06/01/2014 Newsnight

You Hello, happy new year. Unless electioneering politicians get on

your nerves in which case you have 16 months of irritation to look

forward to and photo shoots. The Chancellor is keen for us to know

there are plenty more cuts on the way and that those on benefits can

take a lot more pain. I will be asking this Treasury Minister why he

wants to pick on the most vulnerable people in society? Will this

brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking very

slowly towards the enemy, Sir? How could you possibly know that, it is

classified information. Has our understanding of the First World War

been distorted by left-wing prejudice? The Education Secretary

suggests this man might have something to do with it. I saw you

talking with her? Tell me? I cannot speak about what did not occur. And

the film they are saying is the most unflinching portrayal of American

slavery et. We talk to its director. I don't make films for white people!

I just don't! My film is about us rather than specific group of

people. The political new year began today, not that it looks very

different to the last one. Indeed the Chancellor of the Exchequer's

promises that next year will look much the same too. He believes

another ?25 billion has to be cut from public spending after the next

election. About half of that from welfare. Cue Nick Clegg, leader of

the party he's suppose to be governing with saying cuts like that

will be a monumental mistake. Our political thor Allegra Stratton is

away having given birth to a son and Emily Maitless is covering.

The sound of Christmas past, the removal of the fir and tree and

amidst the odd bauble or two Westminster welcomed the day they

reassuringly dubbed "the most depressing of the year". A bit of a

back to school feeling, washed out and defeated by the weather before

it had begun. But today is not just any day, you understand, today is an

historic 16 months and... Let's see, seven hours until the polls open to

the general election. I point that out in case some how you failed to

notice the sound of the starting gun in the mounting political rhetoric

of the last 24 hours. The high-visibility Chancellor, for

example, unmissable in Birmingham. He began the day with a warning of

hard truths and stark figures. ?25 billion of spending cuts, he stated,

would be taken in the first two years of the next parliament, nearly

half of those cuts will come from one department. Welfare cannot be

protected from further substantial cuts. I can tell you today that on

the Treasury's current forecasts, ?12 billion of further welfare cuts

are needed in the first two years of the next parliament. Yesterday the

Conservatives committed to the triple-lock on pensions for the

elderly, protecting the way they rise through the next parliament.

This means George Osborne's cuts to welfare will have to come from

elsewhere. Welfare is by far the largest departmental budget in terms

of spending, a massive ?2 O2 billion of all. Of that ?63 billion is the

state pension, now protected by the PM. Another ?48 billion goes to

pensioners on top of the state pension, those are benefits that

haven't been explicitly ring-fenced for the parliament. What is left,

?29 tax credit, ?18 billion disability benefits or ?17 billion

on housing. If you exclude anything that goes to pensioners you have

another ?90 billion that goes to working-age people. There are lots

of benefits there, you can take more child benefit away if you want. You

reduce any of these things, most of that cut will hit relatively

low-income people. What do the Chancellor's coalition partners make

of this morning's announcement. Minutes after the speech, the new

girl asked the deputy PM. Welcome, it is your first day! REPORTER: It

is, and a big announcement, would you be happy then to sign up to ?12

billion of welfare cuts? No, we haven't and we won't during this

coalition Government. Because what we have said is that tax, for

instance, has to play a role, of course it does, and tax on those,

and tax, like any fair approach to tax, is asking people, particularly

those with the broadest shoulders and greatest wealth to make a small

additional contribution. We believe you can finish that job but do it

for fairly than the ideolgically driven approach that the

Conservatives appeared to set out. Come on Nick, tell us what you

really think! I think that is economically and lob sided balanced,

a monumental mistake... Extreme in its undertaking... Unbalanced and

unfair. This might be part of the differenciation strategy, but it is

already sounding turbo-charged, with friends like these, who needs an

opposition? Whether or not we need cuts on that scale will depend upon

whether we can get the economy growing more strongly, whether we

can get young people back to work and whether he will face up to fair

decisions, as we have advocated to take away the windswepter allowance

from the richest pensioners, at the moment fairness steams to be the

issue George Osborne is looking left, right and centre. Today was

about hard truth, but maybe not the ones the Chancellor had in mind.

