19/01/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 19/01/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Can markets have


morals? Or is capitalism just a savage beast that can never be


truly tamed? David Cameron thinks he, and he alone, has the answer.


So does Ed Miliband. And, of course, Nick Clegg. But who's right?


don't more universities just go private and charge students what


they like? They are independent of Government control after all. So


what's in it for them to settle for nine grand a year per head? Doctors


are talking about strike action over cuts to their pensions. But


would that be putting patients at risk when they've done pretty well


in terms of pay and perks over the last few years? And we'll be joined


by one Somerset MP who wants his county to have its time zone.


you do. All that in the next half hour. And with us for the duration


is the philosopher and now Master of a private university called the


New College of the Humanities, Anthony Grayling. Welcome to the


show. First, the British Medical Association said last night that


two thirds of its members support industrial action over cuts to


their pensions. The BMA does and like to be called a trade union,


but it sounds like it is to me. is if they go on strike. The police


and army are not allowed to strike. Is it morally acceptable for


doctors to threaten to strike? not clear quite what they mean by


that. Do they mean work to rule, or something like that? But the only


weapon they had if they have a genuine grievance, I suppose for


the butt of some bodies in need of medical attention, they should get


it. Do they still sign up to the medical oath? I think it's a myth.


They don't announce the Hippocratic oath. They do have a moral


obligation. If you don't care, when care is needed, that is harsh.


lot of people will look at what has happened to doctors pays, our GPs


are the highest paid in Europe, and they used to be badly paid. 54% of


consultants, their pay is now frozen, but they now earn an


average of �110,000 a year. And have a pension, according to the


Telegraph, the average, �1.7 million a year. They all sound like


large sums of money but when you compare the kind of pay consultants


get to what people get in the City, it's not a great deal for a very


responsible job, and they take a long time to train for that job,


and it's very stressful. If people are going to be rewarded by money,


rather than status, one accepts that might be about right.


university professor average is about �50,000. There are other


perks. The high table. A low table maybe? They do have a lot of


opportunity to pursue their interests, which is great value.


You are right. They can do other things. Now, as the bankers' bonus


season swiftly approaches, all the party leaders have been keen to


tell us they are against the excesses of the city. And reforming


capitalism has become the buzz phrase of the moment.


On the left and the right. This morning both David Cameron and Ed


Miliband have been out making speeches. David Cameron talking


about moral capitalism. And Ed Miliband tackling the surcharge


culture. Jo, give us the details. David Cameron and Ed Miliband have


both been trying to outdo each other and show his brand of


capitalism is better than his rival's. This morning, the Prime


Minister talked about responsible capitalism and called for a new


popular capitalism. In short, how to make markets have morals. But


he's also stressed this should not be at the expense of making free


markets work. Where markets work properly, open markets and free


enterprise can actually promote plurality. Why? Because they create


a direct link between its contribution and reward between


effort and outcome. The fundamental basis of the market is the idea of


something for something. An idea we need to encourage, not condemn. So


we should use this crisis of capitalism to improve markets, not


undermine them. I believe Conservatives in particular are


well-placed to do this. Mr Miliband, you may remember, divided companies


into predators and providers in his conference speech last year. And


this morning he's called for tighter regulation on company


takeovers to protect the long-term interests of British business. But


he said politicians should be judged on actions not words.


welcome any politician who wants to talk about these issues and I point


out, David Cameron attacked me when I talk about these issues last


September, but let's judge every politician on what they are willing


to promise they are going to do. Not on their rhetoric. That's the


test for David Cameron today, not whether he can talk the talk on


responsible capitalism, but whether he can walk the walk and take


action on behalf of hard-pressed consumers and the squeeze Middle


who want action from him, not words. Two issues that both David Cameron


and Ed Miliband know that gets the public angry, bank bonuses and


executive pay, are also back on the agenda. Next month, many of the


banks will announce their bonus payments. Yesterday, Goldman Sachs


announced a bill of �7.95 billion for pay and bonuses, despite a fall


in profits. And today's papers are full of talk about stripping the


former boss of RBS, Sir Fred Goodwin, of his knighthood.


Impeccably pronounced. Unlike this side of the team. With us now is


the Conservative MP who coined the term crony capitalism, Jesse Norman.


You can't say the word capitalism these days without putting an


adjective in front of it. And the Shadow Treasury Minister Owen Smith.


