14/08/2012 Newsnight

Tonight, commuters could soon be hammered by train fare rises

averageing more than 6% in England, 4% in Scotland and 11% on some

routes, but will they actually happen? The Government found money

to keep fares down, could another change of mind be coming down the

line? You may love your morning rail commute you don't mind paying

more. But possibly, you feel slightly different. Also tonight:

Connect with the bank that's been connecting Asia, Africa and the

Middle East... One of Britain's biggest banks pays a record fine

for breaking an American banking embargo to Iran. Why did they

settle? You got a job but they won't guarantee you any work or pay,

welcome to Zero Hours culture. understand that, there's not a lot

of work out there, but it is not fair because we need to know where

we stand. Because, how are we supposed to pay our bills. Mitt

Romney's running mate for the US presidency is a man with a plan.

What opponents suggest is a little extreme. Paul Mason explores the

austere world of Ryanomics. We speak to a man about his chances.

Cosmopolitan, page 114. Sex and the Single Girl, Cosmo founding editor,

Good evening, two weeks ago the governor of the Bank of England,

Mervyn King predicted inflation would fall for the rest of the year.

Today it went up, the CPI to.6%, the retail price index to 4.2%. If

you are a rail commuter the news is particularly bad because this

month's figures are the basis for fare increaseness January. They

will now be over 6% on average in England and over 11% on some routes.

So, should the Government step in as they did last year? Is something

more radical required? Perhaps a return to a publicly owned British

Rail, as a strategic resource? David grossman sets the scene for

us. Even when the sun is shining the slog to work is not much fun

and it costs. We already pay some of the highest rail fares in Europe.

Up a fifth in real terms since 1995. And the pain is going to get worse.

When the coalition came to power they decided we need today reorder

the balance of who pays for our railways from a situation where

roughly 50% of the cost were met by pass injuries and the other half by

the taxpayer, to one where the passengers pays 75% of the costs.

Those rail passengers, tempt today rail against the rail companies,

will be better directing their anger towards two factors. One is

high inflation and the other, is a conscience Government policy.

fares are playing an important role in funding a massive fund of

improvements right across the country. The Government is

committed to spending 18 billion to improve the railways for passengers,

but we need to ask passengers for a contribution for that. The last

Government's policy was that rail fares rise by the retail price

index plus 1%. When the coalition came in, they said the figure

should be RPI plus 3% from 201. Last year the Government backed

down for one year at least, limiting the rise of RPI to 1%

instead. If the fares rise in the way the Government's talking about,

3% above in inflation, inflation is 3.2%, that's 6.2%, plus flexibility

that allows operators to increase it by more. We think that's going

to be too much when the economy is flatlining, and households are

already facing higher housing and other costs. We think that the

Government needs to rethink these fares' rises. And actually, reduce

them significantly. Some commuters already report being near breaking

point. I think it is the if the rail fares increase, it will be a

decision to come down to work here or not. As stark a choice as that?

Yes, when you're looking how much increase that they put on year on

year, it doesn't match the salary increases we get. You may have to

rethink what you do for a living? Exactly that. That's of course if

the Government doesn't back down first. Like they did last year over

rail fares and the pasty tax charities tax and fuel duty rises.

There's pressure within the coalition for them to do so. The

Liberal Democrats went into the last general election promising to

raise rail fares by no more than RPI, minus 1%. The Liberal

Democrats set the Government, which they are part should be pressing

the rail industry to make the efficiency savings, recommended by

the Mcnulty review, savings that could add up to �1 billion. George

Osborne could step in and use the money from Mcnulty and reduce the

rate of increase of rail fares. Ideally they would go up by less

than inflation. I hope he can do that. We persuaded him last year, I

hope we will do this this year, we have to take a stance, otherwise

rail fares will be continue to above inflation, and lots of people

will be unable to afford to travel by rail. The Liberal Democrats have

half an eye on the marginal seats. Commuter towns are important to all

the parties. And the commuters don't like fare rises but if they

don't have to stump up the extra cash, well it has to come from

taxpayers, who don't like paying more taxes either.

