22/04/2014 Newsnight

Game over! David Moyes is out, but whoever will be in next at

Manchester United they will need to perform and fast. But do we all lose

out if we are just unwilling to wait for success? We will talk to the

City financier, one of the Red Knights who tried and failed to buy

the club in 2010. Michael Gove, the demented Dalek on speed! Teaching

unions often want to exterminate Education Secretaries, but is the

National Union of Teachers also on track to poison itself as candidates

from left-wing militants push for control. Technology is meant to make

everything so much easier, everything apart from finding a job.

There is no economic law that says everyone will benefit from

technology, it is possible for some people, even possibly the majority

of people to be made worse off. And industrial action at 30,000 feet.

After more than a dozen mountain guides lose their lives in an of a

large, Sherpas say they won't take climbers up Everest unless their

lives improve. We will seek the views of climbers who have reached

the summit themselves. Good evening, the moment the manager

loses his authority you don't have a club. Sir Alex Fergsuon didn't

intend that as a warning to his hand-picked successor, but it might

as well have been. David Moyes was uncermoniously shoved out of the

UK's wealthiest club after only ten torrid months in the club. If the

club's billionare owners ever had much faith in him, it didn't last

long. Once senior players started to lose faith the game was up. Now

football is a multi-billion, rather than a beautiful game, who can we

really expect to lead them? To admiring spectators Old Trafford

is the theatre of dreams, but not for manager David Moyes. On his way

out with fans' derision ringing in his ears. Easter is a time of

renewal of course, but this isn't what Moyes had in mind, his team

beaten 2-0 by his old team, Everton, out of the lucrative Champions

League for the first time in 19 years, and looking for a new

manager. Old Blue Eyes is sacked. So was it down to his failings as a

leader? I think the leadership of any football manager at any football

club is critical. That person is the standard bearer for everything the

players do on the pitch. Now you will have players who will assume

leadership roles on the field of play. But they are not ultimately

responsible for the results. It is the results that matter to football

clubs. And if you don't get the results, then you hit the cutting

room floor. Cartoonist Paul Wood, whose strips inspired by the

Premiership appear in Private Eye, have drawn these especially for

Newsnight. "Actually I'm a bit embarrassed by that one, it was a

very bad year". We put a huge amount of importance in what the manager

does. Everyone assumes that it was David Moyes who guided his team to

victory, or David Moyes who allowed his team to flop and defeat. Where

does this idea come from? Was he playing? He was just standing on the

touch-line and maybe giving a few words at half time. We did a study

that suggested a lot of players can't understand what the manager is

saying at half time and it doesn't matter if they do or don't. It is

not only leaders in sport who know the pain of following a proven

winner. But analysts of management technique say there is more to it

than personality and character. Business and politics and sport are

competitive activities. You only have to do better than the

opponents, it doesn't mean you have to be an extraordinary team

yourself, you just have to be less bad than your opponents. This is

where the mythology of great leaders is built up. Arguably Margaret

Thatcher and Tony Blair both faced enfeebled oppositions at the height

of their powers. It doesn't mean we were genius leaders or invisible or

conquering characters t just means they were much better than what they

were facing. Politicians and share advisers invest heavily in the image

of leadership. Here are messers Cameron and Osbourne, as men of

action and purpose today. But the rest of us follow suit, say some.

Political leadership is absolutely critical to a party's election

success, all of us as voters put a huge amount of emphasis on leaders.

