:00:45. > :00:49.Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics. The last Labour
:00:49. > :00:54.Government got it wrong on immigration says Ed Miliband. But
:00:54. > :00:58.in practical terms, what would he do about it if he came to power?
:00:58. > :01:03.Are the row about Jimmy Carr's tax affairs is still deafening everyone
:01:03. > :01:08.at Westminster. Can a satirist survive a dose of his own medicine?
:01:08. > :01:12.Nick Clegg is still in Rio. There is an Earth Summit going on but
:01:12. > :01:18.have the claims of the environment effectively been mugged by grim
:01:18. > :01:26.economic reality? And have social media sites given
:01:27. > :01:32.political voice to these young mothers in the Midlands?
:01:32. > :01:35.All that in the next hour. With us for the duration, newspaper
:01:35. > :01:40.columnist and chairman of the Social Market Foundation think-tank,
:01:40. > :01:47.who was on this week with the last night, Mary Ann Sieghart. And the
:01:47. > :01:52.titan of the Mail on Sunday, that's what it says here, and he gave me a
:01:52. > :01:56.tenner if I said I would say it, Peter Hitchens. First, the banks
:01:56. > :01:59.are on the news. Late last night, one of the international rating
:01:59. > :02:04.agencies, Moody's, downgraded a whole range of banks including
:02:04. > :02:10.British banks such as Barclays, HSBC and the Royal Bank of Scotland.
:02:10. > :02:15.This matters because the ratings they get can influence how much it
:02:15. > :02:21.costs them to borrow a on the wholesale markets, when they borrow
:02:21. > :02:28.from each other. If they have to pay more, they will pass extra
:02:28. > :02:32.costs on to their customers. These customers are you and me. I guess
:02:32. > :02:36.this was inevitable. It was inevitable. We have been expecting
:02:36. > :02:42.it for months. As banks and the Eurozone get more and more dodgy,
:02:42. > :02:46.British banks' exposure to them becomes more worrying. We are not
:02:46. > :02:50.very exposed to Greek banks but we are to Spanish and Italian ones. It
:02:50. > :02:54.does make a difference. It makes a difference to you and me. It sounds
:02:54. > :02:58.abstract but if their pay more for their money, but when they lend it
:02:58. > :03:03.to last, they will charge just more. And we have lent to French and
:03:03. > :03:13.German banks to are exposed. There is a domino effect for a start
:03:13. > :03:17.
:03:17. > :03:21.people wonder why -- domino effect. People wonder why. The rate that
:03:21. > :03:26.the banks pay are rising and rising. I do not understand the point of
:03:26. > :03:29.the rating agencies. They failed to predict or warn against the crash
:03:29. > :03:33.itself. And now they seem to be scrabbling around trying to make
:03:33. > :03:38.out that they know what is going on and doing harm in the process. Who
:03:38. > :03:43.will benefit? I wish they were shut up. They are not inaccurate to
:03:43. > :03:46.downgrade. I think they are right to downgrade. They failed before
:03:46. > :03:53.the credit crunch but we have nothing to put in their place.
:03:53. > :03:56.Investors need some form of writing the bonds that they want to buy. If
:03:56. > :04:02.you will be allowed to invest in Triple A bonds, where the borrower
:04:02. > :04:08.is guaranteed to pay you back, then you need to know what the credit
:04:08. > :04:11.worthiness is of the borrower. they are a reliable, objective
:04:11. > :04:15.source of information or are they trying to overcompensate for
:04:15. > :04:20.previous failings? They do not actually make the market, they tend
:04:20. > :04:25.to follow the market. This ratings agency is now catching up with what
:04:25. > :04:30.most people have already known. The wider picture, Peter, which seems
:04:30. > :04:37.incapable of resolution for a less miracles happen at the EU summit
:04:37. > :04:43.next week, is that it just seems that the inability to sort the
:04:43. > :04:48.Eurozone is now a constant track on the world economy including the
:04:48. > :04:52.British economy. -- drag. wonder if this is not comparable to
:04:52. > :04:57.the months before Britain pulled out of the ERM. Everyone said that
:04:57. > :05:01.if we left, it would be a disaster and in fact it was not. The end of
:05:01. > :05:05.the Eurozone and the end of the single currency cannot come soon
:05:05. > :05:08.enough for the sake of the country. Since the whole thing seemed from
:05:08. > :05:13.the start, and I have climbed from the beginning to have been against
:05:13. > :05:18.it, on sound economic and political grounds, from the start it was
:05:18. > :05:23.wrong, so why might it be possible that getting rid of it will
:05:23. > :05:27.actually be the stimulant that the European economies need? If we're
:05:27. > :05:33.going to get into competitive opposition, I was against it from
:05:33. > :05:38.the start at as well. A felt so strongly about the economics of it.
