:00:39. > :00:43.Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Can markets have
:00:43. > :00:47.morals? Or is capitalism just a savage beast that can never be
:00:47. > :00:55.truly tamed? David Cameron thinks he, and he alone, has the answer.
:00:55. > :00:58.So does Ed Miliband. And, of course, Nick Clegg. But who's right?
:00:58. > :01:00.don't more universities just go private and charge students what
:01:00. > :01:05.they like? They are independent of Government control after all. So
:01:05. > :01:08.what's in it for them to settle for nine grand a year per head? Doctors
:01:08. > :01:11.are talking about strike action over cuts to their pensions. But
:01:11. > :01:18.would that be putting patients at risk when they've done pretty well
:01:18. > :01:26.in terms of pay and perks over the last few years? And we'll be joined
:01:26. > :01:31.by one Somerset MP who wants his county to have its time zone.
:01:32. > :01:34.you do. All that in the next half hour. And with us for the duration
:01:35. > :01:37.is the philosopher and now Master of a private university called the
:01:37. > :01:42.New College of the Humanities, Anthony Grayling. Welcome to the
:01:42. > :01:45.show. First, the British Medical Association said last night that
:01:45. > :01:55.two thirds of its members support industrial action over cuts to
:01:55. > :01:55.
:01:55. > :02:00.their pensions. The BMA does and like to be called a trade union,
:02:00. > :02:05.but it sounds like it is to me. is if they go on strike. The police
:02:05. > :02:09.and army are not allowed to strike. Is it morally acceptable for
:02:09. > :02:15.doctors to threaten to strike? not clear quite what they mean by
:02:15. > :02:18.that. Do they mean work to rule, or something like that? But the only
:02:18. > :02:21.weapon they had if they have a genuine grievance, I suppose for
:02:21. > :02:31.the butt of some bodies in need of medical attention, they should get
:02:31. > :02:36.it. Do they still sign up to the medical oath? I think it's a myth.
:02:36. > :02:41.They don't announce the Hippocratic oath. They do have a moral
:02:41. > :02:46.obligation. If you don't care, when care is needed, that is harsh.
:02:46. > :02:54.lot of people will look at what has happened to doctors pays, our GPs
:02:54. > :03:01.are the highest paid in Europe, and they used to be badly paid. 54% of
:03:01. > :03:05.consultants, their pay is now frozen, but they now earn an
:03:05. > :03:14.average of �110,000 a year. And have a pension, according to the
:03:14. > :03:18.Telegraph, the average, �1.7 million a year. They all sound like
:03:18. > :03:24.large sums of money but when you compare the kind of pay consultants
:03:24. > :03:27.get to what people get in the City, it's not a great deal for a very
:03:27. > :03:32.responsible job, and they take a long time to train for that job,
:03:32. > :03:39.and it's very stressful. If people are going to be rewarded by money,
:03:39. > :03:44.rather than status, one accepts that might be about right.
:03:45. > :03:54.university professor average is about �50,000. There are other
:03:55. > :03:55.
:03:55. > :03:58.perks. The high table. A low table maybe? They do have a lot of
:03:58. > :04:08.opportunity to pursue their interests, which is great value.
:04:08. > :04:08.
:04:08. > :04:11.You are right. They can do other things. Now, as the bankers' bonus
:04:11. > :04:14.season swiftly approaches, all the party leaders have been keen to
:04:14. > :04:20.tell us they are against the excesses of the city. And reforming
:04:20. > :04:24.capitalism has become the buzz phrase of the moment.
:04:24. > :04:27.On the left and the right. This morning both David Cameron and Ed
:04:27. > :04:29.Miliband have been out making speeches. David Cameron talking
:04:29. > :04:39.about moral capitalism. And Ed Miliband tackling the surcharge
:04:39. > :04:44.