Don't think it was just economic, today was pure politics. The

Conservatives would like the next election to be 1992 all over again.

An election they won in hard times. So the message today was cautious

and slightly scary. We're not there yet, he's trying to say, so don't

even think about throwing us out. With us now is Sajid Javid the

Conservative Financial Secretary to the Treasury, also here the Shadow

Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Labour's Chris Leslie. ?12 billion

reckoned to be saved from the welfare benefit, which benefits will

be cut? We have set out today a strategy to deal with the economy

and to make sure it continues to recover. That means continuing to

make some very hard decision, that is what the Chancellor set out

today. The hard work of the British people is paying off, we are not

going to squander those efforts and we are faced with the choice.

Britain is faced with a choice. We can go back to the bad old days of

more borrowing and more debt, Labour's way, or go forward and

continue to have a growing economy which means dealing with the hard

truths. Do you remember what my question was, come on? I want to set

the context, I will of course come to your question. A very important

question. We have spending cuts this year and next year, which includes

welfare cuts, and what the Chancellor set out today, beyond the

next election, there is a further ?25 billion of cuts, ?12 billion

will be welfare cuts. The Chancellor has given suggestions today about

what kind of welfare cuts we are thinking of. But we're going to have

to deal with the welfare budget, as we have just seen in your piece just

now, it is still the second-largest item of Government spending, we are

not able to bring the budgets books back into balance. This is a very

important question, which benefits do you propose to cut? What we set

out today, two benefits specifically, we are going to look

at housing benefits for under-25s and people in council houses that

earn more than ?26,000 a year. I will come to you in a second Chris

Leslie, don't worry. Housing benefit for the under-25s, if you cut that

how much money will you save? It won't lead to the whole ?12 billion,

that is not our strategy. How much? We set out a process today of the

types of cuts we are thinking of. We are not going to write our next

election manifesto right now. But what we are going to do. Give us a

rough idea? It depends on how you finally set out the policy and we

have not set out every detail of that particular policy. It is

something we are looking at. I'm not even asking to the nearest million,

the nearest billion will do? Of a total ?12 billion that can be an

important component of it, I'm not suggesting for a second it adds up

to the ?12 billion, nor is the Chancellor suggesting that. What we

are saying is these are the kind of tough decisions we need to make. It

comes to nowhere near ?12 billion, it is somewhere under ?2 isn't it?

Some of the estimates we have heard today from some of the economists is

around the ?2 billion. It depends on the final detail. We have begun a

very important process, which confronts these hard truths. I

wonder if you have thought this through properly, let me show you

this piece of tape, a young woman, 22 years old, lives in west London,

this is what it would mean to her, this is how she depends on the

benefit you propose to cut. Let's hear it? Growing up it felt I had to

grow up fast. The disagreements with like my mum and my brothers and

sisters is because like I told them that I was gay. I went upstairs to

my room, all my stuff was packed up in boxes and I went downstairs and I

said to my mum what are you doing. She said I didn't live here. I

stayed between friends of friends, you are constantly moving, you don't

feel safe, you don't feel stable. I just spoke to the council again and

just finally it got through to them and practically I got place in

Centrepoint. So it is about ?170 per month just to live here. But housing

benefit helps towards actually me having a roof over my head. It is

not a lifestyle choice for us. You need it. If you don't have it then

you are homeless. Right, so if you cut housing benefit for

under-25-year-olds, there is no money to pay for the place in the

hostel which a girl like that has. Let me tell you, first of all there

are many under-25-year-olds that work, they pay taxes which make the

money that helps to pay these benefits. Indeed they are. Many of

them live with parents or friends. Where as people under-25 that are

not working are currently entitled to housing benefit as you have seen.

