06/03/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 06/03/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. On our lunchtime


menu today: The Labour leader calls on British business to rally to the


flag. Yes, he says successive governments have failed to


appreciate just how much "pride and patriotism" can ensure the success


of our manufacturing base. The nightmare continues in the town


of Syrian town of Homs. International air power stopped


Gaddafi in his tracks. Now, one senior American senator says the


time has come to prepare to bomb Assad. So should we intervene?


And. The Church has a key role in British life. It's an integral part


of the state. But should we go further and become a more Christian


country? All that in the next hour. With us


for the whole programme today is the philosopher and television


presenter, Alain De Botton. If you have any thoughts or


comments on anything we're discussing, then you can tweet your


comments, using the hashtag #bbcdp. First, the Immigration Minister,


Damien Green, has given an interview to today's Financial


Times, where he urges British companies to wean themselves off


what he calls "an addiction" to hiring foreign workers. In the long


run, he says we should have more of an instinct to say, "let's find a


British worker, let's train a British worker." Alain de Botton.


Is it appropriate, when we are part of the European Union, with free


movement of the workers and Labour, to say Britain is addicted to


hiring foreign workers. Ultimately, if you are buying a washing machine


or train, what matters is that it functions, not the nationality of


the person who built it. That is the logic of capitalism. To say,


keep it Jobs For the Boys, doesn't make sense, it is counter to


everything that the modern economy believes in it. Except, there will


be people who say, look at the French, who are much more patriotic


in terms of backing their own businesses. You only have to look


at the militancy of French farmers, truck drivers. And say we need more


of that spirit here particularly in these economic times. A certain


amount of careful protectionism can be good. A lot of the industry's


the French have protected, by a French car is still not a great


move. So on the whole, industries that are heavily protected get lazy


and do not produce goods that are up to standard. Again, a global


lesson. It's like the argument, do you employ your own family? To shed


jobs amongst those who are the best? You can understand the


sentiment, keep it in the family. But that is a sentimental choice


which will have a knock-on effect. For there is also a practical


reality, whatever rhetoric, and we will talk about Ed Miliband and his


speech on patriotism and industrial policy, but Gordon Brown ran into


problems with his mantra, British jobs for British workers, because


of the decline of -- because of the difficulty of hiring purely on the


basis of nationality. That is impossible when everything in the


modern economy is about free market of jobs. It real patriotism means


been proud of being British when things are really excellent,


otherwise it is pasteurisation. Saying this train which cost double


and doesn't work, it is fast it because it is British. But saying,


my child made this pot which doesn't hold any water. We are all


guilty of that. The manufacturers' organisation the EEF has this


morning accused the government of failing to develop a "joined-up"


strategy for industry. It's been almost a year since George Osborne


said he wanted Britain to be carried aloft by a "march of the


makers". So how's he doing? Well, British manufacturing is always


said to be in long-term decline, although it still accounts for 12%


of GDP. That's roughly the same as in the US and France. There are


some bright spots. Factories have been enjoying a rebound in orders.


And today, Japanese car manufacturer Nissan has announced a


�125m investment, that could create 2,000 jobs in Sunderland. Vince


Cable described the announcement as a "vote of confidence" in UK plc.


The despite what happened 30 years ago, there is a lot of new


investment going in and Britain is seen as a country of choice by the


big international investors. But there are still concerns over


the future of Vauxhall's Ellesmere Port factory, with speculation that


owner General Motors may pull the plug. Speaking within the last hour,


Labour leader Ed Miliband is calling for a new "made in Britain",


mark to inject some patriotism into the British economy.


There are few words of we don't hear enough in our country. Made in


Britain. Not because we don't make things, but because we don't


celebrated enough, it is not part of our culture. They made in


Britain market is about pride and patriotism, about the things we do,


celebrating manufacturing. A made in Britain mark is about inspiring


people to be engineers, manufacturers and designers, and


about sending a message right across the world, about what we can


achieve. With us now is the Business Minister Mark Prisk.


his Labour Shadow, Ian Wright. For this is great news, you are MP


for Hartlepool, we will seek jobs created in the north east.


This is exactly what should be happening, an active government


strategy, government working with productive business. Moving on from


what happened with Peter Mandelson when he provided Investment to


Nissan, this is exactly right. I just want Britain to succeed.


they are doing the right thing, the coalition, investing in parts of


manufacturing that a successful? So there has been this expansion.