:04:44. > :04:47.culture. Jo, give us the details. David Cameron and Ed Miliband have
:04:47. > :04:51.both been trying to outdo each other and show his brand of
:04:51. > :04:53.capitalism is better than his rival's. This morning, the Prime
:04:53. > :04:58.Minister talked about responsible capitalism and called for a new
:04:58. > :05:01.popular capitalism. In short, how to make markets have morals. But
:05:01. > :05:09.he's also stressed this should not be at the expense of making free
:05:09. > :05:14.markets work. Where markets work properly, open markets and free
:05:14. > :05:19.enterprise can actually promote plurality. Why? Because they create
:05:19. > :05:23.a direct link between its contribution and reward between
:05:23. > :05:29.effort and outcome. The fundamental basis of the market is the idea of
:05:29. > :05:34.something for something. An idea we need to encourage, not condemn. So
:05:34. > :05:38.we should use this crisis of capitalism to improve markets, not
:05:38. > :05:41.undermine them. I believe Conservatives in particular are
:05:41. > :05:46.well-placed to do this. Mr Miliband, you may remember, divided companies
:05:46. > :05:48.into predators and providers in his conference speech last year. And
:05:48. > :05:52.this morning he's called for tighter regulation on company
:05:52. > :06:00.takeovers to protect the long-term interests of British business. But
:06:00. > :06:03.he said politicians should be judged on actions not words.
:06:03. > :06:07.welcome any politician who wants to talk about these issues and I point
:06:07. > :06:10.out, David Cameron attacked me when I talk about these issues last
:06:10. > :06:15.September, but let's judge every politician on what they are willing
:06:15. > :06:19.to promise they are going to do. Not on their rhetoric. That's the
:06:19. > :06:23.test for David Cameron today, not whether he can talk the talk on
:06:23. > :06:27.responsible capitalism, but whether he can walk the walk and take
:06:27. > :06:31.action on behalf of hard-pressed consumers and the squeeze Middle
:06:31. > :06:34.who want action from him, not words. Two issues that both David Cameron
:06:34. > :06:37.and Ed Miliband know that gets the public angry, bank bonuses and
:06:37. > :06:42.executive pay, are also back on the agenda. Next month, many of the
:06:42. > :06:45.banks will announce their bonus payments. Yesterday, Goldman Sachs
:06:45. > :06:50.announced a bill of �7.95 billion for pay and bonuses, despite a fall
:06:50. > :06:57.in profits. And today's papers are full of talk about stripping the
:06:57. > :07:01.former boss of RBS, Sir Fred Goodwin, of his knighthood.
:07:01. > :07:10.Impeccably pronounced. Unlike this side of the team. With us now is
:07:10. > :07:13.the Conservative MP who coined the term crony capitalism, Jesse Norman.
:07:13. > :07:18.You can't say the word capitalism these days without putting an
:07:18. > :07:25.adjective in front of it. And the Shadow Treasury Minister Owen Smith.
:07:25. > :07:30.Thank you. Let's go through it. Mr Cameron, where they work openly,
:07:30. > :07:34.free-enterprise can promote morality because they create a
:07:34. > :07:43.direct link between contribution and reward, effort and outcome.