:05:38. > :05:43.I thought it was bound to go wrong and it has. At the time, people
:05:43. > :05:50.said that if you include what countries are involved, it is not
:05:50. > :05:59.what is described as a optimal area. It turns out that the country's
:05:59. > :06:03.beginning with the name -- letter A them were more viable. The if it
:06:03. > :06:07.was confined to Germany, Scandinavia, maybe France, it could
:06:07. > :06:11.retrench to that. Possibly, but you need to have pretty strong
:06:11. > :06:14.political and fiscal union even to make that work. You have to
:06:15. > :06:21.persuade German voters that they should subsidise the poorer parts
:06:21. > :06:25.of France, say, forever. And they do not have the same communality
:06:25. > :06:27.that we in the south-east have with people in the north-east.
:06:27. > :06:32.problem is that Germany is benefiting from the Euro because it
:06:32. > :06:40.is a substantial devaluation of the Deutschmark. That is why they cling
:06:40. > :06:45.on to it. Under any circumstances, they would get out of it. It is
:06:45. > :06:48.time for our daily quiz. Britain is in trouble with Brussels again. Our
:06:48. > :06:52.question for today, why is the European Commission taking Britain
:06:52. > :06:55.to court this time? Is its failure to manufacture Cornish pasties in
:06:55. > :07:00.to manufacture Cornish pasties in Cornwall, too much bacteria in
:07:00. > :07:02.British cheese, the price of strawberries at Wimbledon or
:07:02. > :07:09.strawberries at Wimbledon or failure to pay enough tax on
:07:09. > :07:15.imports of garlic? Difficult questions. Tougher than Guess The
:07:15. > :07:20.Year. At the end of the show, we will have a wild stab at the answer.
:07:21. > :07:25.Do you have any idea? I do. That what -- that is what happens when
:07:25. > :07:29.you have bright people on the programme. Politicians do not often
:07:29. > :07:32.met -- admit they got it wrong. When they do, it is big news. Ed
:07:32. > :07:37.Miliband today says that Labour got it wrong when in government on the
:07:37. > :07:42.issue of immigration. He said that voters to raise concerns about
:07:42. > :07:46.issues of immigration are not begets after all. In 2010, Gordon
:07:46. > :07:50.Brown famously described Gillian Duffy, a pensioner from Rochdale,
:07:50. > :07:54.as a bigot after she raised the issue of immigration with him. What
:07:54. > :07:57.is the background to this? Under Labour, immigration sword. Official
:07:57. > :08:02.Labour, immigration sword. Official figures showed that net migration
:08:02. > :08:06.from 1997 and 2010 was 2.5 million. That is the official figure.