Without handing state subsidies to every single part of the industry.


In many parts of what the government is doing, it is


successful. But often, the rhetoric is not matched by actions and it is


frustrating we lead the world in many things like offshore wind


technology, where the government is not backing British business.


are say they are not putting money in the? What do you mean exactly?


We will come on to the idea of patriotism later. It doesn't have


to be about money. It can provide, in -- is a very clear road map,


where is it the British economy is going? Can we have certainty? That


is the way we need to go. A long- term direction for the British


economy with manufacturing and engineering at its heart. Pratchett


isn't, what does that mean? Apart from it being rhetorical and waving


the flag for Britain. We have talked about it being impossible to


give British workers jobs purely on the basis of nationality. What else


is it about? I would mention procurement, government is a


massive customer. The Ministry of Defence, the Royal Navy, will spend


half a billion pounds on providing four new tankers. Not one single


British firm applied for the contracts. We had UK firms which


are world class, we can that Britain by do this, but nothing


happened. Unfortunately none of the companies came forward to make a


bid. Government cannot push businesses into contracts. We can


make sure we get it right on skills, investing in infrastructure, making


sure we get that new generation of engineers to come into industry.


Why is it the manufacturers' organisation has criticised the


lack of growth strategy. They are not seeing these messages. They


don't believe in what you are going. Today, Nissan have made a big


investment, Ford and BMW have done the same. Tory voter -- Toyota. We


have a clear strategy. What is important is you get those


practical measures making sure we can support Our Competitive


advantage. Not to focus simply on the measure of Investment, it is


about making sure the UK competes. A isn't that part of it? You cited


examples of success, have you been converted of -- to state


intervention? A I always believed we should be a good partner to


industry. Today's investment is a good example. Do you sympathise


with what Ed Miliband has been talking about, backing British,


saying it and doing it? I won the UK to be the most competitive place


possible for manufacturing. Could command does play a role. We have


to change the rules we have inherited. We need to make sure the


overall industry is competitive, otherwise we get into the problem


trying to defend an industry in some cases which may have proved


not competitive. The danger for the French is actually they have gone


down that avenue. Let us look at Vauxhall and Ellesmere Port, what


can the government do to save that plant? The whole of General


Motors's Europe programme, we are actively engaged on a joint


approach. That involvement is from the top, making sure we build on


the two good plants, Ellesmere Port and Luton. We are in discussions


specifically with them now. will you come out over the German


plants, General Motors are looking at both. What can you do? Ours are


already the most productive in Europe, we have a strong exchange


rate, a good skills record. And we deliver on what we promise.


think that strategy in terms of car manufacturing, will work in the


long term, it will help the recovery? Yes, but there is no


magic bullet, it takes decades to arrive at a point where a large


company will take a decision for hard-headed business reasons. There


is often a clash between head and heart. He cannot expect General


Motors to keep open an area because there are lots of British people.


They care about money. As the government, it has to get away


position where it is a financial logic, not patriotic budget.


Patriotism will not impress General Motors. Saying, please keep making


your car's here because we are British. They will say, they are


American. There is a logic to that argument. This is a global world we


operate in, and who is the most competitive. It is a global race,


the most competitive economy we have seen. What Britain needs to be


doing is working with productive businesses to make sure the skills,


research and development, innovation, come forward.


Government is not joined up in this regard. We have seen the Secretary


of State for Education downgrading the status of the engineering


Diploma. What message does that send out? You have been talking


about the high points of manufacturing, so why do that?


Michael is trying to simplify the complex and brought range of the


curriculum. He is meeting industrialists to see how he can do


this. Is a very worried this becomes protectionism? You could be


accused here. I do not believe in protectionism. What we need to do


is make sure government works together closely with industry to


make sure we have productive and a competitive environment in which


British businesses can thrive. Yesterday, in Washington, we saw


the President of the United States sitting down with the Prime


Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. The two have had some


pretty tense meetings in the past, and the Israeli message was


uncompromising. The world, they believe, cannot wait much longer


before intervening to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.


Meanwhile, on the other side of the city, the man who stood against


Barak Obama in the race for the American presidency was calling for


military action. This time, against Syria. For John McCain, the time


has come for an international coalition to stop the massacre in


the town of Homs. The Assad's forces around the march.


