17/04/2013 Newsnight

$:/STARTFEED. With all the pomp and circumstance of the state, Britain

said farewell to the first female and most contentious Prime Minister.

Everyone said it was a distinctly British affair, something that only

we can do. Why do we do it like this? The rituals of the church,

whose pews are largely empty, and in the shadow of an empire that no

longer exists, what does it tell us about ourselves that this is how we

deal with the fate that awaits us all. El We have assorted members of

the establishment here to illuminate us.

Confusion regins in Boston, have the authorities identified a

suspect? In this case all that glitters is gold. Why has the value

of gold dropped 10% in the last few days?

It was an impressive send-off. There were flag, there were

military bands, there was Celestial coral music in a Cathedral filled

with faces more jowlly, more grey- haired and more frail than when we

saw them making the weather. Even her enemies agreed it was

impressive jib, though they may have thought of the cost or whether

she deserved the obsequies at all. It wasn't an event that told us

much about Margaret Thatcher, but it told us a lot about us.

Big Ben's last chimes this morning, then the busy world hushed. The

fever of one life over, Margaret Thatcher's work done. This morning

Britain and Baroness Thatcher went back in time, the start, a crypt in

parliament where she entered life in the realm, and into a stately

funeral. Military, imperial, Christian. When Britain has become

less all those three things. The road rang to brass, but also the

sound of thinking, people reflecting on her. Few audible

conclusions. From the parliament of her autumn years, past the law

courts where as a young mum she trained. There was a bank of modest

applause and some islands of protest. (boos) Then lastly a

symbol of her youth, St Paul's, the icon of World War II fortitude that

defined a teenage Margaret Thatcher. "you seek his architect", the son

of Sir Christopher Wren, look around you. As the former Prime

Minister's body was delivered to the church she would have seen her

monument, many political generations still, in part, defined

Through hymns and readings, through burial rituals, a society tells

itself a story about who it thinks it is. The elements today were

classic fare for a Christian service, but they contained their

messages about who Margaret Thatcher thought she was too.

on the whole armour of good. That ye may be able to stand against the

wilds of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood. But

against principalties, against powers, against the rulers of the

darkness of this world. Margaret Thatcher wanted the Prime Minister

of the day to read this. Let not your heart be troubled, ye believe

in good, believe also in me. In my father's house are many mansions,

if it were not so I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for

you. If ritual necessarily see-saw tradition. There was an attempt to

debunk the myths from friends like this. As she said from the great

truth we do not achieve happiness or salvation in isolation from each

other, but as members of society. Her later remark about there being

no such thing as society has been misunderstood. And refers, in her

mind, to some impersonal entity to which we attempted to turpbter our

independence. -- surrender our independence. It appeared to be

during the sermon, but it may have been just the occasion itself, that

saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer Margaret Thatcher believed herself

to be framed by war. She was the last of Britain's prime ministers

born before the Second World War, and she had her battles too.