:08:07. > :08:10.Unofficially, it could be bigger. The coalition has committed to
:08:10. > :08:16.bringing immigration down to tens of thousands. But latest figures
:08:16. > :08:22.show that in the first year of the coalition, net migration was still
:08:22. > :08:27.250,000. The vast number of those came to the UK to study. Ed
:08:27. > :08:30.Miliband's ideas include keeping a place conditional controls on
:08:30. > :08:35.migration for a new EU countries such as Croatia. Labour did not do
:08:35. > :08:39.that when in power. A crackdown on recruitment agencies that advertise
:08:39. > :08:42.for immigrant workers. You would think that would be illegal. And an
:08:42. > :08:46.early warning system if some industries are employing
:08:46. > :08:50.disproportionately large numbers of foreign workers. That would be
:08:50. > :08:52.interesting to monitor. And more action such as heavier fines on
:08:52. > :08:57.employers to undercut the minimum employers to undercut the minimum
:08:57. > :09:03.wage. Here is what he had to say this morning. Why did we not listen
:09:03. > :09:11.more? I think by the end of our time in office, we were too dazzled
:09:11. > :09:14.and sanguine about globalisation, too sanguine about the impact of
:09:14. > :09:19.globalisation and migration or economic growth. We lost sight of
:09:19. > :09:28.who was benefiting from that growth. Whose living standards were being
:09:28. > :09:33.squeezed. And to those who lost out, we were too quick to say "Like it
:09:33. > :09:38.or lump it." The truth is, the public were ahead of us in seeing
:09:38. > :09:45.some of the problems of migration. They were seeing them in their own
:09:45. > :09:51.communities. The shadow Immigration Minister, Chris Bryant, is with us.
:09:51. > :09:54.When did you realise that Labour got it wrong? I remember when that
:09:54. > :10:00.Gillian Duffy thing happened in the general lection. I thought, you
:10:00. > :10:06.know what, she looks remarkably like a lot of my constituents, who
:10:06. > :10:11.have had concerns about immigration for a long time. In particular,
:10:11. > :10:14.they came to me and said "My son has just got a job in Gloucester
:10:14. > :10:18.and it is great but after five weeks, suddenly the employers
:10:18. > :10:24.decided to get rid of the British workers and bring in a Contractor
:10:24. > :10:29.from Poland and undercut their wages." That is when it came to hit
:10:29. > :10:33.home. That is why ever since I have had this job, I have been saying
:10:34. > :10:38.that I think it is really important that we got two things wrong in
:10:38. > :10:41.government. First of all, we went it alone. We and Ireland were the
:10:41. > :10:45.only countries in Europe who decided that anyone could come and
:10:45. > :10:53.work here from the first day of joining the European Union. That
:10:53. > :10:57.was a mistake. A you were warned at the time. And we got it wrong. Ed
:10:57. > :11:04.Miliband said in his speech that we were in a sense that dazzled by the
:11:04. > :11:06.global economy. We wanted to be able to do well in it. -- bedazzled.
:11:06. > :11:09.If you wanted to have a conservatory built on your house,
:11:09. > :11:13.it was good because it meant that it was cheaper but it was not so
:11:13. > :11:18.good if you were the kind of person that built in eight -- work in a
:11:18. > :11:22.company that build conservatories. What was the second thing? We left
:11:22. > :11:24.it too late before we introduced a point based system, which would
:11:24. > :11:31.have meant that people coming into this country were only the people
:11:31. > :11:35.who could actively contribute to society. That meant in particular
:11:35. > :11:39.for a lot of British people, including people who came to the
:11:40. > :11:43.country 20 years ago or whose parents came 30 years ago, it meant
:11:43. > :11:50.that if they were close to the national minimum-wage, their wages
:11:50. > :11:56.were undercut. When Michael Howard propose the point based system in
:11:56. > :12:01.the 2005 election, Labour excoriated them. We got it wrong.
:12:01. > :12:04.It is quite a big mistake. It is. That is why Ed Miliband, and I'm
:12:04. > :12:09.sure this will not be the last speech he will make about
:12:09. > :12:13.immigration. Thus the first time I have heard of a continued dialogue.