Are we right to do that? Do we put too much emphasis on the character

of a leader, rather than the team or the ideolgical presumptions or the

interest groups, or as with this Government for example the period

through which they were governing, or the size of their majority, which

has probably had a bigger influence on how they performed that has the

personality or otherwise of David Cameron. In football more than

politics all careers end in fail arcs -- failure, as Enoch Powell

almost said. One day you are the anointed one appointed by your

predecessor, and the next you are out the door with only a ?5 million

pay-out to cushion the blow. This was, of course, Sir Alex

Fergsuon's own succession plan, why did it go so badly wrong. With us is

one of the so called Red Knights who tried to buy the club in 2010,

Alison Rudd a sports columnist for the Times, and Bill George a former

fortune 500 CEO and Professor of Management at Harvard Business

School. You are fan of businessmen, someone who wanted to have a slice

of the club. In your view was it a business or football decision? First

of all I wanted the supporters to have a slice of the club, that was

the key thing about the Red Knights. This is partly sport and partly

money, the two cannot be separated today. And the key, the drivers of

success of a club on the field is overwhelmingly the squad and the

amount of money that is spent on the squad. The key issue for Manchester

United is that in 2005 they were taken over in a leveraged buyout,

there was ?600 million plus put into the club, which meant they could no

longer compete in the way they should have been able to do. You

referred to them earlier as the wealthiest club in Britain. They are

by revenue, if you look at their balance sheet they are one of the

poorest. Because they have got far too much debt which, means they have

underspent against all of the main peers. The record is not too shabby,

doesn't this show leadership as well as money matters. Because Alex

Fergsuon was able to bring in silverwear although they were

underspent? The people who write about soccer say the management

accounts for 10% of the performance of club. Fergsuon was an exceptional

manage e not good at succession planning, but an exceptional

manager. Overperformed compared with the budget we have spent. We have

been underspending for several years now compared with other British

clubs, let alone the Europeans. What is the danger of Manchester United

having done this. The whole point of the long legacy, giving Alex

Fergsuon a lot of time to bed in when he started. Will they come like

other clubs with short-term attention spans and a short-term

cycle? That is not bad thing, that is the way football is shifting. You

can't suddenly say we would like to have a long legacy it was accidental

that Fergsuon was able to give them that. Wasn't that the point of

giving Moyes a six-year contract? Yes, but you could also argue nobody

really, really believed it. What Moyes has ended up being is a buffer

between Fergsuon, the man nobody wants to take over from, and the

next man, who will probably be there for two or three years F he did stay

there for two or three years they are considered a success. They are

out of fashion now these empires. Most Arsenal fans are getting very

tired of the Arsene Wenger empire. They would actually vote for a new

manager to come in, who hadn't been there 15 years. They would be quite

happy for someone to come for two or three years and bring in silverwear,

and move on somewhere else. Nobody minds that any more. Bill George how

do you succeed when the predecessor was so successful, such an

exceptional leader that continued to outperform, is it impossible? No, it

is not impossible. But I have an empathy for Moys, who is following

-- Moyes who is following a legend in Alex Fergsuon. We wrote a case

about him at Harvard because of their leadership. I disagree, it is

about leadership and the money will follow the leadership and anyone who

can win the Premier League 13 out of 26 years and two Champions Leagues

is a real leader who can align and bring people together. Moyes

couldn't do. That he didn't get the best out of his players, he didn't

inspire them, and the result is he's out. It is no different than a CEO,

you look at how Paul Pullman has turned around Unilever because of

his leadership. He has to perform too, that is what is happening.