Victory in the Falklands saw shaky control over mutiny in cabinet made

rock solid. As the military is cut back today, does the central

trality to our national occasions As the service drew to a close, the

Queen accompanied the congregation out to bid a final farewell to one

of her 12 prime ministers. But also Britain's first female one. It was

noted that she is unlikely to ever do that again. Beginning with

Princess Diana's funeral, the Queen Mother's and now Lady Thatcher's,

with a royal wedding along the way. What do our three funerals and a

wedding tell us about ourselves. Or an emotional low- controlled nation

we have become rather emotional. There was no clapping at

Churchill's funeral. For is it that we are all historians now, phones

and iPads commemorating occasions just because they K regardless

today was the first -- they K regardless today was one of the

first occasions they can. A nation taking refuge in a comforting

ritual in a time of austerity. Because of what Thatcher stood for

it wasn't for everyone today. Today we said goodbye to our first female

Prime Minister, we buried a person and an era too. To try to make

sense of the ritual, we have created a small cold frame of

sprouts of the establishment. A Baroness, a professor, and a canon

and a law Lord and a major general. Giles Fraser, turbulent priest was

a canon of St Paul's until his resignation in 2011 amid the row

about the Occupied protests on his doorstep. Lord Dobbs was Chief of

Staff under a period under Lady Thatcher and went on to write House

of Cards. Linda Woodhead is a professor at the University of

Lancaster. And Matthew Sykes knows about pomp and ceremony, he's the

honourary kur national of the Royal Horse Artillery who accompanied

Lady Thatcher's coffin this morning. Lady Trumpington I would imagine

you were at a few funerals in your time. You were in St Paul's today

what was it like? I thought it was wonderful, I really did. It was a

sea of people in black. It was an amazing sight. I think they put a

hell of a strain on her granddaughter, and I thought she

did jolly well. She did a great rendering of those difficult words.

I thought the Bishop of London was splendid and very funny at one

point, which was a relief to some of the congregation, me included.

Who did you think the service was for? Who did I think? What did you

think it was for, for whose benefit? I think it was a genuine

feeling that went out. It couldn't have been sparked artificially. In

point of fact when it did happen I think we do this sort of thing

better than any other country. did you think of it Giles Fraser?

The question about who it is for is really interesting, it used to be

for the dead, now it is for the living. That is true. That sort of

thing has changed in funerals, funerals used to be about the dead

person, now it is about how it comes across to the living. I think

today's funeral was a state occasion and it was the state was

almost centre stage in it. It was celebrating the establishment in a

way I felt slightly uncomfortable, the church, the military, the BBC

all in perfect harmony with each other. I did have a slight sense

that actually it was slightly ironic that somebody who spent all

her political life arguing for a small state would actually end up

having the state as the star of the show at her funeral. You wouldn't

have enjoyed G 4 also parading? that was a funny joke going around

about it being privatised. It was a lot of money for the event.

were there, what did you think? thought it was an extraordinary

occasion, I think it is the end of an era. I don't know if we will see

this again apart from a senior royal. I can't see circumstances

for which another Prime Minister to be sent off in this way because

prime ministers like Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill are

very rare indeed. You have to wait a generation or for more those

buses to come along. It gave Tony Blair an idea or two today?

might say that but I'm certainly not going to comment on that.

with the plugs. But any way. Inside the church is emphasised how broad

her reach had been, how many years she had an influence and how big a

family of those who loved her. at how it was done, it tells us a

lot about ourselves. You said it was for the people who go on, we

chose to do it through the military, much of it, why is the military the

default mechanism? A hangover from the Falklands, sorry.

involvement of the military in these sorts of occasions has gone

on for hundreds of years. It is how we do it.

We are a very different country. still do ceremony very well, as

Baroness Trumpington, I'm biased, but we do it better than anybody

else in the world. All other countries do the same thing. They

all have ceremony and they all involve the military. With the

greatest of respect, let me put it frankly, you are the honourary

Colonel of a unit whose main function is running around in

London parks making hangs on cermonial occasion. Is that not

true? That is more or less an unfair summary of what The King's

Troop does? Yes, but every single person in The King's Troop is a

soldier first and foremost. What is it for? And sailors and airmen.

What is it for? What do we have the Armed Forces for? We know what the

Armed Forces are for. What is the representation of the state through

the military on an occasion like this about? It is about celebrating

what we do as a country. We, The King's Troop artillery, we are not

the only cermonial troops, we have the Household Cavalry, it is part

of the bands of the nation. It speaks out around the world. It is

some of the best advertising for this country we could have had.

Surely there is a better purpose to our existence than advertising

ourselves for the tourists? We have to look at the tourism figure, we

are out there in a competitive world. This attracts dozens and

thousands. This was a sacred ritual apparently? It is an expression of

who we are and what we are about. Why we are so attractive. This is

somebody dying and going to meet their maker, it is not a PR

exercise. It is not a PR exercise but a message to the rest of the

world. That sounds like PR. have a narrow view of PR. It is a

ritual, rituals do something. speak as an antthro polygamist.

Rituals are a framing mechanism and focusing lens, they give us time to

get our emotions together, to reflect, to stand back and see the

significance of something, to feel things you wouldn't otherwise feel.