:12:13. > :12:17.It is a mistake to see immigration as standing on its own. For many,
:12:17. > :12:21.it is also about the welfare state and housing and public services and
:12:21. > :12:24.the economy. If you got it wrong on those two things, does that mean
:12:25. > :12:29.that if you add up these mistakes, that there are too many foreigners
:12:29. > :12:33.in Britain? It stands to logic the defiance saying that we should have
:12:33. > :12:37.introduced proper Kurds when the new countries join the European
:12:37. > :12:43.Union and that we should have introduced a point based system,
:12:43. > :12:47.that I am of course saying that too many people came in when we were in
:12:47. > :12:54.power. What you make of this mea culpa? I think it is probably
:12:54. > :12:57.sensible. -- what do you make. There are a properly looked at the
:12:57. > :13:02.opinion polls and seen that the two reasons why Labour voters deserted
:13:02. > :13:05.the party at the last election were immigration and welfare. The two
:13:05. > :13:10.are often combined and belabour probably have to do this to get
:13:10. > :13:13.themselves re-elected. A row of it a pamphlet about this after the
:13:13. > :13:18.general election because I felt very strongly that particularly in
:13:18. > :13:21.areas like mine, it is not about opinion polls. You do not need
:13:21. > :13:26.opinion polls to tell you this, you just have to knock on doors. It was
:13:26. > :13:32.one of the issues that came back time and time again. That is not to
:13:32. > :13:36.say that places like La Rhondda, which grew on the back of
:13:36. > :13:40.immigration from Italy and Ireland, do not recognise that welcoming
:13:40. > :13:45.foreigners is a strong British principle. It has happened very
:13:45. > :13:50.fast and change the nature. And the numbers were huge. -- changed the
:13:50. > :13:54.nature. You will hear the sound of the barn door closing as the horse
:13:54. > :14:00.has bolted. I find most objectionable about this is that,
:14:00. > :14:03.having been showered with buckets of slime and hose down with abuse
:14:03. > :14:11.from people from the left for saying exactly this for 15 years, I
:14:11. > :14:16.now have to sit and listen to these people try to get political credit
:14:16. > :14:20.for agreeing with me. The Labour Party is a party full trendies who
:14:20. > :14:26.love to have cheap waiters and cheap servants and all the things
:14:26. > :14:29.they benefit from, but it also relies on the votes of people who
:14:29. > :14:32.actually do not benefit from immigration. They have discovered
:14:32. > :14:36.that if they are going to get back into office, they will have to
:14:36. > :14:43.grovel to them. The damage has already done. You have not admitted
:14:43. > :14:47.the other thing. Andrew Neather admitted this in the Evening
:14:47. > :14:52.Standard some years ago, that this was a deliberate policy to
:14:52. > :14:56.transform the country. He meant it to be so. You have done it now.
:14:56. > :15:02.There is no point saying that we're sorry we did that. You're not sorry
:15:02. > :15:07.at all. You are sorry that it has cost to popularity. Over to you!
:15:07. > :15:14.Bucket of slime is one of Peter's absolute favourite phrases. He used
:15:14. > :15:18.it six times on Question Time the other day ago. -- other week ago.
:15:18. > :15:21.It is a bit of an irony when someone who writes for the Daily
:15:21. > :15:25.Mail start complaining about buckets of Slyne being poured over
:15:25. > :15:29.people. -- buckets of slime. There is no point arguing. It is true
:15:29. > :15:33.that many migrants to this country have dramatically assisted our
:15:33. > :15:38.economy. They have become major employers, they have been
:15:38. > :15:42.entrepreneurs, they have won Nobel prizes. So what is your problem?
:15:42. > :15:46.should have been making sure that the people who could add value to
:15:46. > :15:49.the country came in and not everybody else. If you look at the
:15:49. > :15:53.health service, there are many migrants working there. You want to
:15:53. > :15:57.have your cake and eat it. Why do a. You want to say that immigrants are
:15:57. > :16:01.wonderful. You are in favour of beating cake and in favour of cake.
:16:01. > :16:05.What is the point of cake without eating it? You look at it and think,
:16:05. > :16:09.if I don't eat it, I will be healthier. You think immigrants are
:16:09. > :16:13.wonderful but we have too many? That is a logical. I think you
:16:13. > :16:16.ought to be drawing a distinction. -- illogical. I do not think it's a
:16:16. > :16:21.great idea to have mass migration of people with no skills into this
:16:21. > :16:26.country. I think it is a good thing to have British universities having
:16:26. > :16:29.lots of foreign students coming to this country, studying, going back
:16:29. > :16:37.to their own country and then having a strong desire to do trade
:16:37. > :16:41.You accepted when Andrew asked to whether there were too many people
:16:41. > :16:44.in the country, you accepted and that their world. I am not saying
:16:44. > :16:49.there are too many people in the country. You're not saying that?