Arsene Wenger has performed and it is a big challenge now for

Manchester United to find someone who can take it back to the levels

Sir Alex guided the club to and made it the most successful club in the

world. Why are successful leaders often so bad for planning what

happens after them. We have seen company after company after company,

Apple, Microsoft, Tesco's here in the UK, many struggle after the

superstar boss moves on? First of all it shouldn't be his call, it

should be the board's call to bring in the right leader and find the

right person. Look at what Chelsea did going after Jose Mourinho, they

wanted a winner, and they got a winner. I think the same thing will

happen after here. It is hard to follow a legend, it is hard to carry

on. It is a challenge, but it can be done. It was done in Novartis and

General Electric. It can be done here. Look at what is happening in

Bayern Munich, not shabby club, and look Pep Guardiola has put together

an undefeated season. They finally lost and it will be a great game

this week, but you are seeing what leadership really matters whether it

is in football or in business or in Government or in life. Leaders

matter and the kind of leadership Sir Alex represented is far superior

to what David Moyes unfortunately represented, so we're going to have

to find new leadership here. What do you say to that? Under your view a

big part of the problem at Manchester United is the structure

of the whole thing? Well, it is both, I don't want to create a

disagreement where there isn't one, essentially today there are

eight-to-ten clubs that dominate in Europe, arguably four, and they are

dominant because of money. It is economics that drives that. You have

a small number of leaders who have emerged as the top managers and

Theroux Tating around the clubs and they are succeeding each other at

different clubs and United made the mistake of appointing somebody who

had never won anything. He was not a proven leader at all. In that sense

it was a mistake. Now in terms of models of football clubs, there are

four models of football clubs in Europe, there is the supporter-based

club, Barcelona, ideally. There is the German model, 50% owned by

supporters and 50 plus one owned by the supporter, there is the

benefactor model, which is most British clerks somebody puts in a

lot of money. There is the malafactor money, Liverpool and

historically Manchester United, they are unique, the money is taken out

of the club. All of those models have successful clubs? You can

decline for many years like Liverpool if you have the wrong

ownership. In United's case it is a great irony, in the NFL you have a

limited to the amount of debt in a club $150 million. The only two

clubs in Europe which have had leveraged buyout, Liverpool and

Manchester United. They were taken over by Americans applying financial

market real practices to a community-based activity. What are

the lessons from how this is handled, it was said that it was a

mistake to hire Moyes because he hadn't won anything. Are there wider

lessons here? Yeah, people have to acknowledge football is changing. We

have entered a clipboard manager revolution, to be honest. You can

come through as a younger manager, you don't necessarily have to do the

"I have got my trophies to show you routine", but you can say "I've done

my homework". Jose Mourinho at Chelsea is the ultimate example. You

don't have to have a stellar playing career, but you need to show a

passion, and you have the star quality to pull it off. They are

popping up all over the place managers. People know as managers

that is what they are good at. They are not people you remember holding

up a trophy at Wembley, they never did. That but they were good at

going into people's office, doing the homework, learning from the

greats and putting a package together. Paul, finally to you,

whoever the next manager is would you and your comrade who is were

part of the Red Knights bid, would you consider putting in another

deal? It has to be the right price and with the supporters. The idea is

that the supporters have a say in the affairs of their club. At the

moment Manchester United's owners hardly even set foot in man Chester.

If you do come back to us. I agree with that Paul. That's all we have

time for, but Bill George in America, Paul Marshall and Alison

Rudd thank you for coming in. The Geneva deal struck last Weir

over Ukraine already looked unconvincing, but tonight it feels

almost like it wasn't even worth the paper it was writ on. The acting

President has relaunched military operations against the pro-Russian

sim thighesers in the east of the country. Oleksandr Turchynov's

decision came after a politician from his own party was found dead,

appearing to have been tortured. What does this announcement tonight

mean? How important is it? The Geneva deal was meant to have given

a road map for de-escalation of the crisis. Now it forms almost a point

for new recriminations. The signatories agreed to restrain from

violence and terrorist acts. Now you have this anti-terrorist action

being launched in response to two murdered officials. You have Ukraine

saying its National Guard battalion, these are the activists, they are in

the east and ready to start the operation. And you have new

rhetorical attacks today from the acting Prime Minister, Arseniy

Yatsenyuk. "In this century and in the world we

live in, no-one should be able to act like gangsters".

What about the allegations that Russian forces have been directly

involved in eastern Ukraine? There are two sides to the story, and

nobody is taking the Geneva agreement seriously. The Russian

side was expected by the EU, the US, the Ukrainians to vacate Government

buildings, which they haven't done over the weekend. They have also

been presenting new evidence, gathered by Ukrainian Security

Services and amateur sleuths, that groups from Russian military

intelligence, the GRU Special Forces have been active in fermenting this

trouble. Now today some new pictures appeared, these two individuals

here, and the beard-spotters, if we may call them that in Ukraine, have

tied them to images which they have previously harvested from social

media. If we look back at the next image we can see in the bottom of

the screen, two photos, taken of a Russian GRU Special Forces unit

before this whole Ukrainian crisis started up, on an exercise in

Russia. Which the Ukrainians say those two individuals we first saw

can be spotted in those pictures. They have also tied these

individuals, if we look further on here, to an operation, one of them

in particular on the left of the screen there, to an operation in

Georgia in 2008. Their argument is this is not just spontaneous,

co-ordination and key roles are being played by Russian troops,

belonging to this special unit, and that's a view that America buys, for

example today the US Vice President in Kiev, Joe Biden. We call on

Russia to stop supporting men, hiding behind masks in unmarked

uniforms, sewing unrest in eastern Ukraine. And there are also reports

tonight that American journalists is being held. That will inflame things

further? There have been two Ukrainian journalists detained and

tonight, a man called Simon from Vice News, he has contributed to

this programme. He is said to have been detained, it is said to be a

provocative act. But they would see it as a response to the visit of the

Vice President to Kiev. The National Union of Teachers'