Thank you. Let's go through it. Mr Cameron, where they work openly,


free-enterprise can promote morality because they create a


direct link between contribution and reward, effort and outcome.


you agree? I agree that they say, of course, the sincerest form of


flattery is imitation and frankly, that's what we're seeing out now


from David Cameron. We have an agenda set by Ed Miliband, set up


the conference speech last year, and we are seeing some of those


words coming out of the mouth of the Prime Minister today. You could


see some of those written by Jessie Norman, but we will judge him by


what he does. It's interesting, as you make a political point, rather


than straightforwardly answering my question, are you saying Ed


Miliband could have said this, too? There is a huge amount of


similarity between the rhetoric that we are seeing from the current


government right now and we all recognise that, after the financial


crash of 2007-nine, there is a need to reform capitalism. There is


widespread agreement about that, but I think there are differences


between both the sincerity with which we hold the parties and the


actions prepared to take. Markets are not immoral. There is no issue


there. There is no disagreement there. It's a question of what the


government is prepared to do to regulate those markets, to make


sure they act properly in the interests of consumers. Ed Miliband


has concrete solutions around companies ripping people off, and


we want to see whether the Prime Minister is going to imitate those


as well as our language. What is new and original that there should


be a direct link between contribution and reward? I think


it's pretty obvious and why people respond to the language of crony


capitalism, because they realise something has gone wrong. Is any


politician saying they should not be a link between them? Yes, I


don't think people think that but of course, the point is the


duration has got out of control and that's why you have the Fred


Goodwin saga, and it's not necessarily for politicians to


directly intervene on that. But to try to address the problems of the


system is absolutely right for the Prime Minister to look up. Do you


think it matters whether Fred could win keeps his knighthood or not?


think it's important. Do you? become a question of the values


inherent in the market system. With Fred Goodwin, you have a man who


has made an enormous amount of money from running one of the


greatest financial institutions in this country into the ground, RBS.


He's not done anything illegal and has not been charged. In America,


he might have been. Why should he lose his knighthood? Why does it


matter? I'm not advocating that. I didn't imply that. He was right to


be concerned about this issue. You would get a totemic question like


this because people feel so strongly about executive


compensation and bonuses. The Prime Minister, the City should be a


powerhouse of competition creativity, and instead it became a


byword for financial wizardry, which left at the risk with a tax


payer excellence other popular capitalism, we ended up with


unpopular capitalism put up agree or disagree? I agree with the word


but let's see what is going to do about it. The reason finance


capitalism recently became such a voracious beast in this country was


because of the deregulation in the 1980s, which opened up this. Jessie


would argue this is not the case. He would say, under Labour years,


we saw that the regulation but the de Regulation occurred earlier and


the growth in inequalities between the wealthy at the top, in


particular in financial markets,... Remind me what Labour did. Did you


do anything? Did you regulate any more than the regulatory


environment you inherited from the Conservatives? I think there were


lots of things we should have done. Did you do anything? I'm not saying


we did anything to they glide the banks. -- do regulate the banks. We


went to a tripartite system. let's... What I'm not going to say


is we did enough. Are the problem is, the truth is, they did


virtually nothing. Are they did not added to the regulation. They


changed it but did not added. I cannot find any quote from any


Conservative politician, While You were in opposition, saying this


Labour government is not the regulating the markets tightly


enough. Can you? Well, I haven't looked. The only quote which sits


in my mind is a from Peter Mandelson which says we are


intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich. Hold on.


me speak. I asked for a Conservative quote and you throw a


hackneyed old quote from Peter Mandelson at me. Is that the best


you can do? If anyone is seriously suggesting a man like William Hague


or Iain Duncan-Smith or David Cameron would be prone breakneck


captors and we have seen over the last few years, I would deny that.


Can you produce a'attacking the de regulated City as it operated in


the 1990s? I think it's pretty clear that there was a strand of


criticism of the tripartite regime which came in because people were


very concerned about the Bank of England being taken out of


regulation. They were worried that the they were worried that the


split of the responsibility between the three institutions... But that


was the nature of criticism. Let me bring you back to the modern day.


Anthony has been incredibly patient, as a philosopher should. I'm sure


he is despairing, listening to both. Mr Cameron speech today, nothing


much new in it. Mr Miliband talks about rip-off Britain. There is


nothing new about that. The hard fact is, all you politicians talk,


and Goldman Sachs has announced �7 billion, almost �8 billion in


bonuses for a company whose share price has fallen and profits have


fallen. What will the people think watching this programme? What we do


about that? There ought to be transparency in the reporting of


the salaries and bonuses by not just Goldman Sachs but all


corporations operating in the UK so we have some sense of the


differential, the enormous growing differential between those at the


top and bottom. Secondly, there ought to be people from within the


workforce in those sorts of companies are sitting on the


renumeration boards of those companies, to put a brake on the


page. All the employees of Goldman Sachs are getting the money.