Providing assistance took opposition groups is necessary. But,


at this late hour, that alone will not be sufficient to stop the


slaughter and save innocent lives. The only realistic way to do so, it


is with foreign air power. Therefore, at the request of the


Syrian National Council, the Free Syrian Army, and local co-


ordinating committees inside the country, the United States should


lead and his national effort to detect population centres in Syria,


especially in the north, through Over in Central Lobby for us now is


the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Richard Ottaway,


and the former Lib Dem leader, Sir Ming Campbell. What is your


response to the call to arms by John McCain? If the Americans would


not intervene in Libya with the UN resolution, I have to say, I take


with a pinch of salt that they would intervene in Syria without


one. It is a huge leap. I think we need to get to the bottom of what


is behind it. Do you think he will be an isolated voice even within


his own party or will others follow on the basis that the Americans did


not intervene in Libya because others were doing that?


question is whether or not the Americans have the resources to do


this. They have a fleet deployed in the Gulf at the moment, looking at


Iran. Having a major operation in the Mediterranean is a huge,


logistical exercise. So Menzies Campbell, do you think the Obama


regime will ignore this call by John McCain? It is presidential


election year. Everything has to be seen through that prism. In my


recent experience, there is no enthusiasm - no appetite - for


further intervention in the Middle East by the United States. Libya


was an interesting illustration. The difficulty about the argument


from John McCain is, the forces on the ground are pretty scattered and


not very effective. As a consequence, and aerial campaign


would not have the kind of impact, for example, it had been Libya and


to go further back, which it had in relation to Milosevic in Serbia,


when all the trouble was being caused in Serbia -- Kosovo. One


thing which made Milosevic realised the game was up was when the


Russians said, they would no longer back him. If we could persuade the


Russians not to back President Assad, I think we would get some


movement. People are hoping there are hints that may be happening.


What people may be asking, I know people have cited There is not the


international will to intervene in Syria as there was in Libya, a


morally, what is the difference between what Gaddafi is doing and


what Assad is doing in Homs? Nothing. If anything, it is worse.


We cannot conduct foreign, defence and security policy on the strength


of moral, a knee-jerk reactions. It is very challenging. Before leaping


into this sort of thing, you have to take a considered approach. Both


the British government and the American government and their


allies have concluded it is not possible. The only possible step


that might be taken us some sort of humanitarian corridor which may be


protected in some way. Beam that is hugely complex and very difficult.


-- even that. Alain De Botton, reacting in saying we cannot have


foreign-policy on the basis of knee-jerk reactions, do you agree?


We can have a foreign policy. What is the outcome of life versus the


cost of death in an intervention in Syria? The can make the calculation


here. Intervention does not stack up. It would cost more lives to


intervene. That is still maintaining a moral stance. On a


moral basis, one could argue it does not make sense. Difficult when


you see the distressing pictures from Homs and the daily massacres.


You have to look at the broad picture. He cannot look at an


isolated victim. Bets come on to the subject of Israel and Iran. --


let's come on. I will shout louder than normal! A fairly


uncompromising message from Binyamin Netanyahu. It is getting


to the stage when you have two leaders diverging. They are not


singing from the same hymn sheet. When you look at what President


Obama said to have three days ago, he said there is too much loose


talk about military action. There is no doubt that, although


yesterday, the joint photo opportunity, when all the cameras


were there, there was the kind of apparent measure of agreement. It


is no doubt there is a substantial disagreement between the Americans


and the Israelis. That is a feature of the fact that President Obama


and Binyamin Netanyahu had never had a constructive relationship.


do not think Israel is capable of being restrained. I am informed


they can only to a limited exercise without the support of the US.


you have any sympathy with the position of Israel? They feel it is


just them and it is only up to them to do with the threat of Iran


because they would be the first target. Just to pick up on Richard


-- what Richard Ottaway said, they do have some refuelling capability.