What we need to do to make sure people like this young lady and many

others have a better standard of living is making sure we have a

growing economy and the economy continues to grow. We are only going

to achieve that if we keep confronting the problems facing our

country. We cannot go back to the bad old ways. We have to make tough

decisions and if it is not welfare it has to come from somewhere else,

those are equally tough decisions. She has just to hope for the

benefits of a growing economy. Has she? Let me ask you another specific

question, you cut housing benefits for under-25-year-olds, does that

include those who have children? We haven't set out the details of this

policy, nor were we going to today. What we are showing is we are

willing to deal with the hard truths facing our country. We will confront

these tough decisions and make sure our economy continues to grow and

the recovery is not put at risk. Chris Leslie, how many of these

proposed benefit cuts, you will probably be no more specific than Mr

Javid has been now. But of the ?12 billion which these guys are going

to cut from the welfare budget at the next election, how much would

Labour cut? You gave Sajid Javid a moment to put it into context I

require that. He has dreamt up this figure for ?25 billion for four

years time. A sensible Government would look at the state of the

economy and make decisions based on what the economy needs. The

Conservatives, George Osborne, we know they are playing politics, they

plucked this ?25 billion out of the air as part of a political game to

some how create dividing lines. No cuts? No, and we have gone further,

to be fair than any other opposition by saying we would not borrow

further in 2015/16, the only year they have done this Spending Review

for day-to-day spending. But the key thing is this, yes we will have to

have cuts, but they have to have fair and support growth in the

economy. That will be the dividing line between the parties. Specific

example of the young woman we saw there, you would not cut the

benefits of someone like that? It is a very good question. I'm asking

you? Housing benefit under-25s, what about people leaving care, you

mentioned the case in point. What would you do about it? I think what

we need to do is for the housing benefit bill, it has gone up

considerably under welfare costs that have risen because people's

earnings have fallen. There is a lot of people in work who get housing

benefit and that bill has gone up. If we dealt with the cost of living

crisis we could reduce the housing benefit. Can you make a promise to

that woman and others in her position that you would not make

these cuts? I don't think it would be fair to hit her even further than

she has already been suffering because of the cost of living

crisis. You can make her a promise? It is the difference in political

value, I happen to think in society you have to stand up for those?