To put things into perspective. All cultures need rituals, we do it

extremely well. Actually it wasn't just tradition. There are elements

of innovation in that. Britain is the great ritual innovator. We

change our rituals the whole time. What was it about today's ritual?

The ceremony Monday was incredibly contempry it didn't do the ritual

things, talking about resurrection, it talked about her atoms being

caught up in the cloud of good. clergy talk within the age? If you

look at the Book of Common Prayer Protestant funerals are about the

repentance of sin, we didn't have very much of that. There were too

many sinners! The place was full of them! It is really hard to do a

ritual well, because it has to be entirely appropriate and feel

genuine to the occasion. That felt genuine to her. We didn't do it

like for the royal wedding or Diana. We are good at getting the tone

right for the particular occasion. They are not exactly equivalent

instances. I mean the Diana funeral was totally different. That is what

I mean, we are good at getting the ritual right for the particular

event. It was a different atmosphere for a totally different

situation, which had very little regard for the family. The royal

wedding, the lijics, this country is on -- Olympics, the country is

on a run as far as these things are concerned. If you look at something

like the Olympics, the message there was much less military, it

was more joyful. This was a funeral afterall much that was a public

sporting event. They are different and it looked much more 21st

century that. You would agree I'm sure? Funerals are changing. Normal

people's funerals, over half now have a tone of celebration rather

than morning. There is a lot of joking, there is hymns less common

than popular songs, Always Look On The Bright Side of Life. That

wasn't reflected in this service, but that is inappropriate for

Margaret Thatcher. I'm doing a funeral tomorrow and they are going

to have Waterloo Sunset. What will you choose for you one? A simple

one, it is about you going to meet your maker, a person in a coffin

going to meet their maker. I think all of this pomp and stuff is a

form of misdirection. You are not Mrs Thatcher. No I'm not thank

goodness. You could aspire? could! Are you worried any of you

about some of the imperial overtones, we are no longer an

imperial nation except at a minor level. Does that trouble you, I

imagine it probably did? It was a work of nostalgia, so much of it

seemed to be a work of nostalgia. All funerals. What are funerals if

they are not works of nostalgia, that is what we sawed today. A

woman who learned her politics hiding from the bombs under the

able in Grantham during the blitz, during her homework and listening

to the speeches of Winston Churchill. This is a former

nostalgia going back even before then, that is not what a funeral is

for. A funeral is an occasion in which somebody goes to meet their

maker. It is not about trying to celebrate and rehearse all the

values of the state, which is what this ended up egg being.

understand why you are grinding the axe you are -- Ended up being.

understand why you are grinding the axe you are. For theological

reasons. Because you are a believer. We were in church here. Could you

have a secular funeral which had no military or imperial overstones

nowadays? A secular funeral is hard to do you end up speaking nice

things about the person who died you end up doing this. I didn't

agree with Mrs Thatcher at all, I would have been perfectly happy it

take the service, it is not about whether or not you agreed with them

or not, it is about going to meet your maker. A secular funeral is

harder. They are ghastly. I went to one, a learned and extremely

eminent professor died, you went to the service and each person spoke

and it was the most utter rubbish you have ever heard in your life.

And it had no sort of Centrepoint. I think the whole point of a

service really is to bring in a little bit about the normal

thinking of ordinary people like me. Can you imagine a big state

occasion that did not have a military expression? I suppose I

could imagine one, but why would we not want to have the military

present. Because they play such a marginal role in our lives? I think

they play an important role in your lives. Everyone agrees the military

is important, but they are a minority pursuit in this country

now. The military experience is not. You can't say that. It was

generalised in the era of conscription. We may have reached

the point where there are more people in the BBC than the Armed

Forces. Only a question of time I'm sure. That doesn't make it a

minority role, it is extremely important role for the security of

the country. I'm not sure I understood what you meant earlier

about the imperial, what was imperial about today? I didn't see

anything imperial at all. Giles Fraser is raising his eyebrows,

explain? It may be difficult. I though everything about it was. I

thought so much about it was a celebration of the values of empire

and establishment and so forth. You know I'm not necessarily condemning

all of that, I'm just trying to say that at the heart of a funeral is a

very, very simple thing. To use it as an occasion for celebrating all

those value is not necessarily the right thing. Even in the church

there is ceremony. Particularly, we are best at it. We follow a common

book of prayer and a service that is a framework that has been

described for us. This is a framework for a public event.