But is there another way? Government keeps talking about

there's only two source of funding, actually we think if you look at

other countries, and even at experience in this country, there

are other sources of funding for the railway. The railway gets 10%

of income from developments stations, retail, shopping and that

kind of thing. We think there are other opportunities for adding

development around railway stations, and using that money to invest in

new capacity in the railways to make stations better. Many

passengers, are already fed up. The fare rises in England won't come in

until next January. The Government has until then to decide whether to

intervene. We'd love to have asked the Government whether they might

interintervene as they did with petrol prices but no-one was ail

vabl. Maria Eagle is here. Should they intervene and say we shouldn't

do this, like the petrol prize increase, we can put it off? They

could and should and Labour's policy is it should be no more than

inflation plus 1%. They've taken the decision to plus 3% they're on

the side of the wrong people, instead of siding up for commuters

and passengers, they've given companies the power to hike fares

by more, 5.% above the cap. Just as a matter of principle, do you think

it is right to try to reduce the public subsidy to the railways so

taxpayers, many who don't travel on the railways, shouldn't have to pay

for commuters who do travel, choose to travel and railway's popular?

You have to get the balance right. Passengers pay two-thirds of the

money going into the railways. You have to have the balance right.

Because there is a potentially economic benefit from enenabling

people to get to work, to get to college and places where they need

to go. Why shouldn't they pay for example the whole thing? They pay

two-thirds. And you can't have it turning into a complete rich man's

toy, so nobody can afford to go on the railways at all. You have to

get the balance right. This Government has not got the balance

right. They're too interested in enenabling the train companies

making more money, to give power to raise fares by more. It is possible,

for them to not have these fares go up as much. We would want them to

do tkha. What do you say about the reports tonight that, Virgin could

lose the franchise are for the west dost main line? We have to wait and

see, what happens tomorrow, we think. But, it looks like likely

this bid is going to be lost by Virgin. I think the Government has

to ask itself, three questions. I'm concerned about passengers losing

outs whoever wins this. I'm not in favour of one bid or another, I've

not seen all the details yet. None of us have. Government should ask

themselves a number of questions. Is the bid realistic, the winning

bid realistic? We've had examples on the East Coast Main Line, where

companies overbid, then hand it back the keys. We've had examples

of companies, now involved in these bids, who have gameed the system by

not taking on the extra years when they ended up, they would have been

paying money back to the Government, thus avoiding paying money back so.

The Government needs to make sure that passengers don't lose out

whatever happens. One way, of stopping it being a rich man's toy

would be to take it back into public ownership, either piece by

piece, as the franchises come up. What is wrong with that, the RMT

want that? You could do something now, which doesn't involve the

changing of the infrastructure in the industry. That is keep the fare

prices down and stop the private companies gaining the system.

kofd that, but could you foresee taking the railways at least partly

into public ownership? In our policy review, which hasn't come to

conclusions yet, we're looking at getting better value for the

taxpayer, fare payer, and railway that doesn't waste money. It is

said that it would be better for the taxpayers, you wouldn't rule it

out? We will put a policy, about this. We need to make sure

passengers and taxpayers get the best value for money out of this.

It is not ruled out yet. It is still something you're considering?

Our view is on going, but what I say is, today, the Secretary of

State could do something to help hard-pressed commuters by stopping

the gaming of the system, and putting passengers right.

strategic resource, we've shown as a nation, we can do big projects

and run the Million Pound Drop Celebrity Games, it woon be

unthinkable to bring British Rail back? We're not interested in our

review, in taking steps that there cost taxpayers, and passengers

pairs, we're looking at lessons learnt in Europe, where you can see

fares and costs lower. But that doesn't absolve the Government

taking action they could take today and now, to relieve that pressure

on fare-payers, and taxpayers. Thank you. Now, Britain's Standard

Chartered bank agreed to pay �340 million, dollars rather, to New

York banking regulators in a row over breaking the American banking

embargo in Iran. The bank accepted it involved transactions of at

least $250 billion and these were hidden by American regulators. What

is this about? You recall a week ago, we were stuned when the last

remaining ethical bank, supposedly, Standard Chartered were charged

with hiding $250 billion in cash from US regulators, they were

called a rogue constitution, the bank den need that today in the

last few hours, they have settled for 340 million. They had monitors

installed from the bank, from the regulator, and reputation that is

been damageed as a result. That's the result today. Who is the winner

in this, because they've voicely didn't do it, do they want it to go

away? Either regulator who gets 340 million dollars, they didn't have

the blessing of the Department of Justice in the US and other

regulators, so they look like their reputation is damageed not co-

ordinateing this, and looking for publicity and political ambitions

for the head of the DFS. Standard Chartered, price collapsed last

week, recovered since then. And then the dirty laundry, the

embarrassing e-mail, released from, by the regulator, where a director

said that, you effing Americans, who are you to tell us we can do

business with. That's one the reasons Standard Chartered wanted

to settle, they didn't want that aired and the bank is distanceing

themselves from the e-mail. idea of a bank having the words

"rather", money laundering" and banking "sincere threatened as well.

