that is where I think


cricket can really learn from that. A successful campaign for the


England women, still recovering from yesterday, to be honest! A truly


special moment for everyone involved. You got a sense everybody


was pulling together. But we were speaking of air about the fact that


the significant change was around the 2012 Olympics. The 2012


Olympics? Absolutely, the focus on women in sport. The Government made


a big push to try to include women's sport in the media. And as a result,


we have had a knock-on effect. It gets trajectory and people get


interested? There has been a change perception. Does it feel like a


moment, Joanne, is tipping point? Yes, I think so, sport been working


hard for many years. But there does seem to be now a point where there


is a magic moment in time. We have just had the Cricket World Cup, we


have the hockey World Cup in 2018 and the netball World Cup in 2019.


There is a three-year span when we can maximise from a commercial and


broadcast point of view. We have seen netball is the team game that


does not have the men's counterpart, on my cricket and football. Does


that make it easier to promote, or harder? It is a double-edged sword.


We do not have the millions of pounds are backing the men's game it


can give. They did not previously, but they are now investing. So


everything we have to create on our own. And it is our USP, it is women


that play it, with predominantly administrated, the volunteers are


nearly all women, so it does have a unique position within a woman's


life. It is double-edged. Isa, what drives some sports, especially the


non-team sports in the Olympics, it is virtual parity, and in other


sports, it is a long way between the men's game and the women's game.


What counts for how much parity or equality there is? Yes, I think


individual sports, you look at Jessica Ennis, she is constantly out


in the media and she is a singular entity, but has been the kind of


champion and has done so well for Great Britain. Whereas team sports,


you only have one or two stars and that has been the case with cricket


in the past. But now, when the ICC decided to broadcast every single


game of the Women's World Cup, we suddenly were able to see all of


these girls on the bigger stage and certainly throughout England's


campaign, it was not down to one or two individuals, it was every single


person contributing at different times. And I think on the back of


that, the media and the broadcast cottoned onto it and everyone was


talked about. Joanne, you must know in netball, there is a chicken and


egg and the media do not arrive until there is the interest and the


interest does not happen without the media? We cannot just say, oh, woe


is me, we have to create stories and an interest and that is what we have


done really well. In netball, we look at ways women can play the game


and we find the right form of the game for the right form of women so


we have turned ourselves into a sports business and we have created


the interest. Once we do that, we can take the products to the


broadcasters and sponsors. We have to take responsibility for that and


we have done it really well in women's sport. Now it is time to


push on, we need the broadcasters and the money, the investment. It


seems to me, I'm not clear about the audience. Is it men interested in


cricket? Women interested in cricket? Women who are not


interested in cricket, but who are interested in women's sport? A bit


of both, the final was played in front of a sell-out crowd, 50% of


the tickets were women in going down to watch. A completely new audience


and I think across the world globally, it is not just women, it


is men as well. You look at India and how much the male counterparts


got behind their team. 1.2 billion people living in India and everybody


is glued to the screens throughout the Indian campaign. It appeals to


everyone. More importantly, it is the legacy that is being created and


trying to appeal to young boys and girls. There is no better time for


women and girls to get involved in cricket. Joanne, do you think in


team sport, netball being the exception, do you think there is a


day when parity, anything like parity will be achieved between


women's soccer or cricket and men's? It is our dream. Across sport,


people do not want to say it is the women's or the men's version, it is


just great sport and people wanting to watch it as a great spectacle and


to be administered throughout the game. Thank you both very much.


That's it for tonight, but we leave you with news


If you were worried about Emily and the downpour in Washington, they did


not completely disappear, but they sent this photograph taken a couple


of minutes after they went off air! Clearly, the weather moves as


quickly in Washington as the politics. But that is it for


tonight. News from the community -- but news from the Computerworld.


An innocuous looking document has been published by Microsoft called


But it foretells the demise of Microsoft Paint, one


of the iconic pieces of 20th-Century graphic design software.


The fact that the software remained so utterly basic is apparently


what made it redundant, but it was that which also


spurred the creative juices in its many users.


So we leave you with a few masterpieces from the Microsoft


Download Subtitles