:07:43. > :07:46.you agree? I agree that they say, of course, the sincerest form of
:07:46. > :07:51.flattery is imitation and frankly, that's what we're seeing out now
:07:51. > :07:54.from David Cameron. We have an agenda set by Ed Miliband, set up
:07:54. > :07:58.the conference speech last year, and we are seeing some of those
:07:58. > :08:01.words coming out of the mouth of the Prime Minister today. You could
:08:01. > :08:08.see some of those written by Jessie Norman, but we will judge him by
:08:08. > :08:10.what he does. It's interesting, as you make a political point, rather
:08:11. > :08:15.than straightforwardly answering my question, are you saying Ed
:08:15. > :08:19.Miliband could have said this, too? There is a huge amount of
:08:19. > :08:23.similarity between the rhetoric that we are seeing from the current
:08:23. > :08:27.government right now and we all recognise that, after the financial
:08:27. > :08:31.crash of 2007-nine, there is a need to reform capitalism. There is
:08:32. > :08:36.widespread agreement about that, but I think there are differences
:08:36. > :08:41.between both the sincerity with which we hold the parties and the
:08:41. > :08:45.actions prepared to take. Markets are not immoral. There is no issue
:08:45. > :08:48.there. There is no disagreement there. It's a question of what the
:08:48. > :08:52.government is prepared to do to regulate those markets, to make
:08:52. > :08:57.sure they act properly in the interests of consumers. Ed Miliband
:08:57. > :09:01.has concrete solutions around companies ripping people off, and
:09:01. > :09:10.we want to see whether the Prime Minister is going to imitate those
:09:10. > :09:14.as well as our language. What is new and original that there should
:09:14. > :09:18.be a direct link between contribution and reward? I think
:09:18. > :09:22.it's pretty obvious and why people respond to the language of crony
:09:22. > :09:28.capitalism, because they realise something has gone wrong. Is any
:09:28. > :09:31.politician saying they should not be a link between them? Yes, I
:09:31. > :09:35.don't think people think that but of course, the point is the
:09:35. > :09:40.duration has got out of control and that's why you have the Fred
:09:40. > :09:44.Goodwin saga, and it's not necessarily for politicians to
:09:44. > :09:49.directly intervene on that. But to try to address the problems of the
:09:49. > :09:54.system is absolutely right for the Prime Minister to look up. Do you
:09:54. > :09:59.think it matters whether Fred could win keeps his knighthood or not?
:10:00. > :10:03.think it's important. Do you? become a question of the values
:10:03. > :10:06.inherent in the market system. With Fred Goodwin, you have a man who
:10:06. > :10:11.has made an enormous amount of money from running one of the
:10:11. > :10:17.greatest financial institutions in this country into the ground, RBS.
:10:17. > :10:22.He's not done anything illegal and has not been charged. In America,
:10:22. > :10:29.he might have been. Why should he lose his knighthood? Why does it
:10:29. > :10:33.matter? I'm not advocating that. I didn't imply that. He was right to
:10:33. > :10:37.be concerned about this issue. You would get a totemic question like
:10:37. > :10:43.this because people feel so strongly about executive
:10:43. > :10:47.compensation and bonuses. The Prime Minister, the City should be a
:10:47. > :10:51.powerhouse of competition creativity, and instead it became a
:10:51. > :10:54.byword for financial wizardry, which left at the risk with a tax
:10:54. > :10:58.payer excellence other popular capitalism, we ended up with
:10:58. > :11:04.unpopular capitalism put up agree or disagree? I agree with the word
:11:04. > :11:13.but let's see what is going to do about it. The reason finance
:11:13. > :11:19.capitalism recently became such a voracious beast in this country was
:11:19. > :11:23.because of the deregulation in the 1980s, which opened up this. Jessie
:11:23. > :11:28.would argue this is not the case. He would say, under Labour years,
:11:28. > :11:33.we saw that the regulation but the de Regulation occurred earlier and
:11:33. > :11:41.the growth in inequalities between the wealthy at the top, in
:11:41. > :11:45.particular in financial markets,... Remind me what Labour did. Did you
:11:45. > :11:49.do anything? Did you regulate any more than the regulatory
:11:49. > :11:54.environment you inherited from the Conservatives? I think there were
:11:54. > :12:04.lots of things we should have done. Did you do anything? I'm not saying
:12:04. > :12:12.we did anything to they glide the banks. -- do regulate the banks. We
:12:12. > :12:22.went to a tripartite system. let's... What I'm not going to say
:12:22. > :12:26.is we did enough. Are the problem is, the truth is, they did
:12:26. > :12:31.virtually nothing. Are they did not added to the regulation. They
:12:31. > :12:36.changed it but did not added. I cannot find any quote from any
:12:36. > :12:39.Conservative politician, While You were in opposition, saying this
:12:39. > :12:45.Labour government is not the regulating the markets tightly
:12:45. > :12:49.enough. Can you? Well, I haven't looked. The only quote which sits
:12:49. > :12:56.in my mind is a from Peter Mandelson which says we are
:12:56. > :13:01.intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich. Hold on.