:16:49. > :16:54.Too many foreign people? I was asked a specific question which was,
:16:54. > :16:58.during the people we talked about, did we get it wrong? What I am
:16:58. > :17:03.saying is, look, we have already said, we should have had proper
:17:03. > :17:08.restraints on the number of people coming in... You clearly accepted
:17:08. > :17:11.the point. I think you are backing away from it. Because you know what
:17:11. > :17:15.is coming next, if there is too many foreign people in the country,
:17:15. > :17:23.what are you going to do about it? I am not saying there are too many
:17:23. > :17:26.foreign people in this country. are not? You did earlier. I said
:17:26. > :17:30.too many migrants came initial period of time into this country
:17:30. > :17:35.and we should have done a better job. And they are still here,
:17:35. > :17:39.obviously. They are not all here. According to the ONS, the
:17:39. > :17:44.population of Britain has risen by 3 million because of labour
:17:44. > :17:48.migration policy, that is a lot of people. And Andrew... It may be
:17:48. > :17:55.good or bad but it is a lot. A lot of the migrants that come to this
:17:55. > :18:01.country every year our students who come to do three-year courses. I
:18:01. > :18:06.think it is good for the British economy. Those people all go back.
:18:06. > :18:15.A well, they don't all go back. vast majority. It is a way into
:18:15. > :18:19.this country as well. No. There are no rights guaranteed. Some people
:18:20. > :18:24.came to train as doctors and then... I wonder what you are going to do
:18:24. > :18:30.about it. In some ways it is refreshing you are saying you got
:18:30. > :18:34.it wrong but I can't see anything you're proposing will make a
:18:34. > :18:44.difference other than to the margin. You are still proposing a cap on
:18:44. > :18:48.
:18:48. > :18:58.immigration? There isn't a cap now. You oppose any controls on student
:18:58. > :18:59.
:18:59. > :19:02.We think the government was absolutely right to say we would
:19:02. > :19:06.tackle the issue of fake colleges and that is another thing we should
:19:06. > :19:10.have done when we were in office. Do you think the government is
:19:10. > :19:14.right... It has shown no success in doing this so far but it is early
:19:14. > :19:18.days. Do you think the Government is right to be aiming to get net
:19:18. > :19:22.migration down to the tens of thousands. I don't think it stands
:19:22. > :19:24.a chance of doing it. My concern about the particular target of a
:19:24. > :19:30.net migration, which is the difference between those coming in
:19:30. > :19:34.and going out, but the best way of dealing with it is to try to
:19:34. > :19:37.persuade people to leave the country. There is a danger that you
:19:37. > :19:42.would do things that could be very damaging for the economy. The bit I
:19:42. > :19:46.think has been always left out of this argument, by people like Peter
:19:46. > :19:51.and those on the right of British politics, is the element about what
:19:51. > :19:56.it does to local workforces. That is the bit where I think there is
:19:56. > :20:00.far more we can do, about making sure that you can't just say
:20:00. > :20:03.everybody we want to employ in this company, even though it is a
:20:03. > :20:09.company that serves Morrisons, or ASDA or were there, has got to be
:20:09. > :20:13.able to speak Polish. It would be good if they would all speak
:20:13. > :20:18.English. There are things you can do about making sure the minimum
:20:19. > :20:23.wage is possible -- properly enforced. Whenever you hear the
:20:23. > :20:28.word crack down, it is phoney. It means nothing will happen. We are
:20:28. > :20:31.not the government. If you were in office, it would just be another of
:20:31. > :20:36.those eye-catching policies with which the Prime Minister could be
:20:36. > :20:41.personally associated and nothing would happen. You want to have the
:20:41. > :20:45.votes of people whose opinions you secretly despise. No, no, sorry.
:20:45. > :20:49.The bit I object to about that, my constituents have been expressing
:20:49. > :20:53.these used to make, I have put them very clearly and I think it is
:20:53. > :20:58.right that we have policies at the next general election that address
:20:59. > :21:06.these issues. Which will amount to nothing in practice. Your cynicism
:21:06. > :21:08.is a beauty to behold. It is experience. I have heard of before.