Standard Chartered does most of the business through dollars, which has

to run through the American system, probably through New York, if they

lost the license, that's the bank finished. The monthly unemployment

figures are out tomorrow. In the past few months they surprised

economists. In the middle of hard recession, the British economy has

been creating jobs, but what kind. More and more of us are offered

what is called Zero Hours contracts, meaning you have a job, but no

guarantee of actually getting any work, and therefore no guarantee of

wages. Allegra Stratton call a flexible labour market and others

Define "job". Noun, a paid position of regular employment. Look around

Britain today and there are two bits of that definition that should

give the Oxford English dictionary pause for thought. What if a job is

not regular and not always paid? Unemployment over the last few

months has not been as bad or high as many expected. That's partly

because of the rise of work that is not full time work. You have the

rise of the part-time job, the rise of self-employment and persistence

of something called a zero hour contract. They are exactly what

they say on the tin, you're in work, it is just you're not very often at

work. You have a minimum wage but not a minimum number of hours.

Britain is working, but what type of work is it? In a suburb, on

Monday morning, ana, not her real name is waiting to learn whether

she will get work today. Every day around 11.30, she's told whether

she's needed at 1.30 on the bagging line of a factory. We arrived at

the time of the text message. Is this it? Anna cannot look for other

work because she's supposed to be available for the picking and

packing job. She let us look back through the phone at the

correspondents with her employer. We don't detail the number of

shifts but it is half work, half day off. Occasionally the text

messages contain a few pleasantries, sometimes a smiley face, sometimes

a sad face. It seems in Britain today, we have employment by emote

come. It is shocking, what is concerning is how widespread this

is. We've been surprised by how many people are working under these

conditions. That's because the sectors, where this is common are

the sectors of our economy that are growing, this isn't a problem

that's going away. We're not talking guy norm mus numbers but in

the official numbers, Zero Hours contract are numerous, and 2005,

there are 54,000 of them, now they have tripleed. These contracts

should be a good thing, allowing employers flexibility to take

people on, even if they fear a downturn. They can hire, but on a

zero hour contract it doesn't take long to fire. They may not get

shifts in the remaining three months. For the employee, they have

some work if not much. While there are some using it as a valve

regulating the fringes, there are those using them for long-term

members of staff. This young man has been on a zero hour contract

from McDonald's for close to five years. Sometimes you'll get given

your shift late Sunday night or early Monday morning, you need to

be in mid-morning, but didn't realise that. You get a phone call,

saying you are meant to be in work. Some weeks you'll get more hours

that you can work, and some you will be looking for extra shifts

because you have no money. The only people who have contracted hours

are managers, salaried and they have to work 40 hours a week to

earn the salary. Fast food nation, and fast food occupation. Those

jobs look OK, but they don't fill up your family finances. There's no

law preventing zero hour contracts. You think there should be? Yeah.

Because they're not fair or right, they're exploitative. The free

labour market is for the companies, it is not for us, I'm not free.

a statement, McDonald's explained your use of zero hour contracts.

They said the majority of the 87,000 people employed in the UK

are employed on an hourly basis. Into this suits the majority of our

employees, McDonald's said "since they're looking for shift patterns

to fit flexibility for paid work around childcare and other

commitments" so McDonald's feel they're nurturing employment but

employees think Tess precarious work. Experts agree, it is open to

interpretation. A good zero contract makes no difference

between the rights and protections of the people on the zero hour

contracts and regular workforce. The only difference is in the hours,

that you actually work. And that gives us flexibility without

exploitation. A bad Zero Hours contract we're seeing elsewhere, is

people having wages forced down and fewer rights and having fewer

protections. And that's not just about flexibility but exploitation.

This year, Natelie thought they had secured her dream job, her first

one in five years. She was kerpld to take it, but then told not to.

There was no way they could Madge Yo-Yoing shifts with a young son.

Basically, I couldn't take the job. Because if I did, I would be worse

off, I wouldn't have got working tax credits, help with childcare, I

would be down �74 and still expected to pay for childcare.