will give you one example, the Gurkha pallbearer. Rituals are

necessarily about power. They empower those who take part. They

empower the ones who celebrate and the person you are focusing on. It

is a symbolic way of marking that. In a way Mrs Thatcher is a

superhuman figure, she's a mythological figure, like Diana and

the Queen. We have these amazing women. What a nonsense it would

have been for Margaret Thatcher to be buried without a military

presence. Afterall her Premiership was very much about military

adventure. Whether or not you like it. That is part of the fact. You

can't avoid it and cover things up simply because it happens to upset

a few demonstrators. People were applauding from the moment that

coffin left Westminster until it got to the church. The applause was

very interesting. It is not really a common thing, you wouldn't have

supposed it to be a common English reaction at the funeral, we were

told it didn't happen at Churchill's funeral. But it was a

spontaneous reaction. People were genuinely excited. My theory is

because people don't wear hat any more. What? In the old days, no, in

the old days even you may have read of people doving their hats to a

coffin -- doffing their hats as it passed. We don't have that so we

clap. You do things with your body, you have to do something dramatic,

I agree. This whole debate is slightly misplaced, because death

is the one thing, it is the one thing somebody else can't do for

you, it is a point Hiedinger made, it is a singular, private

individual. It is about one person, the idea it becomes this huge great

big public thing misses that very, very essential thing theologically

speaking you preparing to stand before good and meet judgment in

that very old fashioned speak. This is not, and when we start and end

up talking about the mill and all the other things and the

establishment and the bishop eating duck pate in the way which the

establishment talks to itself. I wanted there to be slightly more

about things about forgiveness and about those last rites. That might

be fine for your funeral but Margaret Thatcher wrote her own

funeral service so I understand. This was all about Margaret

Thatcher. It is about myth. I think that is exactly right it was about

Margaret Thatcher. What don't you think? I don't think she wrote her

own funeral at all. I don't thing her mind worked in that kind of way.

Damn it I knew her as well as most people.

Don't you come back here with your Know among the various foreign

bigwigs attending Margaret Thatcher's funeral today was the

Prime Minister of Italy, Mario Monti, Mr Monti got given the job

when Silvio Berlusconi left to spend more time with his lawyers.

Mr Monti is one of the grand old men of the European political class

and therefore you might expect him to be pretty cool on Mrs T. He

isn't though. I hooked up with him after the funeral. Prime Minister

what was it that you admired about Mrs Thatcher? Clarity of vision,

sometimes oversimplified but a political leader needs that

oversimplification. Stern determination. That's about it. But

it is a lot. I have heard you sometimes described as Italy's

Thatcher! Do you recognise the characterisation? To some modest

extent yes, because well I have always been convinced and I tried

to practice now in Government for one-and-a-half years, that some

principles of the Thatcher model of governance were good. For example

not to allow too much room for corporatisim. What do you think you

most learned from her? The space to be given or to be created for well

functioning markets. Which means the containment of oligotistic

powers of union and business. The notion that market needs to be as

wide as possible. Now Mrs Thatcher is not credited having been a

strong supporter of integration. I have many criticisms to her in that

respect. She was the biggest promoter of one key thing of

European integration, that is the single market. Wasn't she right

about the limits of national feeling that we don't live in a

Europe where there is a feeling common among all the peoples of

Europe that there is a desire for a European state, but people feel an

identification with their own country and it will be a very, very

long time before they feel an identification with the bigger

political entity. One must be cautious because if that is the

criteria on what just simply is what people want in terms of

geographical identification, not in Margaret Thatcher's time, but now

in many of our countries. People would like to have a sub-national

identification, regional or you know populistic localism is on the

increase, and should we accommodate for that and effect a company

process of actual European disintegration. I'm not sure.