:21:08. > :21:14.The big challenge is to come up with policies that can convince
:21:14. > :21:18.people... Absolutely, that will it -- this is only the first part.
:21:18. > :21:22.will put that for another day. coming back!
:21:22. > :21:25.You might use a mobile phone to pay your bills, catch up on the
:21:25. > :21:30.television or make sure you have take a whole week's worth of The
:21:30. > :21:34.Daily Politics and Sunday Politics. But have you ever used it to
:21:34. > :21:38.organise a political campaign, save a local hospital or plant trees in
:21:38. > :21:43.a park? It seems that some people, including many who never thought
:21:43. > :21:48.they had a scintilla of interest in politics, are doing just that. We
:21:48. > :21:52.sent Kate Conway to Nottingham to meet some.
:21:52. > :21:57.Women used to talk politics here, on the stoop, hanging out the
:21:57. > :22:01.washing. Over the fence. It is tempting to think that all of that
:22:01. > :22:05.has disappeared. But here in Retford, working-class women are
:22:05. > :22:10.doing garden wall politics, but they are doing it on line, on their
:22:10. > :22:13.mobile phone, and changing the way local services are run. When Adele
:22:13. > :22:20.Mumby found out there were plans to change the local maternity unit,
:22:20. > :22:25.she decided to do something about it. Having six children and being a
:22:25. > :22:28.mother, understanding what it meant and implications that that had, it
:22:28. > :22:32.got to me and I thought I have to do something about this. I
:22:32. > :22:38.contacted a local councillor, Graeme Oxby, and I contacted John
:22:38. > :22:43.Mann, and I said I have got some information. But it wasn't enough.
:22:43. > :22:49.My 10-year-old daughter's set it up there, as -- because I have no idea
:22:50. > :22:55.how to use Facebook or a phone. Within 10 minutes, there were 32
:22:55. > :23:00.members. Within an hour, it grew and grew. From text messages and
:23:00. > :23:07.Facebook, a campaign was born. And the local Labour MP, John Mann,
:23:07. > :23:12.says it is those very tools that social media has created a new type
:23:12. > :23:19.of voter. They haven't been engaged with politics. Here we are suddenly
:23:20. > :23:25.finding that non-voters, the so- called alleged apathetic, right in
:23:25. > :23:30.the middle of big politics, serious politics, changing things. I got
:23:30. > :23:33.two tonnes of soil delivered free of charge, railway sleepers. I got
:23:33. > :23:38.health and safety down here, the teenage lads designed it and built
:23:38. > :23:43.it. It is spot on. While the government may be planning a new
:23:43. > :23:49.force of 5,000 community organisers around the country, Lorna tells me
:23:49. > :23:52.she doesn't think they need outside help. The community is something
:23:52. > :23:56.that might interest people, but at the same time, we are doing it
:23:56. > :24:00.ourselves, we don't need somebody to be told you are in charge of the
:24:00. > :24:04.community, we are the community. They are not taking their cue from
:24:04. > :24:08.politicians, it is at the other way around. Would you ever read the
:24:08. > :24:12.tweets of John Mann or any other MP? No, I don't read tweets. Never.
:24:12. > :24:15.Which doesn't surprise this expecting political communications.
:24:16. > :24:19.It is about having an ongoing dialogue with the community, as
:24:19. > :24:23.opposed to blasting out a press release. It is about using these
:24:23. > :24:27.tools to find issues that people in the local community care about, and
:24:27. > :24:33.work out a way in which they as a politician and a leader can make a
:24:33. > :24:39.change in the community. For the Labour MP, John Mann, it is another
:24:39. > :24:44.way of winning. If we get those people partnering with us, we win
:24:44. > :24:50.an election. We will win an election by a significant majority.
:24:50. > :24:54.We are back in power. And if we trust those people and we transfer
:24:54. > :25:02.some real power to them, on their agendas, on their priorities, on
:25:02. > :25:10.their terms, I think we could be in power for a long time.