:13:01. > :13:05.me speak. I asked for a Conservative quote and you throw a
:13:05. > :13:09.hackneyed old quote from Peter Mandelson at me. Is that the best
:13:10. > :13:13.you can do? If anyone is seriously suggesting a man like William Hague
:13:13. > :13:18.or Iain Duncan-Smith or David Cameron would be prone breakneck
:13:18. > :13:24.captors and we have seen over the last few years, I would deny that.
:13:24. > :13:30.Can you produce a'attacking the de regulated City as it operated in
:13:30. > :13:33.the 1990s? I think it's pretty clear that there was a strand of
:13:33. > :13:36.criticism of the tripartite regime which came in because people were
:13:37. > :13:44.very concerned about the Bank of England being taken out of
:13:44. > :13:49.regulation. They were worried that the they were worried that the
:13:49. > :13:56.split of the responsibility between the three institutions... But that
:13:56. > :14:01.was the nature of criticism. Let me bring you back to the modern day.
:14:01. > :14:09.Anthony has been incredibly patient, as a philosopher should. I'm sure
:14:09. > :14:16.he is despairing, listening to both. Mr Cameron speech today, nothing
:14:16. > :14:21.much new in it. Mr Miliband talks about rip-off Britain. There is
:14:21. > :14:30.nothing new about that. The hard fact is, all you politicians talk,
:14:30. > :14:35.and Goldman Sachs has announced �7 billion, almost �8 billion in
:14:35. > :14:42.bonuses for a company whose share price has fallen and profits have
:14:42. > :14:46.fallen. What will the people think watching this programme? What we do
:14:46. > :14:50.about that? There ought to be transparency in the reporting of
:14:50. > :14:53.the salaries and bonuses by not just Goldman Sachs but all
:14:53. > :14:57.corporations operating in the UK so we have some sense of the
:14:57. > :15:01.differential, the enormous growing differential between those at the
:15:01. > :15:06.top and bottom. Secondly, there ought to be people from within the
:15:06. > :15:09.workforce in those sorts of companies are sitting on the
:15:09. > :15:14.renumeration boards of those companies, to put a brake on the
:15:14. > :15:18.page. All the employees of Goldman Sachs are getting the money.
:15:18. > :15:23.Putting them on the board would not make any difference. That's not
:15:23. > :15:27.true, Andrew. It's ironic because Goldman Sachs went public in order
:15:27. > :15:30.to raise money allegedly to strengthen its capital base and
:15:30. > :15:35.then used that money to spare could on the market and had to be bailed
:15:35. > :15:45.out by the American authorities. What we do about it? We have one
:15:45. > :15:49.iota of time. I had written a I welcome there being a vigorous
:15:49. > :15:54.debate about the nature of capitalism. I hope other voices
:15:54. > :15:58.will come into the debate as well. You don't only want a hear party
:15:58. > :16:03.leaders, we also want to hear from people outside St Paul's, and
:16:03. > :16:13.people in the city itself. You should roll out the academics at
:16:13. > :16:14.
:16:14. > :16:18.every opportunity! They are not getting massive bonuses. For a long
:16:18. > :16:21.time there's been a distinction drawn between the slightly softer
:16:21. > :16:27.capitalism in Europe as against the tooth and claw version, I go for
:16:27. > :16:30.the former. We need to stop. Last year, the rise in university
:16:30. > :16:33.tuition fees caused some of the biggest scenes of public disorder
:16:33. > :16:35.since the poll tax riots. But universities are independent
:16:35. > :16:39.organisations, the Government doesn't own them. So why don't more
:16:39. > :16:42.of them just tell the Government that they're not happy with fees of
:16:42. > :16:44.about �9,000 a year and just say they're going to charge whatever
:16:44. > :16:52.they like? What's actually stopping them? Giles donned his college
:16:52. > :16:54.Not being students of our higher education system, you may be under
:16:54. > :16:57.the impression with Government setting fees, and divvying up
:16:57. > :17:04.research grants, that the dreaming spires of our universities are run
:17:04. > :17:13.by the state. But study them and you'll find unlike Europe, they are
:17:13. > :17:17.not. It is different to public- private, but they are free-standing
:17:17. > :17:20.bodies, most of them have charitable status. But confusingly,
:17:20. > :17:25.the UK has only one officially independent university in
:17:25. > :17:29.Buckingham. It sets its own fees and operates outside the confines
:17:29. > :17:32.of others, but is not for profit. It does two-year degrees, charges
:17:32. > :17:38.just over �9,000 a year, and cannot bid for certain tranches of State
:17:38. > :17:47.research grant. It has around 1,500 students, nearly 400 of which are
:17:47. > :17:51.UK undergraduates. And many argue there should be more like them.