The distances involved are so substantial that the Israelis could


not carry out the kind of attack which would be effected without


American assistance. Back to presidential year in America, I do


not see that being available. Do I have sympathy for the few the


Israelis find themselves in a parlous condition? Yes, indeed. We


have a moral obligation to insure we look at every diplomatic


alternative before we consider military action. Do you agree with


that body you think they have waited long enough and been patient


enough and we must look seriously at other action against Iran?


need to let sanctions take their course. Some of the tougher


sanctions you can imagine a being imposed at the moment. They will


escalate over the coming months. We have not yet reached the point


where we have to make a decision on mess. The difficult assessment is,


how do you judge whether sanctions have succeeded or failed? If they


do not succeed, you will have the difficult choice of, which is the


least bad option? Iran or the nuclear strike? Britain does not


have much say in this issue, do they? Quite clearly we are not able


to provide military support in this. We could, if we so chose, offer


logistical support, just when we did when the Americans bombed Libya


in the 80s. In relation to that, we have British minesweepers in the


Gulf helping to ensure the Strait of Hormuz is kept open to


international shipping. We have the Republican Guard which, frankly,


goes its own way. The real risk, it seems to me, is that some


accidental provocation takes place with -- which forced his


retaliation and we could have substantial escalation. -- forces


retaliation. That is the biggest risk at the moment. Yesterday


afternoon, the Conservative MP, Mark Pritchard, resigned as the


deputy chairman of his party's International Committee. In his


resignation letter to the Prime Minister, Mr Pritchard said he


wanted the freedom to speak out on immigration, Europe and what he


sees as a lack of clarity for national and individual aspiration.


So what did he mean? Mark Pritchard is here. You said to want to speak


more freely. Speak more freely. What you want to say? I fully


support the Government in a wide range of policies, such as


education reforms which are absolutely vital in making the


United Kingdom more competitive and to -- in an increasingly


competitive global economy with the rise of Asia and Latin America.


There are first class universities in those areas. I support the


welfare reforms and other policies as well. There are areas of


difference. I felt it would be inconsistent remain in a role


appointed by the Prime Minister if I felt uncomfortable on some issues.


Which issues are they? Just a line them for us. People might say, on


the main issues, you seem to agree with the Government. The Government


needs to have a more robust policy on immigration. We saw from the


Office of National Statistics last week that there is very little


process -- progress been made on immigration. The impact on


education, public services, social cohesion communities up and down


the land, is significant. The Government has been quite timid


thus far. They have been timid on tackling a fault in the student


visa system. There are work visas, tourist visas, family visas. All of


these need to be addressed. The Government says it is looking at


this. The Government needs to do more. I particularly care about it


passionately. It is impacting on communities up and down the land,


having an impact in schools, having an impact on hospitals and social


cohesion. The Government is right to say it is a priority when they


entered into government. I want to bring the Government to account and


hold it to account on behalf of my constituents, who really care about


this issue. They need to do more and do it more quickly, be less


timid and more radical. One might suggest you were pretty outspoken


when you work in your role. I am trying to get to what more you want


to say that we have not heard from you already. You have outlined


immigration, what about Europe? Europe, the Government says, we are


in coalition, there is not much we can do until we have a Conservative


majority, potentially, after the next election. Let's workout some


policies ahead of the next manifesto. We heard last week that


Number 10 themselves believes it is highly a mite too that we will have


a Conservative majority of the next election, we may have to continue


with the Liberal Democrats - if they choose to continue with us of


course - at the next election. It is about working up to the next


general election where they become more robust on Europe. We have


become more robust on Europe. It may never happen because there may


not be the largest party. We may not win the general election. That


is up for -- to the British electorate. In the meantime, we're


Euro-sceptic like as a party. Europe is costing jobs and holding


back growth. The European political project, and the high cost of


employment and social regulations on small, medium and large


businesses in this country, are costing jobs. As soon as people


begin to make the link between Europe and bred on the table, that


will be a game change in British politics. You feel let down on


those issues particularly. current government is Euro-sceptic


light. There is a lot of reverse talk on Europe. When it comes to


the Conservative Party and its leaders, through successive years,


it is action are not work that really counts. How will you conduct


a campaign from now on? It is not a campaign. I am a member of


parliament, elected to represent my constituents. On some areas there


was a difference but in an increasing number of areas, people


are saying, what is the difference between the last government and


this government? You struggle to answer those questions. We live in


extraordinary times. We need some radical thinking to set this


country on the right course on a range of issues. Were you under


pressure from party whips and party managers? Was that why you wanted


to resign from your official post? It was inconsistent. If I held a


position within the party, appointed by the Prime Minister, I


felt constrained in that position. What did the position entail?


appointed by the Prime Minister to engage with sister parties around


the world, on behalf of the Conservative Party, to try to help


parties grow their capacities campaign and organisation. It was


something I enjoyed. Foreign affairs and international agencies


was something I enjoyed Foster I have to put my constituents first.