in her analysis, this sense of where people feel they belong was

at odds with the scheme, the great conception that most of the

European political class had. That was one of the key things that her

analysis stood upon. In that respect you were on the opposite

side of the fence to her, weren't you? Mainly the European

distinguished politicians were opposite to her. Actually I have

always been eccentric in policy thinking in Europe. I'm deeply pro-

integrationist, but giving huge emphasis to the market integration,

to the single market. Less to other aspect. So for example this is very

recent, one year ago, there were debates in the European Council on

what to make of the single market in terms of an instrument for

growth in Europe. I can say that David Cameron and I were the two

consistently stronger advocate of achieving more single markets in

Europe. This is not necessarily a French attitude for example. When

you heard her anxieties about the power of reunited Germany and the

geographical position in the centre of Europe and the now enormous

economic power, do you share any of those worries? To some extent and

that is why as an Italian and continental European I have always

thought it would be good to have Britain firm low and solidly within

the European construction. Which needs -- firmly and solidly within

the European construction which needs a balance of powers not an

excess of powers by anybody. Do you think she was right to worry about

the position and influence of a powerful Germany? Yes. But that was

a bit in my view of a retrenchment attitude. If Britain, since her

times and then subsequently would have been able to really be at the

core of Europe, we wouldn't have seen that asymmetric increase of

powers of Germany. From where you sit looking at Britain now, and

looking at the eurozone, do you foresow a day when Britain might be

in the eurozone? It doesn't look to be imminent. You can say that

again! Much confusion in Boston tonight, which even included media

reports that a suspect had been arrested in connection with the two

bombings of the marathon a couple of days ago. The reports were later

denied, then there was talk of a full briefing on what was happening.

A time of set and then everyone was told had had been postponed

indefinitely. The one certainty is the President is expected in the

city tomorrow to join a religious service. What is the news then

Mark? Well, as you were saying Jeremy this is a day in which the

inquiry has insisted that it has made substantial progress. We

understand that this centres around an individual who was isolated in

CCTV or security camera pictures, taken from a department store

opposite the bomb area. Now this individual was seen to place a bag,

he was identified, this is what sparked the frenzy of speculation

today, including the idea that a person might be about to be brought

into the court in order to be charged. That all proved to be

false. The authorities still insist they have made progress and they

have identified this individual. But the postponement of an FBI

press conference here this evening cost doubt even on that achievement.

There was a scare even at the White House today I believe? There was.

There was a package identified and it was then confirmed by the

authorities that it contained ricin, the poison. This is one of those,

if you like, do-it-yourself- biological weapons that can be

cooked up at home and it is toxic. It follows the senting of ricin to

a senator, that was also confirmed by the authority. There do seem to

be a lot of security incidents in the country, in Oklahoma the

courthouse where the suspect was due to be arraigned was evacuated

this afternoon. You see signs across the United States of a fair

bit of jumpiness, people responding to suspect parcels and bags left on

their own. It has made for a jittery atmosphere hereed today.

It is mine all mine, actually it isn't. We borrowed it for a few

hours. These ten bars are worth between about �300,000 or around

that. The interesting thing is that last Friday they were worth

�340,000. It is still a huge lot more than Gordon Brown manage when

he sold off much of the national reserve at the lowest price in 20

years. Since then it soared in value as a supposedly safer place

to keep your money. In recent days people seem to have fallen a bit

out of love with it, why? Some people life like to live in or

drive their wealth. Others like this man, from India, like to wear

their's. This garment has a value of $250,000, it was worth that much

last week. It might be worth a paltry $2020,000. The shirt appears

to be gauche for you and me, but he's in good company. From Goldie

to lady GagGa's wheelchair, golds been across the centuries. It is

always seen as a safe haven, place to store wealth in the event of

economic crises. The price of gold was pretty uneventful up to 2007,

hovering at $350 an ounce. When the shine came off global banks and the

single currency, it rose 216%, reaching a record high of $1,600

dollars. It has been a retreat ever since. It lost 9% on Monday alone,

its biggest-ever one-day fall. So why has gold taken a cold shower.