:25:10. > :25:20.Luke Bozier used to be Labour's e- campaigns campaigns -- e-campaigns
:25:20. > :25:21.
:25:21. > :25:25.manager, he is now working for the Tories, launching a political rival
:25:25. > :25:29.to Twitter. Have these social media sides have a negative or positive
:25:29. > :25:32.effect? Absolutely positive. Politicians used to exist in a bit
:25:32. > :25:35.of a vacuum and the only time they would hear the voices of those they
:25:35. > :25:40.claim to represent his when they were back in their constituencies.
:25:40. > :25:43.A politician could only see a few handfuls of people every week.
:25:43. > :25:47.Twitter and Facebook, if a politician is into those networks,
:25:47. > :25:52.they get instant feedback. The work that they do, the things they say,
:25:52. > :25:56.they instantly get opinions from the public. That has a massive
:25:56. > :26:00.impact on politics. It has been a benefit to our democracy? Maybe it
:26:00. > :26:04.has. It seems to me the old- fashioned methods worked just as
:26:04. > :26:07.well. In my home town of Oxford, we had a campaign to save the public
:26:07. > :26:10.libraries. It used all kinds of old-fashioned things like people
:26:10. > :26:14.ringing each other up, the newspapers getting involved and a
:26:14. > :26:18.fantastic, thrilling public meeting addressed by Philip Pullman. At the
:26:18. > :26:22.end of it we saved the public libraries. I do remember a single
:26:22. > :26:30.click of Facebook page on the whole thing. You are not on Twitter, are
:26:30. > :26:37.you? Were you looking? How would you know. I am on Facebook, there
:26:37. > :26:47.is a Peter Hitchens must die on Facebook. We are all on that.
:26:47. > :26:48.
:26:48. > :26:53.I don't know why you have to restrict yourself to 27 words or
:26:53. > :27:03.whatever it is. I can't see the point. Other people are welcome to
:27:03. > :27:04.
:27:04. > :27:08.it. They are no substitute... I think you need both. Twitter is
:27:08. > :27:11.one tool, it gives a lot of people a voice. Facebook is good for
:27:11. > :27:15.organising, e-mail is good for campaign and fund-raising. You also
:27:15. > :27:20.need the real stuff as well. Where we have seen digital impact
:27:20. > :27:26.elections, for example in 2008 with Obama, they used digital with the
:27:26. > :27:32.real old stuff. That is positive. They used the internet to raise
:27:32. > :27:36.money. They did, they raised a fortune and it is good for that.
:27:36. > :27:40.They raised millions in very small donations. Twitter has changed the
:27:40. > :27:45.new cycle, even more. It has speeded it up even more. I rely on
:27:45. > :27:48.Twitter for my news feed now. I don't have to go to the BBC News
:27:48. > :27:52.website or to the Press Association to see what is going on. I look on
:27:53. > :27:57.Twitter and it is fantastic. It is more than 140 characters because
:27:57. > :28:01.people linked to a much more interesting Web page. It is a left-
:28:02. > :28:07.wing electronic mob. It is not left wing, for goodness sake. It is
:28:07. > :28:12.overwhelmingly left wing. How do you know? Because I am abused on it.
:28:12. > :28:18.We are all abused on it. There is a mob searching backwards and
:28:18. > :28:23.forwards. It has as many views as the people who use it. During the
:28:24. > :28:31.Budget, even before the Chancellor sat down, hashtag granny tax had
:28:31. > :28:35.come up. And pasty tax. suddenly it runs. Whereas the
:28:35. > :28:40.politicians themselves are not great at using it. More than half
:28:40. > :28:44.of MPs have Twitter. At the end of the England Ukraine match, Ed
:28:44. > :28:51.Miliband, or somebody else to write it for him, says, great result for
:28:51. > :28:56.England, credit to all the players. It is so banal, it could have been
:28:56. > :29:01.him. I am sure the England team work over the moon. Were Ian Haig's
:29:01. > :29:11.tweets are pretty pathetic. Some MPs are great on Twitter. Tom
:29:11. > :29:11.