:17:51. > :17:55.Independence translates into care for customers. If you are being
:17:55. > :17:59.funded by the student, you look after the student. It is a good
:17:59. > :18:02.thing to be independent. We are the only British university that has
:18:02. > :18:08.chosen not to fire -- signed a contract with the Government agency
:18:08. > :18:11.and the others all have. University of Buckingham was
:18:11. > :18:16.established in 1976 and at the time, because it charged fees, it became
:18:16. > :18:18.one of the most expensive universities for students in the UK.
:18:18. > :18:24.But it has stayed in existence so it must have been doing something
:18:24. > :18:28.right. Now tuition fees have come in, weirdly, it has become one of
:18:28. > :18:31.the most cost-effective universities in the UK because it
:18:31. > :18:36.offers two year degrees, which then begs the question, why isn't anyone
:18:36. > :18:40.else doing it? Because unfortunately, the way Britain's
:18:40. > :18:47.funding for research is currently constituted, if you go independent,
:18:47. > :18:54.you can't get the infrastructure will research money. Universities
:18:54. > :18:57.of the highest quality don't want to go but research money. -- give
:18:57. > :19:00.up research money. Supporters want the UK to build a
:19:00. > :19:03.private Ivy league that can charge what it likes in fees, but avoids
:19:03. > :19:06.degrees for the rich by subbing poorer students from its own
:19:06. > :19:08.pockets, AND can bid for that research money. Students reacted
:19:08. > :19:12.angrily to our guest's proposals for a private university by
:19:12. > :19:20.disrupting a talk he gave with a smoke bomb. What's interesting is
:19:20. > :19:24.that those who support private universities also dislike his plans.
:19:24. > :19:28.I would argue quite strongly that the profit motive is almost
:19:28. > :19:33.certainly inappropriate in higher education. Higher education must
:19:33. > :19:37.ultimately reflect a desire for public service by the teachers and
:19:37. > :19:41.the trustees. I think once you have shareholders and profit, you will
:19:41. > :19:44.end up, ultimately, like the bankers, only worried about their
:19:44. > :19:47.bonuses. Last year, our guest AC Grayling
:19:47. > :19:49.founded, and became the first master, of the New College of the
:19:49. > :19:52.Humanities, a private undergraduate college in London. Tessa Blackstone
:19:52. > :19:58.was once Labour's Education Minister in the Lords and former
:19:58. > :20:01.Vice Chancellor of the University of Greenwich. It is all going to be
:20:01. > :20:07.about profit, you will not look after the students, that is what
:20:07. > :20:09.the vice chancellor said. happens that technically, the New
:20:09. > :20:15.College is a not-for-profit organisation so that is a
:20:15. > :20:20.misunderstanding. The important point made in that clip is that if
:20:20. > :20:24.you are charging fees, you do have to think extremely carefully about
:20:24. > :20:29.the quality of teaching and the kind of experiences students have.