members traditionally spend Easter enjoying each other's company at

their annual meeting. This week they confirmed yet again they are going

on strike, and yet again they confirmed they de despised Michael

Gove, the Education Secretary. Nothing new there, but the union is

the closest thing teachers have to an official voice. And they are

considering elect Agnew General Secretary from what was once called

the militant tendency. Who wouldn't have wanted a day out

in Brighton this weekend, thousands of teachers certainly did, they were

in town for the National Union of Teachers' conference. But, while

these people relax by the seaside, the biggest teaching union was

inside debating pensions, pay and workload. And, if you read between

the lines they were also arguing about whether they want their union

to be led by the ultra left. Turning up to the conference it is pretty

obvious that some unusual political groups are strongly represented. The

hard left has now built up a majority on the union's executive.

There is an element of the People's Front of Judea and the Judean

People's Front for some of it. People like the Socialist Workers'

Party, the SocialIst Party, and the alliance for liberty are well

represented. When you get them into the conference room, many are

unsubtle about their radicalism. Not even their language is moderate.

Michael Gove, the demented Dalek on speed, who wants to exterminate

anything good in education that came along since the 1950s! I would

submit that teachers never like to withdraw their labour. This former

NUT General Secretary fought the hard left for his whole career, but,

he says, its current domination of the union is something quite new.

When I first came to the union, you had a prominent Conservative who had

been the treasurer, the President became a treasurer, he had another

honour as President. Within the membership in various parts of the

country some quite strong Conservative membership, they

haven't all gone away. What they are not doing is playing as big a part

in the union as they used to. I think because of the discontents

within the profession, and the pressure us on the profession, and

NUT members, it is still a very large membership, are such that they

are not turning up to meeting and voting on the scale they should.

Which only helps the more extreme left and the moderate left has lost

some ground as well. Surveys show teachers are a bit more left of

centre than most. But they include a sizeable minority of Conservatives

and UKIP voters. That is definitely not reflected at the NUT. Senior NUT

officials say because their union is the largest teachers' union, that

makes them is a particular target for some hard left groups. And

things may be about to get more extreme. This summer the General

Secretary, Christine Blower, will need to fight to keep her role.

