well, trump says he wants to help the american worker. over here, our own government set out its ideas for britain — a new industrial strategy. is it better than the old ones? the former business secretary, lord mandelson, and the current one, greg clarke, are both with us. also tonight, the trident missile that went awol. we'll look at the political fallout. and pulitzer prize—winning journalist, thomas friedman, on trump and facts. 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. good evening from washington. one year ago, before the new hampshire primary, i asked donald trump, in person, what he would do on his first day in the white house. "so many things," he told me, "you won't 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 tra ns—pacific partnership. it was a campaign promise and a key tenet 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 bluster, a day to demonstrate that the wind of change 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 governmentjob 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 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 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 diatribe from the 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 reporting 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, notjust him, but for so many of us who are trying to work to get this message out. downpours 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 nomination, bernie saunders. 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 nafta and cafta and trade relations with 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 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 strategist, 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, sean spicer, doing 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, notjust the press conference, but the cia discussion at the weekend. was this a chance to reset all of that opening? i think so. i think molly's exactly 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 a republican supporting the trump administration now. when he pulls out the global trade deals and antiabortion legislation, do you cheer? i don't. 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. the tra ns—pacific partnership.
i think 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 very dark and divisive address, but a declaration of war on both parties. you have him doing things now that are in line with conventional conservative doctrine, like abortion. you say it is a declaration of war... 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 has tried to sidestep washington. 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 it 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 democrats stopping that from going through. are we going to see the same sense of gridlock now? i do. it's typical. chuck schimmer, 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 horsetrading. this is only a marker, a spot for negotiation for the democrats and the new administration. do the democrats have an obligation to say look, we may not like this man, we disagree with lot he's doing, but we cannot afford to have a system, an administration that simply doesn't function for another eight years? without taking a side
on what they ought to do, the democrats haven't really decided what to do as a matter of strategy. that's true. you're talking about a delay of a few days. but the democrats do not 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. but 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. and 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. but no longer. 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? there is quite a lot of waffle. the chapter on energy policy, for example, promises four new things: two are reviews, one is a roadmap and one is a commitment to produce a plan. 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 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 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? by ionm. everybody wants—igsdgagsgﬂz. but nobody wants to go first and be lﬁﬁéitﬁffaléﬁééﬁ§§§ —. . ,. . . ,- , 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. lord mandelsonjoins us now. 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 really to work, it doesn't have to just be good, it has to be truly transformative. tra nsformative and our ability to innovate and commercialise our science space, to transform our skill raising in this country,
notjust 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 tra nsformative 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 orjust a continuation of the same. was yours tra nsformative? 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. well, we did, and scale matters, resources matter. more resources, money and power, should be transferred from the centre to the regions. 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? as 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 had 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 notjust 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 he 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, enterprise and industrial strategy. he's been listening patiently. 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 mayors that are going to be elected in cities right across the country. 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 19705, 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, skills training, 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? 19116, 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. 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 injune, has given theresa may one of her worst couple of days in office. yesterday, she obfuscated on whether she knew about the missile‘s wayward path. 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 operation following a refit. then, yesterday, it was reported that one of its test missiles went off course. the prime minister was reluctant to acknowledge she knew anything about it. prime minister, did you know? there are tests that take place all the time, regularly, for our nuclear deterrents. 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 had been a cover—up. contrary to reports in the weekend press, hms vengeance and her crew were successfully tested and certified as ready to rejoin the operational cycle. we do not comment on the details of submarine operations. our political editor, nick watt, was watching the debate this afternoon. 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. big formula one news tonight: 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 are an american investment firm. 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 a 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. the problem is, 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. that's really... the races provide the second largest, close to the largest source of revenue for formula one, basically around a third of its one. 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. this revenue of nearly $2 billion. he's 86. you would have thought they could have kept him onjust 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 — thank you for being late. 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, a former middle east correspondent. i sat down with him earlier to talk about, well, everything. when 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 throws 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, lg bt 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 theirjob. 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 of the accelerations. right. 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, protected and respected. you are the personification of the global elite. you are travelling everywhere, you write about globalisation. yes, right.
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? absolutely not. 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 of it and cushion the worst. i never wrote a book that wasn't about exactly that, about safety nets, education, retooling, reskilling and opportunity. you spent a lot of your career covering and being involved in the middle east, that whole area. 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 of donald trump in the white house. what is your view about what is going on in the change in policy there? so, donald trump is the first man to win the american presidency with only one sentence, basically, on every issue. at most, one paragraph. his paragraph on israel, basically, is i'm going to move their embassy, in tel aviv, tojerusalem, and acknowledge that was the capital, even though it's in dispute and we've never done that before in america. 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, the debate shifts to right—wrong. a south african israel, or a democraticjewish israel? when that happens, you will blow up every synagogue, everyjewish institution in the world. because that debate will rip apart the entire jewish community. so, what's your advice to members of that community? how should they react? well, my advice is very simple. friends don't let friends drive drunk. right now, in my view, the israeli right that's governing israel is driving drunk. 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 fortunatelyjust now write one column a week, instead of two, which is really great in the age of trump. 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
everything he does. he also lies as he breathes. this is very unusual. his differentiation between truth and fiction is just constantly lies back and forth. 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 group of americans. 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 guy, not four. oh, my god. tom friedman, thank you very much. my pleasure. that's it for tonight. i'll be here tomorrow. 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. hello. freezing fog patches are making a comeback with a vengeance in southern parts of england. that will cause significant problems through tonight. by tomorrow morning, it will be extensive in england and wales. more travel disruptions. you can to the bbc local radio and on line for the updates. through tonight, any showers in this area will die out. clear skies and freezing fog in england and wales. it will be very dense in places. bear that in mind. take extra care. give yourself time
before you head out. a breeze in the western extremities of england and wales. fog free. some brightness. a different story in the far north in scotla nd different story in the far north in scotland and northern ireland. more wind and far less cold than yesterday morning. temperatures in high single figures. cloudy, dull, and outbreaks of rain in the high ground of western scotland. is remains breezy of scotland and northern ireland. —— it remains breezy in. that'll get to the south—west of england. that is where we will see the highest temperatures. nine, ten, 11. england and wales, sunshine developing. a cold day. where the fog lingers, it will not get above freezing like we saw today. wednesday morning, the fog returns in the east and south—east. it could be dense. low cloud getting a cold day. north—west england and north wales, persistent
sunshine. scotland and northern ireland, breezy and cloudy. another chilly day for the bulk of the country. that continues into thursday. it will feel bitterly cold. it will start to pick up a south—easterly wind of the near continent. temperatures in the near continent. temperatures in the near continent has been very low over the past few weeks. cold and dry air filtering north and west across the uk on that strengthening breeze. drier. the cloud will go through. we should see sunshine. it will not do any good to be temperatures because they will below. below single figures for many areas. add on the strong wind and it will feel bitterly cold. —2, —5. the weekend, signs of returning more mild for the west. hello, everyone. i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines: with a
stroke of a pen, donald trump cancels us involvement in a massive free—trade deal. fresh outbreaks of bird flu across asia and iraq, including china, where the number of human cases goes up. i'm babita sharma in london. as millions of chinese travel home to celebrate new year, we'll tell you about a surprise festival tradition. and afg hanistan‘s first about a surprise festival tradition. and afghanistan's first all—female orchestra and their challenge of being on the international stage. live from our studios in singapore and london.