Where would I get that money. It wasn't going to happen. Not only

that, with Zero Hours, if I was doing a few hours one week, and

more the next, I would never know where I'm supposed to be, how would

I know where I could take my son. When you spoke to the people at the

jo interest and said there's no way I can take this Did they understand

or think you're problem? Yeah, basically it was my problem.

they say that? They didn't say to me, don't take the job, because

they're not allowed to say that, they said if you're not going to be

better off, which I knew, then not to take the job. And to look

elsewhere. Basically, start from the beginning. Parents have a tough

time when they need childcare, providers need you to book in in

advance, if you don't know how many hours you're working it is hard to

secure your childcare place, and you have to pay for hours you don't

use, because you don't need them for work. There's an hours' rules

related to tax credit. For single parents it is �16 a week, and

coupled parents, �24. If you don't know the hours, it is hard to reach

that rule. And finally, the other issue is you have to keep herself

herself informed of our changing hours, because the last thing you

need is a parent on a low income, to get a bill you can't afford to

pay back, because you've received too many tax credits from HMRC

because you've worked fewer hours than you thought, it is a difficult

balancing act. Two standards the Government set themselves, they

said the labour market should be competitive, but they also said it

should be fair. In the Autumn, we expect measures to further

deregulate the workforce. The challenge for the Government is to

wean people off benefits and make being in work pay. The problem with

something like a zero hour contract, is that you're in work, it is just

not paying. The Government is adamant they want to end the

complex brownite system of tax credits and benefits, but does that

place a responsibility on them to ensure a certain quality of job? Do

they in short, have to take on corporate Britain? What do you

think they should do about the Zero Hours? They need to get rid of them.

It doesn't make no sense. I thaunds, there's not a lot of work out there,

but, it is not fair, because we need to know where we stand.

Because, how are we supposed to pay your bills? Sarah Veale is head of

employment rights at the TUC and Nadhim Zahawi on the business and

select committee. Do you see there's a problem here, sts

stressful for the young woman, she wants to better herself and finds

it difficult? We heard in your piece, a good Zero Hours contract

can work for people who want that flexible, whether study or look for

permanent employment. It is not imaginative way to create a

nextability Labour market. We can be more imaginative. We can look at

Mini and mid-y jobs, if you have a mid-y jobs, 400 your yos a month,

you are taken out to pay any tax, it is the Grozny is the net you get

in the bank account and the employer pays a flat rate. Anded

mid-y is increasing Social Security payment on both the employer and

employee. You would be happy if we didn't have the zero hour contracts

at all, because there are other things that would be better? We can

be more imaginative. The growth of the contracts, they haven't set the

world alight. In your own report the numbers is 161,000. There are

more now. But my point being, is we need a flexibility labour market.