-- I enjoyed. MPs are talking about going that step further. It is


Aperol because it is the resignation in terms of belief. --


admirable. There are genuine problems in terms of sitting in the


EU and arguing that we, as one of the Macro member of a large


organisation, should have special breaks on things like Labour laws.


-- one member. That is where the heart of the Conservative Party say


we should just get out of this thing. You are in this thing. There


is not much you can do. It is a very dangerous thing when the


political elite in Europe continually denied their peoples


say on the European question. The majority of people in this nation


have not had a say on Europe since 1975. Either they were not born but


they were not old enough to vote in 1975. Those who work, a lot of them


felt we were signing up to an economic union and not a political


union. As a philosopher, I hope you might agree that there is a


fundamental and democratic deficit. Millions of people have never had a


say on Europe. You could respond to this? For too long, the right wing


of the Conservative Party has made dramatic gestures without engaging


in patter beware this country could go. I hope you'll wing of the party


does not do that again. -- your wing. There were some of negative


voices. They did not look at the reality of Britain within the EU.


Blurts tried to change towards sensible policies in certain areas.


-- let's try. About sovereignty and independence of the nation is not


negative. Britain will continue to be a partner whatever arrangement


or agreement any subsequent Conservative government might bring


about. We need to connect a European project with the British


people, otherwise they will become more disenfranchised. Europe will


continue to become a key training partner. We need an economic


agreement and not a political union. We are becoming more and more


towards a political a range of which disenfranchise us British


people and disadvantages this country being competitive. In a


global world, we have a deficit with -- a Mini to engage more with


our partners round the world. -- Alastair Campbell famously said:


"We don't do God." And yet, in British politics, God, the Anglican


version of him, is everywhere. Prayers are said before each


session of the Commons. Our laws have to be passed by the Head of


the Church of England, that's the Queen, before they can be enacted.


The House of Lords is decorated with unelected bishops. Thousands


of England's primary schools are supported by the Church. Should we


do something about the fact that having an established church throws


up all sort of anomalies in modern Of May Allhallows in the City of


London on Ash Wednesday. The first day of Lent. City workers to take


40 minutes out of life in the third millennium. Remember that you are


dust... The does anyone go to church any more? Despite decades of


decline in church attendance, people do. A survey as recently as


2002 showed that 40% of the population, more than 20 million


people, went to church on Christmas Day. The recent economic crisis has


increased attendance here. As a city church, we organise a lot of


carol services in the lead-up to Christmas. In 2011, we have seen


here a very significant growth in attendance. People have been coming,


at times of uncertainty, they want to return to something that they


know, they want to connect to this greater narrative. And start a


conversation and hopefully they will want to continue. But we can't


force that, when they're ready they come. The role of the Church of


England in our society has not changed that much in several


centuries. The monarch must still be a communicant in the Church of


England, he or she must not be married to everyone Catholic. 26


bishops still have a seat in the House of Lords. A third of


England's primary schools are controlled by the Anglican Church.


Bob Morris is a constitutional expert, who tells me the vast


majority of us are happy to accept the anomalies that come with an


ancient established Church. Do think we as the British people have


an appetite to go there and start reforming these things? A don't see


that anyone wishes to take that head-on. This is likely to generate


more heat than light. There will be some specific areas which


Parliament will think it desirable to attend to. Some of these issues


will arise perhaps when there is the next coronation for the Queen


passes away, and the new king will have ideas of his own, how he


wishes to relate to religion in a multicultural society. I guess at


some stage in the future we will have to decide if we live in a


secular or a Christian society. During that debate, I personally am


looking forward to using the word, and tea disestablishment terrorism,


on the Daily Politics, for the first time -


antidisestablishmentarianism. Joining us now is the Conservative


MP, Steve Baker. The Church of England is becoming an atheistic


institution. It is remarkably tolerant. Its survival strategy has


been to become a largely secular organisation where people get


married, from people who have long ago stopped believing in anything


supernatural. So, for the Church of England, either they become a truly


religious organisation, and leave the centre of British politics and


life, or they carry on down the track of becoming a secular


organisation with a Christian heritage. Is it true, saying


largely they don't believe, or is it they don't preach it in the same


weight as they used to, to embrace larger and different congregations?