She's on the hard left herself, but is being challenged from her own

left-wing, by Martin Powell Davies, he's part of the Socialist Party,

the group once known as the militant tendency. What we are debating this

afternoon is my idea and others who support me, is that you can't simply

have occasional one-day protest strikes, you actually need to step

one a calendar and series of strikes until the Government has to take

notice. That is what we are ever. After. He thinks the public would

support longer strikes? I would say if you are on in London on the day

of the tube strikes you would see the big amount of support. Everyone

knows pay is cut and jobs are under threat, people respect people who

will stand up for themselves and good luck to them. That is what we

found on the picket lines on March 26th. Mr Powell Davies sun likely to

win, but de-- is unlikely to win, but it has already become a battle

between organised hard left factions. These people, leaping up

are so called floor managers, they are a so called whip for one of the

factions. They call votes that allow their blocks to manage the pace of

debate. Fred Jarvis thinks that at root it is union members' lack of

interest that is helping to give these groups a free rein. In my time

there was hardly ever an occasion when you had candidates who returned

unopposed, this time there are about 20. Returned unopposed. Some of them

from the ultra left. This is reminiscent to me of student

politics? Not in my time. When I ran the NUS, I ran against a communist

and we beat them. The unions' revolutionary zeal has already led

several NUT moderates to leave in he can SAS persituation racial. --

exasperation, more strikes and militancy they say will upset

parents. And while the NUT has picked fights on pensions and pay,

it really isn't winning them. They ask who exactly are they

representing? With us to debate that are our

guest, we have the deputy General Secretary of the NUT, and John Blake

one of the prominent NUT moderates who has recently left over precisely

these kinds of concerns. Kevin, listening to that, hearing again

that the NUT is planning to strike, hearing again that they are

resisting basically all the Government's changes, and hearing

that there are militants standing. Parents would be forgiven for

thinking you are obsessed with your own left-wing politics rather than

standards in the classroom and what is best for children? Well, if that

was the entirely accurate picture of the weekend, maybe they would have

justification. We spent time debating whether four is too young

to test children. We have been debating the questions of primary

curriculum and assessment. We are debating that Michael Gove is giving

?45 million to the Harris Academy chain. And voting to strike again

and hearing from militants who are planning to stand as candidates, you

are still advocating policies like, that suggesting that Bob Crow is a

good model? We have been discussing further strike action. You have to

understand why that is. Since Michael Gove came to power eacher

workloads have gone up by 10-20%. Those extra hours primary teachers

are working 60 hours a week. The extra hours are not spent on

preparing exciting lessons for children. John is one of the

moderates, we believe you were forced out because of the rising

tide of militancy, what is your experience? My experience is, I

joined in 2005, it was an organisation then thinly tethered to

reality. By the time I left it had detatched itself entirely.

Conference is extremely unpleasant. If you are not willing to walk in

the orthodoxy of the NUT it is a very narrow idea of what it means to

be left-wing, of what it means to be a teacher, and what it means to be a

teacher-activist. I give you one example, I gave a speech at one

conference in which I suggested that a group of teachers talking about

going out on a general strike was not helpful to the union or Labour

movement, and I was denounced and denounced by the leader of the

moderate fraction on the executive as outrageously right-wing. It is

ridiculous. Are you proud of that someone saying they can't stand up

and say what they say? I don't recognise that, John was the NUT rep

where I was branch secretary. I encouraged John on to the local

community and into the party because we are a broad church. John has

decided to leave the NUT. Is it a broad church? I will say this about

Kevin and Kevin is a very kind and generous trade union activist, but

the branch where we were both members, after I went to conference

the first time attempted to bring in a motion to ban people speaking on

issues that had been predecided in tiny meetings that took place long

before conference started. Who then is the NUT representing? If there is

no place for moderates like John, which clearly he feels seriously

there is not. Who do you purport to be representing? John has chosen to

leave, he's not just criticising the NUT, it is the NASWT, saying that it

was wrong to say teacher morale is so low. Generally teachers are being

represented by the NUT, the voice of the teacher in classrooms around

England and Wales is being represented effectively, and you

have not been able to block academy schools, which you wanted, or free

schools, and the pension and pay policies going ahead? We have

representation in the free schools and in the academies, our joint

strike action with the ATL improved the position on pensions. The joint

boycott of the Sats with the NHT has worked to a point. We have stopped

teacher review bodies and damaging teacher relations. It was a huge

setback for Michael Gove for that body to go back in the way it did.

Kevin is massively overstating the case, striking with the ATL made

slight and important differences to the pension campaign, but it was

Kevin and others who decided the NUT would carry that on to this point

where it is another round of strike action, but because they didn't get

very far on pensions we will add something else into it, this time it

will be about workload or something else. It is not the case that the

sats point and the NASWHT won't working with the NUT on certain

things. Because the NUT is in a militant position and detatched from

teachers, classroom and the mainstream of politics completely.

He's completely wrong about them not being wanting to work to with us. I

would like to put a particular point to you John. As a union and

membership organisation isn't it, however, entirely the NUT's role to

be bolshi, and radical in order to affect change. Maybe your party

because you represent Labour teachers was doing a better job of

opposing reforms, then you wouldn't have been to be so spiky. In one

sense you are correct, it is their problem if the they wondered off and

have no political power. But we are seen as a represent voice by the

public and teachers, we need a voice that is sensible and capable of

engaging with Government policy and being proactive and forward

thinking. You talked about the overwhelming opposition to

academies, there are thousands who work in academies, where are they

getting the representation. They are represented at conference. When was

the last time f you can remember, that the NUT actually supported a

Government policy? Let me turn it round and ask when was the last time

that Michael Gove listened to his critics. We are asking you the last

time you supported his policy, maybe it was under the last Government? We

supported Michael Gove when he said that teachers would be given

anonymity for accusations by children. That was in 2010. We

didn't support in closing down the London challenge, we don't support

the radical expansion of academies with no evidence. He decries his

opponent as the blob, and that is why teachers are so angry with him.

Worried about your job, two American academics think nearly all of us

should be, what they say call is the second machine age is upon us. The

first time round was disastrous if you worked with your hand. The first

moderate census said we worked the land or fished the seas, today that

is one per cent. Because the machines took all the muscled jobs.