Vulnerable. You are making a pledge? We wouldn't do the bedroom tax, you

look at the list. We're not talking about the bedroom tax? These are the

examples of fairness versus unfairness, we wouldn't give a tax

cut to the richest ?150,000 earners, which Sajid Javid decided to do in

shape, cutting it from 50p to 45p at a time when people can't get food on

the table, the foodbank queue, think about people struggling to heat

homes. You have a very unfair society, made more unfair because of

your uncaring approach to managing the economy and the cost of living

crisis which is getting worse not better. What What we have heard from

Chris is exactly whey said, an inability to confront the hard

truths facing our country. More spending, more borrowing and more

debt. That is the only policy he has. You have neglected growth. You

were asked about housing benefit, the only policy that your party

currently has on housing benefit that you have committed to and

include in the next manifesto is increase it to make sure people have

more rooms than they need in their home. That is the only policy they

have. Do you understand the point I was making when their earnings fall,

of course the housing benefit rise, the cost of living has an effect on

the Welfare Bill. I want to turn to the panel, there was a moment when

we saw something acutely political going on, what did you think it was

Chris is right it is a dividing line speech which you can like or not. It

is a dividing line speech on the deficit, trying to move the agenda

back from the cogs -- cost of living issues raised before Christmas to

the agenda on the deficit, which is the big one. It will face all the

parties with difficult decisions. Ultimately it will face Labour with

difficult decisions about what to cut, because there are billions of

pounds that can't be covered by tax rises unless you are assuming

massive tax rises. Obviously it will mean the Conservative Party goes

into the election with a difficult message as well. Your adoring fans

of course know who you are, I forgot to introduce you all, Lord Fink,

John McTiernan, former Labour big wig, and Linda Jack from the Liberal

Democrats. When you see this marking out of terrain, how will it play, do

you think? I think what you have seen today was George Osborne going

too far. He is a politician who is too clever by half. He could just

have stuck the figure of ?25 billion out there and said to Labour what

are you going to do and watched Labour struggle with the question

you asked Chris, Chris has been asked to give a Labour manifesto

today, when we're 16 months away from an election, it would have been

a good ploy. To say ?12 billion to come out of the welfare budget, and

no answer to the question which areas do you mean. I tell you what

areas he means, that budget is benefits to children, child benefit

and tax credit for children, it is benefits for disabled people, or it

is housing benefit. ?12 billion ?1,000 a year. Most of it goes to

old people? They have excluded that, they have said there is ?110 billion

you can't touch. You have a small amount of money. I do not believe

that George Osborne is going to go into an election actually with the

kind of cuts that you would have to have to make ?12 billion from

welfare. Unelectable, that is what a party would be, unelectable if they

took the money from disabled people. Isn't the purpose of setting out the

figure looked at stragically that Labour will also have to answer the

question of how it is going to respond to that sort of figure. That

is just taking the budget books from the OBR and reading out what the

figure is. Labour will also have to have some response to that? The

thing that intrigues me about the current situation is, you have a

coalition Government which gives the Government of the day a large

working majority in parliament, yet whenever a hard question comes up

they say what will would Labour do, I tell you the answer, let Labour

form a minority Government, you can't say I'm the Government. On the

question of the coalition Government isn't it very bizarre indeed when

the Deputy Prime Minister says the Chancellor of the Exchequer is

talking rubbish? To be honest it is a long time I have said I agree with

Nick but today I do. He has at last got back to what our core values are

as Liberal Democrats when we say no-one should be enslaved by

poverty, ignorance or conformity. The clip you just played, I would

have expected a difference response from you. That young woman to live

in those conditions, I have an 18-year-old foster daughter you are

going to take her housing benefit away from you. You are hitting the

most vulnerable when they are most vulnerable and you are doing no cost

analysis, I never see any cost benefit analysis of what you

propose. Ultimately, this is what the election will be about, clearly

you are correct both of you that the Conservative Party has to be very

careful as an answer about fairness, it does have to answer what the

point of doing it is otherwise all people will see is cuts. That is a

big electoral challenge for the Conservative Party. For the Liberal

Democrats and Labour the figure remains ?25 billion, it has to be

filled. Why does it remain. Where did that figure come from? Unless

you decide to put up a lot of taxes? Unless the Liberal Democrats will go

into the election saying that the deficit totals they have agreed to

they don't agree any more. There was a report last week from the BMJ

about the cost of malnutrition, children going into hospital with

malnutrition, if you look at the cost benefit. That is what I'm

saying, you can't look at the cuts without the consequences. If you

start to look at how you make cuts sensible. The Liberal Democrats

agreed to deficit totals and now the Government. Sorry Nick Clegg and

Danny Alexander agreed! The Liberal Democrats have signed up. We are a

democratic party, wait until our conference makes a decision on our

manifesto. You are not speaking for the Liberal Democrats then. They are

not either, because we don't have a decision come through the

conference. We are democratic as a party. I think it would be hard for

the Liberal Democrats, we now have a disagreement on this, it would be

hard for them to walk away from the figures they agreed to. Those

figures imply ?25 billion, perhaps the Labour Party will have slightly

easier deficit terms, Chris says we don't know the exact figure, we know

it will be many billions of pounds. The question will be for all the

parties, I agree. The Conservative Party will have to have a response.

How are they going to fill that? I would love it if it was not a

difficulty for anyone that is not realistic. The problem you have got,

and you have articulated it well, the problem is ordinary people

seeing this see a Government that says they will take ?12 billion out

of a specific set of benefits, but as has a minister that can't name a

single benefit he will reduce. If we are having hard decisions let's have

hard information. There is something else, I thought you chaps weren't

going to take part in this conversation. There is something

else, if George Osborne is right and the economy is starting to get

better people are going to start feel and see the changes, the

benefits perhaps. In those circumstances can you continue to

talk as effectively about the need for cuts? Clearly obviously if the

Conservative Party is going to run a "Britain's on the right track don't

turn back election", you don't want to be at the point where people

think you have reached the end of the track, you have to be saying

there is a lot of work to do, that was what he was doing. I think the

Conservative Party will have to effectively explain to home how

deficit reduction will improve their living standards. That is a hard

argument. They will have to link the argument about living standards to

deficit. You are not persuading him sitting next to you? I think you

have currently got the National Health Service going through its

tightest spending constraints in the history of the National Health

Service, the tightest spending restraints on any health service

anywhere in the world over four or five years and you are going to then

do it again for the next five years. It is unbelievable. It is

unbelievable, most people with a brain can see something is going to

give. You can't take the money from the kids, you can't take the money

from the pensioners and people from disabilities. Even broadly, very,

very vaguely outline it, I honestly don't understand it. I will have to

stop you all there if I may. Thank you. Coming up:

I don't want to survive. I want to live. The Prime Minister of Iraq was

begging the people of Fallujah today to drive out the fors that have

captured the town. Well he might, the cost of a town of so many

American lives and lose it to an Al-Qaeda affiliate risks asking the

question of what the whole war was for. Late 2004, ferocious urban

warfare on the streets of Fallujah, plane troops trying to flush --

American troops trying to flush out Al-Qaeda troops hiding inside. Ten

years on and Fallujah once more out of control, Islamic militants taking

over Government buildings, defying Baghdad. Has Al-Qaeda returned to

its old stomping ground. Has the war in Syria some how fanned the flames

of Iraq's burning sectarian embers. It is certainly the way the

Government in Baghdad would like to see it. One of the main arguments to

use is these areas have become, they use the word "infested" by elements

from Al-Qaeda groups and fighters who are foreigner, even from outside

Iraq. They want to clean them, clear that area from these fighters.

Fallujah and Ramadi sit on Baghdad's western doorstep, behind them the

vast empty province of Anbar stretching to the Syrian border,

where another war is now almost three Years' old. Sunni militants

battling against insurgents. Both countries having proclaimed

allegance to Al-Qaeda. The Islamic state of Iraq and Syria, whose very

name suggests a common purpose. It is tempting, perhaps, to see the two

countries as two fronts in a bigger war. Tempting but probably

misleading too. We see that Al-Qaeda and radical Jihadists are exploiting

one popular alienation, both in Syria and Iraq to the absence of

Government. And then three, an increased heightened sectarianism

across the whole region. There may well be one organisation exploiting

two distinct battlefields and finding similarities in each. But

they are, at the moment, two separate conflicts, one driven by

the incompetence and repression of the Government in Damascus, the

other driven by the incompetence and repression of the Government in

Baghdad. It could have been different, three years ago Iraq's

Sunni minority deified Al-Qaeda and voted in parliamentary elections.

Political participation, they hoped, might improve their lot, in a

country now dominated by Shia politicians. But it didn't happen.

Two years later amid mounting grievances there were protests on

the streets of Ramadi Anbar's capital. Eventually broken up in a

heavihanded Government operation. A crisis some say of the Prime

Minister's own making. This is almost the ideal scenario for

Al-Qaeda, recruiting small numbers of people but not being whole

heartedly rejected by a wider population that voted in 2010, had

that investment in the ballot box squadered by an Iraqi Government now

running the election campaign for April 2014 on a very sectarian

basis. And against a backdrop of extreme violence. This was the scene

in Diala province three days ago, another massive car bomb, almost

9,000 people were killed in Iraq last year, the deadliest since 2008.

The Prime Minister, urging the people of Fallujah to expel the

terrorists. But not everyone here is Al-Qaeda. There are plenty of local

tribesmen equally willing to take on the Government. It is a messy three

or four-way fight. With overwhelming fire power, the army will probably

win, but at what cost? Here we are, 2014, the centinary of the outbreak

of the First World War, all sorts of commemorative events are planned,

amid much controversy about what is the appropriate tone to mark a

catastrophe that took vast numbers of lives and turned out not to be a

war to end wars. The Education Secretary, a man who can't see a

sacred cow without ordering up the truck from the nearest abattoir

added his tuppence in, inevitably the Daily Mail. He argued that apart

from a pointless slaughter it had been a just war. This great

blood-letting cost millions of lives, reshaped the societies of

Europe, promoted revolution, enfranchised those previously denied

the vote, and tragically sowed the seeds of future war. According to

the Education Secretary, our understanding of the war is filtered

through a series of predominantly left-wing prejudices about loins led

by donkeys. Field Marshall Hague has formulated a tactical plan to ensure

final victory in the feel. Would this brilliant plan involve us

climbing out of our trenches and walking very slowly towards the

enemy. How could you How could you know that it is classified. It is

the same plan we used last time and 17-times before that. Michael Gove

says this portrayal presents the war as a misbegotten shambles, a series

of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch elite. He claims

World War I was plainly a just war. In which the Germans' pitiless

approach and expansionist war aims justified Britain's involvement.