Many people feel it was overpriced in the first place and needed a

correction. Another reason iss rising prices or inflation. Gold

was always seen as protection against that. But of late, global

inflation has been tame. Then there is the optimistic reason, apart

from Europe, the global economy is starting to recover. Gold may

longer be needed as much as a safe haven. As for the trigger for the

most recent gold sell-off, the eurozone might be to blame again.

An EU report suggested that tiny Cyprus may have to sell reserves to

pay debts. While Cyprus's 14 tonnes of bullion are negligible. A

potentially fire sale of gold of equally troubled but reserve rich

Portugal, Spain or Italy, has spooked the market. Italy with two-

and-a-half thousand tonnes is the world's largest. Gold went too high

in the first place, it was a function of that mad panic of three

or four years ago when people thought that the world was coming

to an end, there would never be a recovery, there would probably be

war. It got out of hand. The second reason is, I think, over the last

three to four month people have started today realise that actually

the world economy is recovering. The conspiracy theorists have, you

guessed it, a rival theory for the big sell-off. Rumours have

circulate that a massive short bet was placed against gold last week

that forced prices down. If 500 tonnes or 16 million ounces had

been sold short, when then the gold price fall was artificial and gold

could resume upwards. It is just a blip. I don't see any factors that

affect the fundamentals for owning gold and the prices to keep on

rising. The macro economy hasn't fixed itself, even though we hear a

few per cent here and there on GDP. People see the money in the bank

being devalued, currencies are debased through quanative easing

and other measures. I don't see that the man on the street thinks

the economy is fixed and he doesn't have to worry about money in the

banks. In the era of cutback, perhaps Britain should sell off

some of its gold reserves. Alas there is not much else to sell.

That is because between 1999 and 200 2jorbd sold off half of

Britain's reserves, as $275 an aounce. If the Government had wait

-- an ounce. If the Government had waited ten years they could have

sold it for seven-times the price. Oh how the current Chancellor could

have used �16 in today's prices. Sadly these aren't hours, they are

on loan from BullionByPost. The world's central banks have been the

largest losers from the gold price fall. It has been the sustained

printing of new money, or QE, which central banks, that forced many

investors to buy gold in the first place.

We are joined now by a true believer in gold, the financial

commentator Max Keiser and the gold sceptic, Daniel Knowles, from the

economist. Are you buying or selling? I'm a buyer, a big buyer,

very bullish on gold. If you look at the context of the sell-off, it

doesn't change the story of gold, I'm a boir. That implies you think

-- A buyer. That implies you think it will not only recover but

carrying on going? Absolutely. If you look at what happened in the

last couple of days. It started in Japan. Gold reached a 40-year high

in yen terms. That set alarm bells bringing in central banks around

the world. They are trying to manage their currencies against

gold. Gold is a barometer that tells them they are doing a bad job.

Once gold spike up in this way, panic bells rang and they went

after gold. Stkpwhrp explain this to us. We a-- Explain this to us,

we abandoned the gold standard years ago? The only reason it has

value is it always has, people buy it because other people buy it. It

has uses in jewellery, but for the most part it is an investment that

is a bet on civilisation collapse. Looking at the gold standard

question since 2009 central banks have been buyers of gold for the

first time in decades. They don't trust each other. Cyprus are

talking about selling their gold, although there is not a formal gold

standard, there is an informal gold standard. The central banks are

saying the only way to keep the price parity with the other

currencies is by keeping the price of gold down. We saw it on Friday,

500 tonnes of paper gold sold, panic selling. We have some over

there, never go anywhere without it, that is just a bit of shiny

mettleia. That is all it is? are the central banks tripping over

themselves to buy gold they don't trust each other. It is a

conspiracy theory. Last year more than ever before hundreds and

hundreds of tonnes, I tell you two countries in particular interested

in gold are Russia and China. Because they see that in the US.