:20:29. > :20:32.That can only be a good thing in the end. But what and who will
:20:32. > :20:38.regulate the quality of teaching? People want to know what they are
:20:38. > :20:44.getting for their money. Who will say �18,000 is worth it? There are
:20:44. > :20:48.a number of different constraints. From day one, Twitter and Facebook,
:20:48. > :20:55.your own students are keeping an eye on you. Then there are the kind
:20:55. > :21:01.of degrees you get out of it. They are being examined by colleagues in
:21:01. > :21:05.the University who will be a very strong check on quality. Finally,
:21:05. > :21:08.when our graduates go out into the world, how they succeed and how
:21:08. > :21:12.acceptable they are to employers and others will also itself be a
:21:12. > :21:16.quality check. There are lots of ways in which you find yourself
:21:16. > :21:20.under scrutiny and you have to match up. A good idea that will
:21:20. > :21:24.raise standards? At a very much doubt it. I have nothing in
:21:24. > :21:29.principle against the idea of private institutions in higher
:21:29. > :21:33.education, but I don't think we need them in the UK. We have one of
:21:33. > :21:39.the strongest systems of higher education in the world, with many
:21:39. > :21:45.institutions represented in the top 200 and those league tables. Right
:21:45. > :21:49.across the system, we do provide students with a wide range of
:21:49. > :21:53.choices and a lot of opportunity to make decisions and then when they
:21:53. > :21:56.have made those decisions, to actually say what they think of the
:21:56. > :22:01.provision they are getting. You say the choice is there, but what about
:22:01. > :22:04.funding? That is the key issue, the struggle for higher education
:22:04. > :22:08.funding. If there are private institutions that charge higher
:22:08. > :22:13.fees and people are willing to pay and they will get those higher
:22:13. > :22:17.standards, why would you want to stop it? I just said at the
:22:17. > :22:21.beginning and not against it in principle, but they will not help
:22:21. > :22:26.the funding of hundreds of institutions. We will never have
:22:26. > :22:31.large numbers of them. One of the dangers is that once they get
:22:31. > :22:34.established, they will simply say to the Government, and some
:22:34. > :22:38.government might be inclined to accept this, that they want to be
:22:38. > :22:42.funded just as the existing institutions are. You will not
:22:42. > :22:47.benefit in that way. I would like to challenge what Anthony said
:22:47. > :22:50.about regulation. One of the problems about starting up new
:22:50. > :22:56.institutions, and there are many other alternatives to the kind of
:22:56. > :22:59.institution he is starting, which are very big, basically focusing on
:22:59. > :23:04.training for management -- management type institutions,
:23:04. > :23:08.undercutting the market, rather poor in quality, not very strong
:23:08. > :23:12.staff and very few facilities. I don't actually want a lot of young
:23:12. > :23:16.people to go to those places unless they are really fully regulated
:23:16. > :23:20.because they are committing themselves and affecting their life
:23:20. > :23:27.chances by going somewhere which might charge lower fees, but being
:23:27. > :23:32.very bad deal for them. How answer that because that is... I agree
:23:32. > :23:36.with a last point. There's a real danger that a lot of very cheap,
:23:36. > :23:42.short degree institutions teaching mainly vocational... The will be a
:23:42. > :23:50.waste of time. Her that would be very. Eventually bid will drive
:23:50. > :23:54.down quality. I think there is room in our system for independent
:23:54. > :23:57.colleges. There will be very few of them and they will be small like
:23:57. > :24:00.ours, there will not be any competition to the existing
:24:00. > :24:04.structure and the existing structure should continue to exist
:24:04. > :24:08.and be fully supported. But the reason why you want to allow the
:24:08. > :24:11.field to be a bit more open it is that it is terribly important that
:24:11. > :24:17.there should be innovation and it is also the case that the situation
:24:17. > :24:21.as we look at it today with the �9,000 cap is unsustainable. It is
:24:21. > :24:25.a politically chosen number, the universities are not happy about it.