Enter Tristram Hunt and Labour's schools' spokesman, he claimed the

Government is using what should be a moment for national reflection and

respectful debate to rewrite the historical record and sow political

division. History, Churchill is supposed to have said, is written by

the victors, the outcome of the war may not be in doubt, but what it

meant still is. With us now is Professor Richard Evans from

Cambridge University, a man singled out by Michael Gove for particular

reproach. And in Toronto TWEF Margaret Macmillan, author of The

War That Ended Peace. Do you think that Michael Gove is right to say we

see the war through a particular set of preconceptions, "loins led by

donkeys" and the like? I don't, I think he has said this a lot and a

lot of people have argued it. Quite frankly there are many ways of

seeing the war. One of the things we should be doing a hundred years

later is looking in the round, not arguing about one particular view of

the war. It wasn't entirely a war led by donkeys, the generals were

trying hard to deal with new technology and strong edge to

defensive war. They learned as the war game on, but they debt -- war

went on but didn't have the technology to make successful

attacks. We need more nuance and we need 100 years later to talk without

these polemics. Do you think the nuance and lack sophisticated

arguments you are talking about has been lost? It has been lost, we have

tended to argue about the First World War in a very nationalistic

way. I think surely 100 years later we should be looking at something

that was a catastrophe that hit the whole of Europe, hit the world as

well and hit, you know, it wasn't just a European war. I speak as a

Canadian. This is something that we feel quite strongly about. I do

think it is a time to be able to pull back. Instead of arguing about

which nation was right and which was wrong and who was responsible, I

really would like to see more discussion of what that war meant.

What did it mean for European society, how did it happen, why did

Europe fight it in that particular way. It seems to me there are all

sorts of interesting questions, and there is nothing wrong with debating

interpretations. This is what we should be doing, but what I really

don't like is the idea we should only be looking at the war in one

way. That there is only one correct interpretation of the war. The

Education Secretary singled you out by name as one of the perpetrators

of the left-wing or orthodoxy about the war, how did you feel about

that? It is always like to have enemies like Michael Gove because

he's usually wrong about historical matters. The point I would like to

make is there is nothing left-wing about saying lions led by donkeys,

the phrase about the troops in the First World War, that phrase was

created by Alan Clarke, a Tory MP, a maverick right-winger. You accept it

is not the total picture No it is not. It is not even the total

picture of military leadership? No it isn't. Margaret is right in

saying they simply could not cope with the new technology. Barbedwire,

and the machine gun, turned the tables on attack, which had been

favoured in 19th century wars and put it all on the side of defence.

It wasn't until the 1918 when the tank was developed that was reversed

and the allied armies could advance. What about the point that Michael

Gove makes that this was a "just war", that is the phrase he uses?