This is not a story, it is not central banks selling it. They are

boiing it. It is not central banks selling it. The thing that has been

driving gold up is things like exchange traded funds. People have

been seeing the fact that gold is going up and they are buying it as

an investment. Buying it as a speculative thing. There are all

sorts of financial innovations that allow you to buy gold in your

pension fund and all of a sudden people are panicking. The big sell-

offs have been privately held gold. The lines outside gold buying shops

are long. People are taking advantage of the discount and

buying it. But there is those rushing to sell T the great big

drop has not been caused by banks. Tell me why is it a good way of

storing wealth, why do people believe it to be a way of storing

wealth? There is not very much of it. It is quite easy to carry round.

A block like that we have over there is worth several thousand

pound. You can divide it up and it is easily measurable. Historically

there are good reasons why it is currency. As a civilisation we have

moved past that. The central banks and the two too big to fail banks

don't trust each other, that is why they are not lending into the

market place. They want to hoard the cash. The British Government is

in quanative easing and the banks are hoarding the cash, they are not

lending to the market, they don't trust them. The balance sheet of

the too big to fail banks are horrible and they require another

huge bail out. They are looking to buy gold to hedge themselves of

what they see as an emerging crisis. Is it a bet on collapse? It is an

asset that has no counter party risks, all the other banks do. The

balance sheets from the big two of the four big banks are highly

questionable. There is objective fact we can fod in here. If you

live in a society -- feed in here. If you live in a society where a

bank is ordered by a Government not to pay out money that is your money,

may not be allowed to bring it back to you without applying a surcharge,

then of course gold becomes attractive? If I lived in

Afghanistan in 1979 and I was leaving and the Soviet tanks were

raiding. If I lived in Germany in 1939. I don't believe it is

happening, it is happening in Cyprus. I don't believe this

argument that Europe is about to collapse. This man is a paper bug,

he believes in any paper but he doesn't see the reason. Let as

address the question about the security people feel about money?

It goes up in times of people being less trusting an Government. In the

last few years as the recession has hit there have been reasons to

worry about the state of financial system. That has pushed it up. We

have had five years now, the euro still hasn't collapsed. These have

been overplayed. Do you understand leaving m this whole economic

question about banks aside for a second. What is it about gold, the

foal of gold, the look of gold, the luster of the stuff that appeals so

lovely to us? It is a shiney matter. It goes back to Aristotle who

declared gold is suitable for money. It is simply the financial value,

its transactional value. It is not to do with anything intrinsic to

the colour or feel? This is the amazing point you hear in debates

like this, they will say, especially on this network that

gold has no instrinsic value, yet the very essence of gold is the

intrinsic value. It has come out of the ground? That is because it was

capped. They will never say they won't accept gold but they might

say they won't accept the British pounds or American dollars. They

will take gold, it has value. is not because it has intrinsic

value, it is because the unit has value. It has rarity, sparesity.

is social constructed by, as any currency is. Here is the British

pound the value is being debased every single day. The British pound

has got a lot more valuable relative to gold. Is that why

prices are up 8%. (both speak at once) There is obviously something

in the water tonight, I don't know what it is. Thank you all very much,

both of you. It seems like about 12 of you, but thank you both very

much. Apparently they want me to read you out tomorrow morning's

front pages. I can't think why it That's enough from us, Gavin will

$:/STARTFEED. Good evening, a real buffeting from the wind during the

night. Heavy rain crossing many north western areas, still with us

us first thing, Very gusty indeed in northern and the Pennine. Then

sunshine and showers. Those showers starting across northern and

western areas, migrating east with time. Hail and thunder in those

showers, a gusty wind going on. It will be fresher during the day on

Thursday across southern and eastern areas compared with the day

just gone. Showers hanging around across the south west of England

into Wales and the afternoon. Certain low a very wet start for

some of us here first thing in the morning. Simply across the country.

Wet and windy through the night and to start on Thursday. Sunshine and

showers, but more persistent rain coming across the north and west.

What about the outlooks a we head through Thursday and Friday across

the northern half of the UK. Friday looks much dryer and brighter but

it will start on a chilly night with frost in the North West. The