Germany recognise that. Vince Cable didn't say that. I interviewed him

a month ago, he said we have a number of problems with the economy,

but the one which is not creating jobs is adopting flexibility in the

labour market? I would respect flee disagree, the American market is

the other extreme, you can let people go with two weeks' notice. A

key employee, when I was using work, a brutal employee can leave you

with two weeks' notice. The flexibility in the market allows

business toss make the decision toss employee extra people, with

the knowledge they can right-size back again F the strategy goes

wrong. Do you buy that, if you have a more flexible market, businesses

will take risks and that's good for snerve There's no evidence, we had

de-regulation of the labour market, we had one of the lightly regulate

markets in the world. There's no cause or link, ever established

between the amount of employment regulation and propencity of people

to take people on. There are other reasons for taking businesses

taking people on. There's no evidence, we've never seen serious

evidence, that what stops them, at that point where they're thinking

of taking on somebody, is the possibility they might pursue

unfair dismissal claim or being difficult. It doesn't seem to be

the issue. When you hear that the stories we heard from people in

that report, do you not think this is very, very difficult for them,

but, it may be better to have some work, than have no work and this is

unpleasant and horrible but better not to sit at home and not work at

all? Let's assume people do nothing, there's a point, the jobs are so

appalling they're not worth doing. The woman interviewed at the film,

made it clear, she advised to carry on getting serial security because

of her childcare issues, in her situation, working simply would not

pay. We must be doing something right when Spain has 25%

unemployment and we don't have. It may not be perfect but it is better

than Spain? The Spanish Labour market is different to the Spanish

economy is different. But, unemployment is very high in this

country, and the trouble is that when unemployment is that high, and

we've seen this in the past, employers use that as license to

exploit. They can get people to work on the dreadful contracts

because people are desperate. As the economy picks up and employment

starts to grow again, people will walk out of the jobs, that isn't

very good for the companies that use the contracts. Because they

won't have a predive maybe market. They want people to disappear, the

second anything else comes up. It is hard to believe McDonald's is

not worried the reputational damage this will be doing them. What would

you like the Government to see when the Government talks about this, in

the Autumn, what kind of things? heard there's no evidence. We can

look at Germany, when they introduceed in 2003, the Mini and

mid-y job concept, they created 1385 million 348 new jobs, helping

especially the young people, so 20, and younger, and can I finish my

jobs, helping those over 60, and especially female workers, the

evidence is overwhelming from Germany. We ought to, if nothing

else learn from the economy in Europe that has unemployment down

to over 5%. If you want to look at Germany, they have national

collective bargaining with trade unions, that determine the wages

throughout industry, regardless whether the people in the workplace

are in the unions, if you want we will be happy to discuss it.

not disagreeing with you, all I'm saying is I have experience in York

working in Germany, what they did with the two concepts, in 2003,

they realised labour market was not as flexible as the UK, and they

were going in the Euro, they decide today create the min and mid-y jobs

and transformed the labour market. It is worth learning. Given the

Vince Cable said, you both parties can agree on this Vince Cable is

doing a lot of this already. You look at the settlement agreement

they're introducing in the bill, that is going through Parliament,

where it helps employers have a settlement to the employee, before

going through a tribunal. They don't agree, Vince Cable said the B

croft proposals, produced for David Cameron, by an entrepreneur was

"bonkers" and we were not going to have a labour market had a rested

on the ploilt yeas of the workforce like that. I can see there's a

massive rift between the two of you on that. You can't pretend or paper

over the cracks between you. The Liberal Democrats are committed to

fairness at work. And the Conservatives are not. We are

making recommendations. Thank you very much. Now, once Monday a time

in America, during a hot, hot summer, a Republican presidential

candidate, trailing in the pollings tried to revital lies his campaign

by picking an unexpected vice presidential mate. They were awash

with excitement with a heardland heart throb but he lost. That was

the story of Senator John McCain and Sarah Palin four years ago,

could it be the story of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan this year.

There's a big difference, even those who dislike Paul Ryan's ideas,

admit he has some. And they are shaking up the campaign. Here Paul

mayon on Ryanomics. He's unknown here and was not much known in

America until this year. Meet, Paul Ryan the man picked to be Mitt

Romney's Vice-President in less than a week, he polarised US

politics, for this is a man with a plan. The fact are very, very clear.

The United States is heading towards a debt crisis the only

solutions will be painful for us all. That doesn't have to be our

future. The way we respond to this challenge will ultimately define

our generation, we can choose a path to prosperity. Let's take a

look at how we can do did. Paul Ryan is not any old Conservative,

he gave a jolt by producing his budget plan. The aim was to force

the right to think big and long- term about the mountain of debt

they've helped create. And now the plan is to get America to think the

unthinkable: We will cut spending. Washington's unsustainable spend

something driving the nation's permanent plunge into debt. This

line, shows state spending in America, according to President

Obama's projections, climbing 2% of GDP to 26% in the next ten years.

This line is Paul Ryan plan A rapid cut in the federal state, taking 5

trillion out of the spending. think, Obama has to be happy about

his plannings, the extent the election is about long-term budget

policy and fiscal issues, not about the short-term and the high

unemployment rate. What the Government can do to get us out of

the stagnation we're in, it will be President is comfortable.

COMMENTATOR: Health care reform is budget reform, you're right, we

agree, Medicare has a $28 trillion in empty promises, to my parents'

generation, our generation, our kids' generation,:. President Obama

is used to be secureed by Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan wants to remove between

25-30 million state from the health care system and cut the food stamp

programme, 47 million people rely on. Tames will be slashed and

growth would follow. I think it is:. For the Democrat heart throb, it's

not gone down well. You know what, it's funny, it's funny because eye

wantance, we like to be respectful of one another and peaceful and

listen to each other, these ladies may not be from Iowa and Wisconsin.

I hear these are great snow cones. Suddenly American politics on all

sides is about who you are, and where you're from, and how you like

your ice shaved. I can tell already the consistency.