You can't really say that until 1918. Britain's principal ally was

Tsar of Russia, despotism that put Germany into the shade, it is not

until Russia withdraws from the war and the Americans come in everything

changes. It seems to me legitimate enough to argue that Britain and

France were fighting for democracy and liberal values. What is your

view about this idea of the "just war" Margaret Macmillan? Well,

people always feel that what they are doing is just. But I'm rather

reluctant to accept the view that the war was about promoting a

liberal international order. Most people who fought on all sides felt

they were fighting to defend their homelands, their families and

friends. I'm not sure they were fighting for a great vision, that

came later. The politicians provided the visions. But I do think we need

to remember that people at the time felt they were fighting for

something. We don't have to agree with them. But we're not also I

think in the position of sitting there saying you are completely

wrong. We are not marking their cards, are we. We shouldn't be

saying you got it right, you got it wrong, at this stage we should be

trying to understand how the war happened, and how this very

prosperous continent created this awful mess. The intervention by the

Education Secretary is of a piece with interventions by other

politicians who looking to this complicated question which is

precisely how do we commemorate this event? Is it helpful do you think to

have politicians wading in like this? Well it is not always helpful,

is it? I think the politicians will have very strong views of what they

want to do. I think it is something that belongs to all of us. I think

the politicians are entitled to their views, but I think we also, as

the public, should have our views. I'm not saying historians are the

only people who should describe the war either. It is something we

should be all talking about. What is your feeling about these political

interventions? I think they are unhelpful. We don't want politicians

to tell us what we should be feeling about the war or how we should

commemorate it. I actually think the Government has got it more or less

right in giving the freedom, funding, to people locally, to

institutions, to all kinds of groups to commemorate the war in the way

they want to. If you look at the Welsh Government for example it is,

it has plan to commemorate the war, it includes honouring not only the

troops who fought so bravely but also the conscientious objectors. It

has schools' visits to Germany, the royal Fusiliers museum is having a

collaboration with German institutions to commemorate the

Christmas truce. It should be an educational experience. We need to

teach people about the reasons why war happens, to try to avoid it

happening again. Thank you both very much indeed. Ever since that

unfortunate Romanian young man took a new year flight from Transylvenia,

only to be met on his arrival by, horror of horrors, Keith Vaz, there

has been intense speculation about whether the prove sighed tsunami of

benefit scroungers and migrants was a figment Nigel Farage's

imagination. There are some people coming and tonight we meet some of

them in their Transylvanian home town of Cluj Napoca. I want to go to

the UK because I want to find a better job. The change in the

regulations regarding work permits will make a fewing -- huge

difference. It is easier to find a job than here. You can do just more

than wait tables in a restaurant. You can finally do something related

to your study, you can make a contribution to the English society.

I'm working five years in hotel reception. I'm really pleased with

my work, I like my work. I like to work with people every day. But I'm

not so satisfied by the material part. I think that we are not

appreciated financially as well as we should be. Over the next few

weeks I plan to do a very thorough research to analyse the market, the

job market in the UK and I will have a look at what's going on with

journalism and communications and PR and I'm looking phwoar internships

at various institutions and corporations. I will also be

contacting people I know in the UK hoping to land a job. We're going to

the employment agency. There we will find a big database about the jobs

across Europe. I want to go to the UK because here in Romania

everything goes on family relationships. The manager is the

father the director is the son. If you don't have a kind of family like

that you can't find a job. I have read a lot of articles recently in

the English newspapers, in the tabloids especially about this fear

in dealing with an exodus of Romanians. They are concerned about

flooding the job market, and I think most of these facts are quite

overblown. Me and my friends share a common view on what is happening

with migration, we all think that most of the Romanians will come back

and just go there to get some skills and then they are probably going to

head back. I think there is no need to worry about that part of the

population that will go there to exploit the welfare, because that's

like 10% of the population, maybe even less than that. The other

percentage is very well equipped and very well skilled. I'm certain some

people will go, for benefits, because there are people who like to

take advantage everywhere. But this is not what the main population who

emigrate will go specifically for that. Some will, some will go to get

a good job, to get their studies finished or advanced or they will

return or find a job there. I have my own concerns about travelling to

the UK, of course, I know jobs, especially the high end jobs are

very competitive and there is also the bias that you have to take into

account because you are going to be competing with you know people froms

native population. You have to be perfect, you have to be outstanding.