:24:25. > :24:29.It doesn't compensate for the loss of teaching subsidies for
:24:29. > :24:34.humanities and social sciences. In a few years the landscape will have
:24:34. > :24:38.changed pretty dramatically because they will be forced to find ways of
:24:38. > :24:45.trying to charge more. Thank you both very much. We will see over
:24:45. > :24:47.the next few years have money coming to the field. -- how many
:24:47. > :24:51.will come into the Field Officer in Brigade Waiting
:24:51. > :24:54.On Friday, MPs will debate a bill to move the clocks forward by an
:24:54. > :24:57.hour, bringing us into line with the continent. But one Conservative
:24:57. > :25:00.MP wants to use the opportunity to give his part of the country its
:25:00. > :25:03.own separate time zone. No-one could ever accuse Jacob Rees-Mogg
:25:03. > :25:07.of being a moderniser, but now he wants to put the county of Somerset
:25:07. > :25:11.15 minutes behind the rest of Great Britain. The idea is not new -
:25:12. > :25:16.'Bristle time' existed 170 years ago. Then, every town took its own
:25:16. > :25:21.time from the position of the sun. When it was midday in London, it
:25:21. > :25:24.was 11.55 in Oxford and as early as 11.47 in Barrow in Furness. But all
:25:24. > :25:33.that changed in November 1840 when Isambard Kingdom Brunel demanded
:25:33. > :25:38.that his Great Western Railway timetable make sense. London time
:25:38. > :25:48.ruled across the UK and ruined the Bristolians' lie-in. Jacob Rees
:25:48. > :25:48.
:25:48. > :25:52.Mogg is with us now. He has woken up! Correct me if I'm wrong, but
:25:52. > :25:55.hasn't Somerset always been behind 15 minutes behind the rest of us?
:25:55. > :26:00.In many ways Somerset is ahead of the rest of the country. Her why do
:26:00. > :26:05.you want to put it 15 minutes behind? The problem with daylight
:26:05. > :26:10.saving time is a dozen save any daylight. There's only a limited
:26:10. > :26:14.amount and in the winter not a lot of it. Changing the clocks is a
:26:14. > :26:18.basically fruitless exercise and is highlight the point. Would you have
:26:18. > :26:21.your own pips on BBC Radio Somerset? I think the world would
:26:21. > :26:27.follow us and we would replace Greenwich Mean Time with Somerset
:26:27. > :26:32.meantime. It would take a bit of getting used to watching the 10
:26:32. > :26:39.o'clock news at 9:45pm. We are always huge queue when you on.
:26:39. > :26:42.would be on earlier tonight. At finish earlier! Is this just to
:26:42. > :26:45.bribe your constituents with an extra quarter of an hour in bed. It
:26:45. > :26:52.means when they go to Wiltshire, they would have another quarter of
:26:52. > :27:00.an hour. What other plans do you have for your county? Selling
:27:00. > :27:07.crisps by the bushel? Need by the court? Road signs... No, we are
:27:07. > :27:13.quite happy with our road signs. Do people drink a lot of need? You can
:27:13. > :27:17.buy cider by the Court in Somerset anyway. It is only two points.
:27:17. > :27:22.would happen to the railway timetables? And what they did in
:27:22. > :27:26.Bristol previously was they had two minute hands. Between 1840 and 1880,
:27:26. > :27:29.they had two minute chance so people could tell the time. The
:27:29. > :27:33.people of Somerset are so clever that they can deal with these
:27:33. > :27:39.things. In other parts of the country, people might not be able
:27:39. > :27:44.to. You'd better hope you don't get deselected from Somerset because
:27:44. > :27:48.you won't get a seat anywhere else. I didn't state specifically where.
:27:48. > :27:53.You are trying to sabotage the bill to move forward the clocks?
:27:53. > :27:57.Basically, yes. Because? I don't think it makes any sense. We tried
:27:57. > :28:02.it before and people don't like long, dark mornings in the winter.
:28:02. > :28:06.They want to get up in daylight. If you put the clocks forward, you
:28:06. > :28:11.find that people are going to work in the dark. If you try it, people
:28:11. > :28:15.find they don't like it. It would all be a waste of time. That is
:28:15. > :28:18.what I am trying to highlight. won't dignify the 15 minutes by
:28:18. > :28:21.asking you anything about it. Now, we weren't able to pick a
:28:21. > :28:31.winner to our guess the year competition yesterday. The answer
:28:31. > :28:32.
:28:32. > :28:39.was 1988. Anthony, pick a winner. Des Ryan's. Ewe 1. Jacob Rees-Mogg
:28:39. > :28:42.will be on and 15 minutes. That is all we have time for today. Thanks
:28:42. > :28:45.to all our guests. Don't forget This Week tonight on BBC1 after