Most of them are so embarrassed in belief, especially in private. And


so, really what they want to beat his nice spiritual guides, there


would love to welcome other faiths, once again, it reduces the heat on


them. Spiritual guides, isn't that the role for religion. Spirituality


NGOs -- endures. Although that the critique of the Church of England


is one we hear, Lee. I wouldn't say it is wrong but I certainly know


the Church of England ministers I meet are believers. So, it is a


broad church. But, that doesn't mean there is a role for government


to get involved in terms of that moral spiritual guidance? Everyone


points to back to basics under John Major, getting involved in morality


of -- is always dangerous for government. There is a wonderful


book by cs Lewis, he developed the idea throughout the ages, all


religions have had this common set of values. It is time for


politicians to be more humble and realistic about what they can


legislate for, to accept a more central approach to morality. When


I go to Moscow and All About My values, we have common ground.


there any role for politicians in advocating morality, whether it


comes to taxation, family-friendly policies, or consultation on gay


marriage for example? After 100 years of growing state involvement,


the scandals we have had, it is time for politicians to think about


what they can realistically achieved by taking this leading


role. Which isn't to say they should abdicate, we should all set


an example. It is not realistic to legislate to put morality into


people's hearts. It can't just be down to religion in terms of giving


a lead. The Big Society, which the government has promoted, trying to


give moral and spiritual guidance in communities, is difficult


outside religion. I do not think government can get involved.


Big Society was a terrible idea? its added to educate people


morality. Ethics and morality have to be part of a grassroots movement,


it is already. Can you do this without religion? The you have to


copy of religions. Religions provide a blueprint for how you


teach morality. You gather people in communities. You have regular


get-togethers, you rehearse ideas, you create a moral idea. The clue


is been studying religion, not going to religion. Politicians have


not studied religion properly, they have not understood religion. They


have taken the worst bits to moralise. If we do it outside of


religion we have to study religion. In the area of faith schools, many


people would argue they have been successful. They have combined a


backdrop of religion with successful academic results. I do


support state, faith schools. When we talk about a further expansion,


should it be about meeting the needs of parents, or should be


directed by the state? Some people object because they find themselves


paying through taxation for the faith based education of another


person's child. That is a valid objection. We have a state funded


education system which most of us agree is bright, but we need to


accept British and his pit -- it is part of people's morality. But it


is sad be parents are having to fake an interest in religion in


order to get a good education. We need good schools with an ethical


background and moral programme which is not strictly based on


religion. But they have achieved that. For most of us who do believe,


we do believe it is about God. I am interested in the relationship of


God, not ritual. What I love is the things you're talking about, there


needed to have a morality. I am fascinated by your ideas. What I


wouldn't want to do is to back those ideas with state power. This


is where we have lost track of tolerance, we have forgotten


tolerance is a profound disagreement, plus refraining from


the use of force. We have moved into a small elite in London


imposing its own consensus on everyone. I am saying, let us have


a more Polly centric few. We all know times are tough for young


people trying to find jobs. And new figures out today show it's not


necessarily any easier if you have a degree. New data from the Office


for National Statistics shows graduate unemployment is still at


its highest level since 1995. The figures also show that more


graduates are having to take jobs that don't require a degree. The


number of graduates going in to lower skilled jobs stood at just


over one in four in 2001. That figure now stands at over one in


three today. The figures also show that one new graduate in every five


available to work is unemployed. Jamie Jenkins is from the Office


for National Statistics. Is it the case that more graduates


are having to take jobs which don't require a degree? What we have seen


over the last decade, recent graduates who left university and


looking for work within six years, that has increased by 40% over the


last decade. 1.5 million recent graduates going into the Labour


market. Over that same period, we have seen an increase in the


percentage of those going into the was killed jobs, up to 36%. What we


have seen also is looking at the final quarter of 2011, 86% of


graduates were in work, scented 2% of non graduates in work. -- 72%.