Many of you know, I grew up in Iowa, where I know shaved ice, this is a

finely, shaved ice, this is outstanding, right here. With

Ryan's selections some say it allows President Obama to toe cuss

on the big idea logical issues that divide America. By choosing Paul

Ryan, Mitt Romney doubles down on his position, that rewants to lower

taxes for the wealthiest Americans. This will be something that the

Obama campaign is going to pounce on, it will become a clear choice

for voters as it whether they believe that tax cuts for the

wealthy should be continueed or even brought lower. The fact is

even in the short-term, the US is facing a looming debt crisis, last

summer unable to agree to a budget, they had a fiscal cliff, budget

cuts, that would plunge the US into a sharp recession. This line, shows

the overall I will pact of US federal and state level spending

changes on the economy. Positive in 2009, slightly negative ever since,

if the Government decides to fall off the fiscal cliff, that would

wife 4% points off growth in a year. For the past two years, the word

"debt cries skis "applied exclusively to Europe, but now

America is stum bring towards one. Paul Ryan's statement is if you cut

the state growth will follow. That's a major throw of the dice.

Ryan's selection prompted this attack ad by supporters of the

President, non-too subtlely suggesting what the Ryan plan does

for the elderly. Welcome to the US election 2012, in which no

prisoners will be taken. Anthony Scaramucci runs a hedge fund and

supported President Obama, now he is one of the fund raiseers for the

Romney campaign. A national finance co-chair. I asked him why he

switched sides? Well, first of all, I supported the President because I

thought he was going to be a centrist politician and going to be

a transformive politician in the sense of healing the nation. So, I

didn't expect the President to be as left-leaning as he is, and

divisive as he's become. If you look at the negative campaigning of

the President, he's building up a lot of evidence to support what I'm

saying. As a release of finding another choice, in 2009, after

spending time with Romney and having Romney speak at our

conference in 2010 and building a close personal relationship with

him, visiting at his home and getting a understanding of the

personality he has, his character, his decision-making, and his love

of country, and frankly as a can-do, fix-it person, who wants to help us

and the world get out of the economic malaise we're in, I

thought he was the right guy for the job, and thankfully the

nomination process, proved that to be correct. Right but the choice of

Paul Ryan does that help the people that you talk with, raise money for

the campaign? Yes. I think there's no question about that. Paul Ryan

is one of the truth-tellers in our nation. OK. Many of the politicians

and the western democracies, want to lie to their repics, and tell

them things that are not true, they can get entitlements and spending,

and free things from the Government that frankly none of us can afford.

But, if in effect does it mean the kind of austerity we have seen in

many countries in Europe, which are cut very hard on the deficit and

actually Europe's in recession, it is not working OK. Well, you see,

that I can't speak to Europe, because I don't live in Europe and

I don't understand you guys as I understand the United States. Here

what is I understand in the United States, we are spending more than

we areer' taking in, we're spending 40 cents of every dollar. We need

to right-size that, and have a economic plan to guide federal

spending down to 19% GDP level. That means no tax breaks for richer

Americans, the Obama campaign is saying what you want to do, is you

want to give tax breaks to the rich and pay for it by the poor?

That is absolutely, falsehood. It is a misstatement. It is more

liberal shrists lifts brought forward by the Obama campaign, that

don't make sense. We're not saying that. We are saying we want tax

fairness, and pro--growth strategies, so we can grow our way

out of the problem, like we did in the 1980s. I wonder, a final

thought, if things are as bad as you say, given governments across

Europe, have been voted out because things have been bad, why is Obama

so far ahead in the opinion polls? I don't think he's far ahead in the

opinion pls. He's roughly even with governor Romney. I think the

President is very worried, he wouldn't have spent $110 million on

negative campaigning, and driven a deficit in terms of what he is

bringing in and what he is spending if he wasn't worried. The truth of

the matter is he can not run on his record, he has a failed economic

policy. We've had 44 months of above 8% in terms of the

unemployment rate in the country. He cannot run on the Mall lace he's

create. We all know an overburdenensome Government makes

it more difficult for poor people because they can't get hireed by

people who are creating the jobs. We all know that, and now we need

to tell the truth by the American people and make them make a choice.

If you want a cradle to grave welfare state, choose President

Obama. If they want to return to a society of self-reliance, and

upstart society with green shoots and economic opportunity and once

again a restart of class movement, I'm the product of class movement

I'm a middle class kid that built two successful businessness this

country. If they want to return to that, we've given them a stark

choice. They can chies room room room and Paul Ryan or stay in the

situation with Obama. That's their choice. Anthony Scaramucci thank

you very much. Thank you I enjoyed it.