Putting them on the board would not make any difference. That's not


true, Andrew. It's ironic because Goldman Sachs went public in order


to raise money allegedly to strengthen its capital base and


then used that money to spare could on the market and had to be bailed


out by the American authorities. What we do about it? We have one


iota of time. I had written a I welcome there being a vigorous


debate about the nature of capitalism. I hope other voices


will come into the debate as well. You don't only want a hear party


leaders, we also want to hear from people outside St Paul's, and


people in the city itself. You should roll out the academics at


every opportunity! They are not getting massive bonuses. For a long


time there's been a distinction drawn between the slightly softer


capitalism in Europe as against the tooth and claw version, I go for


the former. We need to stop. Last year, the rise in university


tuition fees caused some of the biggest scenes of public disorder


since the poll tax riots. But universities are independent


organisations, the Government doesn't own them. So why don't more


of them just tell the Government that they're not happy with fees of


about �9,000 a year and just say they're going to charge whatever


they like? What's actually stopping them? Giles donned his college


Not being students of our higher education system, you may be under


the impression with Government setting fees, and divvying up


research grants, that the dreaming spires of our universities are run


by the state. But study them and you'll find unlike Europe, they are


not. It is different to public- private, but they are free-standing


bodies, most of them have charitable status. But confusingly,


the UK has only one officially independent university in


Buckingham. It sets its own fees and operates outside the confines


of others, but is not for profit. It does two-year degrees, charges


just over �9,000 a year, and cannot bid for certain tranches of State


research grant. It has around 1,500 students, nearly 400 of which are


UK undergraduates. And many argue there should be more like them.


Independence translates into care for customers. If you are being


funded by the student, you look after the student. It is a good


thing to be independent. We are the only British university that has


chosen not to fire -- signed a contract with the Government agency


and the others all have. University of Buckingham was


established in 1976 and at the time, because it charged fees, it became


one of the most expensive universities for students in the UK.


But it has stayed in existence so it must have been doing something


right. Now tuition fees have come in, weirdly, it has become one of


the most cost-effective universities in the UK because it


offers two year degrees, which then begs the question, why isn't anyone


else doing it? Because unfortunately, the way Britain's


funding for research is currently constituted, if you go independent,


you can't get the infrastructure will research money. Universities


of the highest quality don't want to go but research money. -- give


up research money. Supporters want the UK to build a


private Ivy league that can charge what it likes in fees, but avoids


degrees for the rich by subbing poorer students from its own


pockets, AND can bid for that research money. Students reacted


angrily to our guest's proposals for a private university by


disrupting a talk he gave with a smoke bomb. What's interesting is


that those who support private universities also dislike his plans.


I would argue quite strongly that the profit motive is almost


certainly inappropriate in higher education. Higher education must


ultimately reflect a desire for public service by the teachers and


the trustees. I think once you have shareholders and profit, you will


end up, ultimately, like the bankers, only worried about their


bonuses. Last year, our guest AC Grayling


founded, and became the first master, of the New College of the


Humanities, a private undergraduate college in London. Tessa Blackstone


was once Labour's Education Minister in the Lords and former


Vice Chancellor of the University of Greenwich. It is all going to be


about profit, you will not look after the students, that is what


the vice chancellor said. happens that technically, the New


College is a not-for-profit organisation so that is a


misunderstanding. The important point made in that clip is that if


you are charging fees, you do have to think extremely carefully about


the quality of teaching and the kind of experiences students have.