But you don't necessarily need a degree for if many of those jobs in


the first place. Normally does that when required getting to a degree


level, that has increased up to 36%. Looking out graduates and non-


graduates, we have seen the types of pay depending on the subjects


they have chosen. We have seen �15 per hour is the average wage if you


are a graduate. �9 per Iraq if you are in non-graduate. There are


large variations. It is obviously much better to go


into medicine or law, because you will earn a much higher wage or


salary if that is what you're looking for. This continues the


argument people have been making for a long time, arts teaching in


universities is not playing any productive role in the economy.


mean the teaching or that the subject does not play well?


subject. And one can doubt whether it is being taught properly in the


first place, many graduates complain about the quality. Arts


should be playing a role as moral guidance, ethical teaching. But not


really as something you are doing to get a job. We have confused the


teaching of the arts, a wonderful thing, anyone should took on the


weekend, and to make that a degree subject and to expect someone will


get a productive jobs, that is the problem. We have confused something


that is really good with something else, getting a good job. They are


not compatible. So low you wouldn't recommend people to do philosophy?


Absolutely not. So there will be a decline in those arts subjects.


These are of -- these subjects are Yesterday, the Prime Minister


reported to the Commons on the heads of European government.


Attention turned to whether David Cameron was right to keep Britain


Can he confirm that for all his claims the European Court of


Justice and the European Commission will be fully involved in


implementing a treaty? Can he tell us how he find -- found out about


the result of the meetings on the issue of economic questions


affecting the whole of the UK? The Prime Minister was asked about this


and the best he could manage was to save the Prime Minister may not be


in the room but he could well beat in the building? It is Elvis! I do


not think that is very reassuring. Was there a discussion of the


European West -- arrest warrant? A lot of backbenchers want asked to


withdraw from it and others want no change battle. Can I suggest he


might want to campaign for reform rather than withdraw? This was a


European Council devoted to the discussion of the economy and


foreign affairs. There was no discussion of the European arrest


warrant whatsoever Foster I still have not heard from the party


opposite about whether they would sign this treaty or not. Which you


sign it? Not for yes, Sheikh for no. other way. Even Wallace & Gromit


could do this. This is farcical. This thing exists. Would you sign


it or not? Utterly, utterly feeble. Despite jockeying for position, why


does the Prime Minster think his European colleagues might wish to


ignore his advice on how to grope their economies? I think that would


have been better if it stayed in the stalls. It would never have


made it out onto the course. That was the Commons yesterday on Europe.


And, today, a group of Conservative MPs has set out new proposals for


changes to European employment law. The Fresh Start group says halving


the burden of regulations imposed by Brussels on British business


would deliver a massive boost to our economy. And joining us now is


one of the authors of that report, Andrea Leadsom, and, alongside her,


Labour's Jack Dromey. I have had a brief look at the pamphlet. Are you


calling for dismantling of the aspects of social employment


regulation that accompany the be you? We're trying to set up what


the options are and what the consequences are of current


legislation affecting the UK. It has all been implemented them Berry


is a big cost to the economy. The Chancellor does not have much money


in the coffers. He needs to be looking at regulation. The bulk of


that comes out of the EU. At the same time, abandoning rights for


workers in terms of their conditions, the hours they work,


the brakes they are allowed to have, which had been in existence for


quite a while. Not necessarily. say that is what you would be able


to do. You would like Britain to come out of those arrangements


where employers to have some restrictions on what they can


expect workers to do. These sorts of restrictions we have major


problems with our, with the agency workers directive, where, after 12


weeks you are entitled to maternity pay and to the same rights as if


you were a fully employed person, that is restricting jobs. It is


winning back companies are getting rid of people after 11.5 weeks to


avoid having to meet those restrictions. We want to get rid of


the problems and barriers to creating new implement. What is


wrong with that? It is fundamentally wrong to have a


workforce divided. It is wrong to exploit agency workers on the one


hand or to undercut the directly employed on the other hand. What


Andrea has done, I think, perhaps starting to take us in the


direction of coming clean about what the agenda is all about. It is


the bizarre notion that, if you have low reach -- wages and


produced workers' rights, that is the key to economic success. Also,


of the consequences. If you read the pamphlet carefully, I have read


what the authors of the pamphlet have said, it is about less


protection in terms of long working hours, less protection in terms of


safety at work, less protection in terms of equal treatment at work.