Now, a generation brought up on sex in the city, might not know the TV

series and the kind of women it presents would not be possible

without Sex and the Single Girl. That was the title of a book

published 50 years ago, by Helen Gurley Brown. The editor of

cosmopolitan in New York. She died, a man haten iconic femist. We look

back on a life that tried to have Long before 50 shades of grey, this

woman brought a blush of pleasure to a publisher's cheek.

# They call it girl talk "sex is wonderful, and to be a sex

object is fabulous". Helen Gurley Brown, from Arkansas,

became internationally famous at 40, where her book, Sex and the Single

Girl. The BBC had her on to defend her

unbuttoned attitude to sex outside marriage. We are still in inferior,

we are dependent on men, 2 hours a day, it won't just do. The last

thing in the world I think is women are not equal to men, it is just a

single girl doesn't have a rewarding life, it seems to me,

unless they has men in her life. For more than 30 years, for more

than 30 years, girlie Brown extended an iron nail extension,

espouseing the needle point motto, Good Girls Go To Heaven - Bad Girls

Go Everywhere. What we're telling Cosmo women is go for it, get your

foot in the jobs, it doesn't have to have the best job, because you

Helen was unapologetic about encourageing women to use their

feminine wiels to get what they want. She certainly did that, and

embodied that in her own life. She didn't really mind sexual

harassment in this matter of fact she defended those men who were

later unkofd, because she had gone through 17 secretarial jobs when

she was a young woman, before she got anywhere. And she allowed men

to play pinch and tickle with her, and enjoyed some of the gifts that

came with that. She was part vixen as well as a visionary. That was

great. Where did you learn to cook like

that. Cosmo toll pan. The Cosmo brand crossed the pond to the UK.

Where did you get the idea of coming over here on the holiday.

Cosmo, page 13. Everything was up for grabs, for Helen Gurley Brown's

girls, including a butt naked Burt rein nolds. Children were absent

from the form lafplt No gums, no do you remember, feminist anger, and

no motherhood. Jiefplt Helen wanted everyone to

have a tool. For her, having a tool was a career, happy marriage, and

I'm sure incredible sex but she was not against women having children.

That was a choice she made. Great in bed, it is so disappointing, it

is like getting a bad bottle at the start of season. There may be no 35

box sets without boun boun boun. She anticipated the girms in so

many ways, not least at table. Skinny is sacred. Anybody plunking

down a plate of fried do you cheapy would be trying to poison me.

the talk this week is of legacy, and now that gets for Helen Gurley

Brown too. Should we really be encourageing young girls to look up

to these women or to a different kind of model altogether? Not much

doubt where the former Cosmo editor stood. I might be guilty of having

every single woman in the pages of Cosmo be a raveing beauty because

we are not all raving beauties, because that's unrealistic. And yet

you can be more beautiful. You can do so many things, you can get your

nose fixed and hair coloured. Cosmopolitan, page 114.

, Cosmopolitan, first issue out today.

Into # They call it girl talk #

Now, just before we look at tomorrow's papers, news that came

too late. Outgoing, general mark Thompson has been just appointed as

President and Chief Executive of the New York Times. We have the New

York Times, but we do have the York Times, but we do have the

British papers for tomorrow. The I has got anger over rail fare hikes

may force U-turn. Standard Chartered story is on the front

page of FT. Telegraph has story about sports fund for schools.

Games legacy as rules change. That's all from Newsnight tonight.

Because we know you miss the Olympics, here is our mash up from

the internet. Mo Farah running away Hello there. Summer is not over but

we will see a blip in proceedings. It will turn west from the south-

west through the day. Strong winds and rain. It will cater for two or

three hours of wet weather. Heavy rain, sliced through the

Midlands. Maybe the odd rumble of thunder. Behind that, things will

brighten up. Sunshine for Devon and Cornwall. Blustery though, despite

demptures doing well, perhaps not feeling all that pleasant. Wet

weathertor Wales and Northern Ireland. Met has claimed nasty

conditions for the time of year. Further north across Scotland for

much of the dayel be dry. Looking further ahead, it stays disturbed

through Thursday, blustery showers in the west, but further east,

plenty of bright and breezy weather. That's good news for the Test match