In their place technology created huge numbers of roles where you have

to use your brain. Now they account for 80% of UK employment. A new book

out of MIT in Boston says the machines in the shape of robots and

computers are about to destroy most of these jobs, with profound impact

on our society and economy. This is how we used to think robots

would takeover the earth. In reality, well it could be far

scarier. Because this time the robots are after our jobs. Science

has invented a new mechanical Helpmate for the former. Machines

have been gathering up human jobs for centuries, now some believe we

are creating a huge time of mass redundancy created by technology. I

have come to MIT to meet two professors who believe we are at the

point where future is very different with blistering speed. Because of

technology they believe many of the jobs we depend on are simply going

to disappear. Andrew and Eric have called their book The Second Machine

Age, and it has policy makers worried. The reason we called the

book what we did, it was a direct reference to the Industrial

Revolution where the limitations of our muscles were augmented or even

eliminated by the steam engine and the internal combustian engine.

Today we are doing much the same for our brains for cognitive tasks. What

is driving the change is the exponential rise in computing power.

Today's consumer electronics would have been classed as super computers

a couple of decades ago. When there are dozens of super computers around

the world and they are all connected there is an explosion of data. It

puts us in a place we have never been before, and that is why we are

seeing the crazy science fiction advances coming now. Crazy science

fiction advances like cars that can drive themselves, thought impossible

just a decade ago. Not great news for lorry drivers. Crazy science

fiction advances likes Baxter, a robot worker made by Re-think Rob

otics. He can do menial jobs and costs half the minimum human wage in

Massachusetts. Anybody can put him to work. I press a button to say

close your land, lift it up, drop it in the box like, that I have already

shown him the position of the other widgets here. Press one button, I'm

going to put that one back, it is expecting where it is. I can just

pick up my coffee while gets on with his work. Jo that were considered

human only are falling to the rob ots, like warehouse picking,

navigating around a space with ever-changing inventory and no two

asks the same, it was all thought impossible for the machines, not any

more. Autonomous robots lift up the shelves and bring them to one of the

central pickers. Companies need far fewer humans. With a quickening pace

the jobs under threat are creeping steadily up the education scale to

graduates and professionals. The scope of task that machines can do

is rapidly expanding into more high-level tasks, lawyers, some

types of investment banking. At the other end truck drivers and

different kinds of robotic work that used to be done by people on

assembly lines. The IBM computer Watson can thrash human champions in

the American game show Jeopardy. Elected every five years it has 736

members from every party, Watson? What is parliament. But that is just

a party trick compared to what else it can do. A new generation of

doctors are helping Watson learn the language of medicine. Ingesting

every available scrap of digitised medical knowledge, he's on his way

to being the best diagnostic doctor, and he can treat millions at the

same time. This is one of the ways jobs will disappear in the second

machine age. The best in any field can capture the whole market and

potentially fabulous wealth. Professions like accountany and the

law are already in the frame. Previously the human best tax

account didn't have the capacity to serve the entire market. But with

digital goods it is different. Once you have made one copy it is trivial

to make additional copies. I should say that is mostly good news. It is

nice we all have access to the best of many of these different

categories. As consumers it is good news. But it leads to a big

reallocation. In other words, even greater wealth inequalities. But at

least new jobs will be created, well don't count on it! This retail

development in Boston used to be a Ford factory, here new jobs come

from the rubble of the old. If the machines are able to not only

outmuscle but out-brain humans, which jobs will humans do? There is

no automatic guarantee these jobs will appear or they will be good

wages. There is no economic law that says everyone is going to benefit

from technology. It is possible for some people, even potentially a

majority of people to be made worse off. What sort of society and

economy could this lead to? There is a story about a Ford executive and

union boss touring a newly automated car plant. The Ford executive

overlooking the ranks of machines building the cars jokes to the union

boss "how will you get these guys to pay union subscriptions", the union

boss came back with "how are you going to get them to buy Fords? ".

When it vanishes from the community, you see lots of flavours of social

breakdown. For most of us these days a meaningful life has work as one of

its main components, a job, a career, a trajectory in your life.

If and win that goes away, what replaces it. I don't have a quick

answer to that question, we better start thinking long and hard about

it though. The vintage robots on display seem childish and

rudimentry. There is nothing exciting about this stick creature

from the 1980s. You can't say the same for the latest model. According

to the two men we need to prepare for a greater world of lower

equality and mass unemployment. The only place you might learn about

good middle-class jobs is in a museum. Edmund, hillry and Sherpa

Tensing could hardly have believed hundreds would follow them up

Everest. The industry helping largely wealthy westerners up

Everest has boomed. There is talk of queues on the way to the summit.