I never have been there. I don't know what I will find, but I hope

that I will like it. And we will be returning to those Romanian job

seekers to find out how they fare after they arrive in the UK in the

weeks ahead. One of the most hot low-anticipated films of the last

many months opens this week. Twelve Years A Slave is widely tipped for

Oscar glory and has been called the finest film to have been made about

slavery in the states. It is all the more powerful for being based on a

true story. The director, skean Steve McQueen is an artist who has

just won the Turner Prize. Steve McQueen is a film director whose

tract record dictates he will never compromise his vision. His new

movie, Twelve Years A Slave, is based very firmly on the true story

of Solomon Northup, a free man, kidnapped and sold into slavery. It

is a story of how he kept his humanity in the face of the most

unspeakable relentless cruelty. I don't want to survive, I want to

live. My wife is a historian and said why not look into firsthand

accounts of slavery. We did, she found this book called Twelve Years

A Slave. It was amazing, every single page was a revelation. I

closed the book and I was very angry with myself. I was angry with myself

because I thought how did I not know this book. I realised nobody I knew,

knew the book, I knew I had to make it into a movie. I got this from

mistress Shaw, she won't grant me no soap to clean with. I stink so much

I make myself gag. The film was a fantastic combination of intense

moments, there is intense cruelty but also intense beauty in it as

well? When people for example say to me how can you shoot something so

horrific but beautiful. Because that's life. If you go to Louisiana,

it is one of the most beautiful places you have been so. Shaun was

on camera and wanted a dark Len, I can't put my filter on to life, life

is perverse. Under the circumstances he is a slave owner, you lucksate in

his favour. I survive, I will not fall into despair. It was tragic,

Chiwetel Ejiofor was the job, he had a stature and presence to him, there

is a nobility, and humanity, which is most important, less nobility

more humanity. Within the environment of a situation which was

unhumane, he had to hold on to that. My back is thick with scars for

protesting my freedom. I was reading one of the articles of black writers

saying he's not going to watch this film because race films are made for

liberal white film-goers because they will end up feeling guilty and

that is the purpose of them? I don't make films for white people! I just

don't! It is like saying you know I don't need anyone to verify my

existence, I make films or I make art because I'm alive and I'm an

artist and I want to make things, I'm an entertainer, absolutely no

two ways about it, you can't escape that. My film is about us, rather

than specific groups of people. You know it is just the American tale

but it is a global tale absolutely. You are no better than prized

livestock. Chiwetel Ejiofor has to do so much without words, playing

that character, particularly when he has to whip Patsy, how do you

separate the acting from the natural distress of doing something like

that? You don't. You cannot. But that's part of actually getting to

some kind of truth within filming. The fact that we shot it in one take

shows the tension there, that is why you get that performance, you ramp

it up and we have to do it now. You talk to the actor already previously

and in rehearsals, it is like a 100m sprint, you train four years to run

for ten seconds, that is what it is about. You have to do it now. Steve

McQueen doesn't shy away from tough subjects, Hunger, his first feature

dealt with Bobby Sands, the Provisional IRA prisoner who died on

the 5th of May in 1991 after 66 days on hunger strike. For me what was

important about the film it was something swept under the carpet. At

that time and even now it is the most important political event to

happen in Britain at that time for 27 years. Ten men died through

starvation in British prison cells. When the film came out a dialogue a

conversation occurred about the troubles. So the movie at that point

for me wasn't important, what was important was the dialogue. Certain

things were said, people admitted to certain things that were never

admitted to. The British establishment admitted to atrocities

that occurred in H-blocks, that was the first time that has before

happened, a dialogue occurred. That is the power of art in a way that it

can actually, the simple thing it can do is just talk about what is

going on now, where we are at and hopefully where we can possibly go

in the future. Steve McQueen is already being garlanded for Twelve

Years A Slave, but if he wins the Oscar, he will be the first black

director to take the statue. If you win the Oscar is the pressure on you

to take the Hollywood money or do you want to maintain their

independence? I'm not a Hollywood money, if I was interested in money,

you know if I was interested in money I would be somewhere else I

wouldn't be here. That doesn't interest me. All I wanted to do, I

wanted two things out of my life as far as money was concerned, I wanted

to have shelter and I wanted to be able to buy any book I wanted, that

was t I have those, that's enough. There is very definitely a Team

Queenzieburn, Michael Fassbender has starred in each of his three films,

he works with the same director of photography Shaun Bobbit every time?

It is my band, we come together and make an album. Michael is Jagger,

Shaun is the drummer, and you know, Charley Watts! You're Keith

Richards? I have to be. Everyone wants to be Keith, I'm sorry, I'm

Keith, yeah. That's it for tonight. Just before we go, a couple of

tomorrow morning's front pages at least. The Times has news that many

Tories are very fed up with George Osborne over the ?12 billion planned

in welfare cuts. And the Guardian has the same story on its front

page, the outrage of people being allies of Iain Duncan Smith, it also

has a picture of Simon Hoggart, the parliamentary sketch writer whose

death was announced today. Much more tomorrow, until then, good night.