Anyone who has worked in will be involved with the real world of


work will know that how you treat employers is crucial. It is not a


recipe for economic success in Britain. What evidence to have that


it will lead to economic success? I completely disagree with what he


has said. It is not about cutting workers' rights. It is about


repatriating powers to Britain. The problem I have... In order to


change the legislation so that it better suits the British economy


and the needs of Britain right now. There is a key principle of


subsidiarity that says, Werritty is a vocal only issue, the national


government should make the decisions. -- where it is a local


only issue. There are real barriers to young people finding work in


companies. It is not calling for repatriation. It is talking about


the implications of the potential for Britain to create new jobs if


we were to repatriate those powers and use them more flexibly


ourselves. What is the point of doing this if you are not calling


for it? One of the things I noticed is that you admitted would be


extremely difficult to achieve - you would not be able to have the


sort of power to persuade people to do this. Is said that a case that


you do not think it is achievable. What we're doing is the research


into will areas of EU policy - looking at what the options are for


change and the likelihood of being able to achieve those changes.


Further work needs to be done to prioritise what would be the best


bits to renegotiate for Britain, bearing in mind that EU reform is


inevitable. I think Andrea is an outrider for George Osborne. There


is a deeply held view that what they want to do is roll back the


protection of workers on transfer. I was at fault in a test case to


cover 6 million workers X-SCID by Mrs Thatcher. -- I was involved.


George Osborne has said, we want to go back down a pass. Andrea is the


outrider for that. -- that path. Do we really want to be going down the


path of Dog eat Dog competition on the downward spiral of wages? That


is not the kind of Britain or Europe I think that British people


want. Our guest of the day is, of course, the philosopher, Alain de


Botton, who has written extensively on many things including happiness.


Back when he was in Opposition, you may remember, David Cameron was


very keen on measuring happiness, or economic well-being, and


treating those figures as if they were as important as GDP. This may


come as good news to the people of Northern Ireland, who we discovered


in last week's Prime Minister's Questions are the most joyous in


the nation. The Prime Minister may have seen the headlines that the


happiness of people living in Northern Ireland... And, er... As


the major party of government for the last five years in Northern


Ireland, but we are not surprised by that. I am delighted to hear


that the people of Northern Ireland on happiest in the United Kingdom.


I have to say their representatives in this house to not always give


that impression. -- House. Maybe I have been missing something. So, is


measuring happiness a good idea? Joining me now from Oxford is a ray


of sunshine, otherwise known as the FT's undercover economist and the


presenter of Radio 4's More or Less, Tim Harford. Is it a good idea to


measure happiness? It is not a bad idea. Measuring happiness is an


endlessly fascinating subject. What has been discussed is not a big


deal. The Office for National Statistics have huge surveys they


already conduct. They have added four simple questions to some of


these surveys and covered in the answers are. I do not think the


results will be transformative. I do not think there will lead to a


radical shift in policy. They tell us that people really hate being


unemployed and people really hate being ill and sick. I do not think


it will transform policy. At the same time, it is not very hard to


add questions to a question you are already answering -- asking. It is


not worth spending money on, is it? The answers to those questions are


no surprise. People do not like the unemployed and people do not like


being killed. It is not worth spending any money on. They hardly


are spending any money on this. It is adding a few extra questions to


existing questionnaire. The actual questions are often described as


much unhappiness. What is going on is more subtle. How satisfied you


with your life as a whole? The second question is do you think


what you're doing in your life is worthwhile? How happy did you feel


These are a snapshot of the day, what indication does it truly give


us? The direction of this research is really good. It is sane humans


care about a lot of things other than just money. We care about time,


for example. There are fascinating statistics, some people will trade


at a certain amount of money for time. Also, things like by the


people live in an attractive or body Environment, that plays a huge


role in how people make decisions. For too long we have had a vision


of Economics which has assumed human beings are totally dictated


by always Max amazing the income. - Money can't buy us happiness but it


does help. It does buy happiness. There are other surprises. You


won't be surprised to hear people seem to be happy when they are


praying. People are not particularly happy when they are


Thank you for joining us. That is all for today. Thanks to our guests


and thank you to you. The One o'clock News is starting it up on


BBC One and I will be back with Andrew Tyrie at 11:30pm -- 11:30am.


Download Subtitles