After 16 mountain guides were killed in an avalanche last week, it is

essentially at a stand still. Some Sherpas want to boycott the climbing

season completely after the terrible accident. Unless they receive a

bigger share of the revenue paid by foreign mountain years. Joining us

from Salford is Alan Hinkes, the first Britain to have climbed all

four of the world's peaks over 8,000ms. And we have the youngest

British woman to climb Everest. Thank you for being with us. First

to you Alan, how have you felt that your life is at risk? Yes, a lot of

times. On 8,000m peak, on Everest, the first time I went through the

ice fall my heart was in my mouth. I had read all the books and knew it

was dangerous. There was a little bit of apprehension. Bordering on

fear, it is a dangerous place. If Sherpas face those kinds of dangers

on climbers' behalf every day surely they deserve a bigger share of the

rewards? They do, and these Sherpas are friends of mine, they are

fantastic, sensitive, brave people, they are lovely. But they choose

this career, they are not forced to go into the ice fall, just as I

choose a career as a mountain guide I'm not forced to go into the ice

fall. I have been to Mont Blanc and it is a choice they make and a

dangerous place, more dangerous than the British hills or Mont Blanc.

They should get more money, they get well paid, they average $2500 a year

-- $500 a year, most will get ten or twenty-times that for a month's

work. The compensation case is about ?230, that is an insult isn't it? It

is an insult. The Nepalese Government took $3 million in permit

fees alone. The Sherpas are asking for an insurance pay-out of $100,000

pay-out to each of the dead's families. I think that is fine

considering what the Government are taking. So who is taking the money?

You can always guess what the Nepalese Government is doing with

the money. It might be the case they are investing in the country as a

whole. Because the valley where Everest is gets lots of money, and

the industries around it are impoverished. There is way of

spreading the word and maybe the Government is doing it. These

Sherpas are the life blood of evidence, so without them there is

no investment for the Government. Given the amount of money changing

hand, this is a boom industry isn't it, is that appropriate? Everest is

a special case. Most of the money is made from trekking, thousands of

people go trekking, particularly to Everest base camp and all around.

Everest is only for two months of the year it is a big windfall for

April/May, then nobody there for the rest of the year. As was said, this

part of Nepal is quite wealthy because of Everest. I should point

out there is not that much money for a lot of the western trekking

companies, a lot of the British companies don't make vast profits

from Everest. Most of them are put back into Everest, you have A a lot

of money being spent. Have we lost the respect of going up the mountain

in the first place? Aesthetics involved in this. I could understand

if the Sherpas or the Nepalese guides as they should be called, if

they decide not to go on the mountain I would understand it, they

have had 13-16 of them killed. It is the mother goddess of the world,

they are Buddhists and it could be bad Karma to go back on to the tar

mark. I would expect it if they decided not to go back this week. It

is a special case and the highest mountain in the world. Do you fear

the industry, that is what it is, is now out of control? It is a very

difficult question. You have got a really unique situation on Everest,

you have some of the richest people in the world, meeting some of the

poorest. And you have also got mother nature mixed in there. It is

an explosive mix. The Nepalese Sherpas want western climbers there,

they want as many as they can. Maybe there is a limit, but the more

people who come to their mountain the richer they get. And they can

support their children. It is not so much about it being horrible

industry, as you put it, it is a mountain, like others, where

hundreds of people go up every year and it doesn't get the same bad

press. Is it possible to go up Everest without a mountain guide,

could it be attempted without Sherpas if they go back to the

mountain? I don't think it would be, the ice the Sherpas are going

through was maintained by the Sherpas, they fix ladders and ropes,

the mountain changes constantly without their knowledge, skills and

expertise, I think it would be very difficult to fix a safe route for

the most part of the climbers there. There are people who go to Everest

without wanting to shout for help, but they are few and far between.

Before we go. Get your stopwatches ready, Ben Lee is the Guinness

record world holder for the fastest violinist. We give him the

opportunity for a dry run tonight. The piece is Flight of the

Bumblebee, the choice is four. 4.55. More showers around in the rest of

the week, the heavy showers will die away as we go through the