That can only be a good thing in the end. But what and who will


regulate the quality of teaching? People want to know what they are


getting for their money. Who will say �18,000 is worth it? There are


a number of different constraints. From day one, Twitter and Facebook,


your own students are keeping an eye on you. Then there are the kind


of degrees you get out of it. They are being examined by colleagues in


the University who will be a very strong check on quality. Finally,


when our graduates go out into the world, how they succeed and how


acceptable they are to employers and others will also itself be a


quality check. There are lots of ways in which you find yourself


under scrutiny and you have to match up. A good idea that will


raise standards? At a very much doubt it. I have nothing in


principle against the idea of private institutions in higher


education, but I don't think we need them in the UK. We have one of


the strongest systems of higher education in the world, with many


institutions represented in the top 200 and those league tables. Right


across the system, we do provide students with a wide range of


choices and a lot of opportunity to make decisions and then when they


have made those decisions, to actually say what they think of the


provision they are getting. You say the choice is there, but what about


funding? That is the key issue, the struggle for higher education


funding. If there are private institutions that charge higher


fees and people are willing to pay and they will get those higher


standards, why would you want to stop it? I just said at the


beginning and not against it in principle, but they will not help


the funding of hundreds of institutions. We will never have


large numbers of them. One of the dangers is that once they get


established, they will simply say to the Government, and some


government might be inclined to accept this, that they want to be


funded just as the existing institutions are. You will not


benefit in that way. I would like to challenge what Anthony said


about regulation. One of the problems about starting up new


institutions, and there are many other alternatives to the kind of


institution he is starting, which are very big, basically focusing on


training for management -- management type institutions,


undercutting the market, rather poor in quality, not very strong


staff and very few facilities. I don't actually want a lot of young


people to go to those places unless they are really fully regulated


because they are committing themselves and affecting their life


chances by going somewhere which might charge lower fees, but being


very bad deal for them. How answer that because that is... I agree


with a last point. There's a real danger that a lot of very cheap,


short degree institutions teaching mainly vocational... The will be a


waste of time. Her that would be very. Eventually bid will drive


down quality. I think there is room in our system for independent


colleges. There will be very few of them and they will be small like


ours, there will not be any competition to the existing


structure and the existing structure should continue to exist


and be fully supported. But the reason why you want to allow the


field to be a bit more open it is that it is terribly important that


there should be innovation and it is also the case that the situation


as we look at it today with the �9,000 cap is unsustainable. It is


a politically chosen number, the universities are not happy about it.


It doesn't compensate for the loss of teaching subsidies for


humanities and social sciences. In a few years the landscape will have


changed pretty dramatically because they will be forced to find ways of


trying to charge more. Thank you both very much. We will see over


the next few years have money coming to the field. -- how many


will come into the Field Officer in Brigade Waiting


On Friday, MPs will debate a bill to move the clocks forward by an


hour, bringing us into line with the continent. But one Conservative


MP wants to use the opportunity to give his part of the country its


own separate time zone. No-one could ever accuse Jacob Rees-Mogg


of being a moderniser, but now he wants to put the county of Somerset


15 minutes behind the rest of Great Britain. The idea is not new -


'Bristle time' existed 170 years ago. Then, every town took its own


time from the position of the sun. When it was midday in London, it


was 11.55 in Oxford and as early as 11.47 in Barrow in Furness. But all


that changed in November 1840 when Isambard Kingdom Brunel demanded


that his Great Western Railway timetable make sense. London time


ruled across the UK and ruined the Bristolians' lie-in. Jacob Rees


Mogg is with us now. He has woken up! Correct me if I'm wrong, but


hasn't Somerset always been behind 15 minutes behind the rest of us?


In many ways Somerset is ahead of the rest of the country. Her why do


you want to put it 15 minutes behind? The problem with daylight


saving time is a dozen save any daylight. There's only a limited


amount and in the winter not a lot of it. Changing the clocks is a


basically fruitless exercise and is highlight the point. Would you have


your own pips on BBC Radio Somerset? I think the world would


follow us and we would replace Greenwich Mean Time with Somerset


meantime. It would take a bit of getting used to watching the 10


o'clock news at 9:45pm. We are always huge queue when you on.


would be on earlier tonight. At finish earlier! Is this just to


bribe your constituents with an extra quarter of an hour in bed. It


means when they go to Wiltshire, they would have another quarter of


an hour. What other plans do you have for your county? Selling


crisps by the bushel? Need by the court? Road signs... No, we are


quite happy with our road signs. Do people drink a lot of need? You can


buy cider by the Court in Somerset anyway. It is only two points.


would happen to the railway timetables? And what they did in


Bristol previously was they had two minute hands. Between 1840 and 1880,


they had two minute chance so people could tell the time. The


people of Somerset are so clever that they can deal with these


things. In other parts of the country, people might not be able


to. You'd better hope you don't get deselected from Somerset because


you won't get a seat anywhere else. I didn't state specifically where.


You are trying to sabotage the bill to move forward the clocks?


Basically, yes. Because? I don't think it makes any sense. We tried


it before and people don't like long, dark mornings in the winter.


They want to get up in daylight. If you put the clocks forward, you


find that people are going to work in the dark. If you try it, people


find they don't like it. It would all be a waste of time. That is


what I am trying to highlight. won't dignify the 15 minutes by


asking you anything about it. Now, we weren't able to pick a


winner to our guess the year competition yesterday. The answer


was 1988. Anthony, pick a winner. Des Ryan's. Ewe 1. Jacob Rees-Mogg


will be on and 15 minutes. That is all we have time for today. Thanks


to all our guests. Don't forget This Week tonight on BBC1 after


Download Subtitles