:29:11. > :29:18.Watson, Chris Bryant, Stella Creasy, Louise Minchin. Your newspaper it
:29:18. > :29:22.increasingly runs quotes based on stories from Twitter. I thought
:29:22. > :29:25.blogging seemed to be perfectly sensible. I thought Britain was a
:29:25. > :29:28.step too far. I think you have to select the bits of the electronic
:29:28. > :29:32.revolution that work for you. I think Facebook is already fading
:29:32. > :29:36.ever think Twitter will be forgotten in five years. Mention
:29:36. > :29:41..com is the new one, I hope we can mention -- welcome you on that.
:29:41. > :29:44.What is the difference between your website and Twitter? It is a niche
:29:44. > :29:54.complement to Twitter, for people's interested in specific topics. At
:29:54. > :29:56.
:29:56. > :30:00.In you can get 180 characters. Maybe you can sign up Peter? Toyota
:30:00. > :30:04.is a great discipline for try and get things done concisely --
:30:04. > :30:08.Twitter is. It is. You don't have to work for weeks to build up a
:30:08. > :30:13.following list, once you join you have that. The focus on the topics
:30:13. > :30:17.that interest you. Thank you for being with us.
:30:17. > :30:21.The first Earth Summit in 20 years has been taking place in Rio this
:30:21. > :30:24.week and ends today. The aim is to end sustainable -- reach
:30:24. > :30:28.sustainable development goals with targets for production and
:30:28. > :30:38.consumption. The Prince of Wales warned the gathering of the danger
:30:38. > :30:43.
:30:43. > :30:48.We are facing increasing challenges. I have watched in despair at her
:30:48. > :30:53.slow progress has sometimes been and how the outright sceptical
:30:53. > :30:59.reluctance by some to engage with the critical issues of our day have
:30:59. > :31:04.often slowed that process to a standstill. The Prime Minister
:31:04. > :31:07.dispatched his deputy to the diplomatic jungle. There he is.
:31:07. > :31:13.Looking for Michael Gove. He was pessimistic about the chances of
:31:13. > :31:17.success. When you're dealing with 190 countries are bound -- around
:31:17. > :31:20.the negotiating table, you have a problem. UN de diluting things so
:31:20. > :31:29.that everybody agrees and the end result is more insipid than you
:31:29. > :31:34.would like. -- you end up. As the attempt to challenge climate change
:31:34. > :31:37.been lost in the misery of the global downturn? James Delingpole -
:31:37. > :31:43.- James Delingpole is the author of a book about how environmentalists
:31:43. > :31:47.are killing the earth. Let us come to friends of the Earth. Is the
:31:48. > :31:52.harsh reality, the undeniable truth not that apart from Prince Charles,
:31:52. > :31:57.in an age of austerity and uncertainty, people care less about
:31:57. > :32:02.the environment and more about where the jobs are coming from?
:32:02. > :32:06.do not think that is true. I do not think that is the case. Poll after
:32:06. > :32:12.poll shows that in the centre ground of politics, there is a lot
:32:12. > :32:19.of concern, almost as much as there was. Mr Obama and Mr Cameron could
:32:19. > :32:22.not be bothered to go. They're only sent Mr Clegg. The problem for Mr
:32:22. > :32:26.Cameron is that there is a drag out to the right in the Conservative
:32:26. > :32:30.Party with the debate is getting caught up. That means it will be
:32:30. > :32:37.difficult for him because this is an important centrist issue. But if
:32:37. > :32:43.he has pulled out to the right, fearing to lose voters from UKIP,
:32:43. > :32:47.then... Mr Obama, 80 thought this mattered in the November election,
:32:47. > :32:53.he would have gone. -- if he thought. It is very polarised in
:32:53. > :32:57.the US. In the UK, fascinatingly, while our economy has flatlined,
:32:57. > :33:02.the green sectors within the economy, including energy and also
:33:03. > :33:07.recycling and waste disposal, have grown by around about 5%. They are
:33:07. > :33:11.trend bucking sectors. Just because the economy is doing badly is no
:33:11. > :33:15.reason to turn our backs on saving the planet? I'm sorry you had to
:33:15. > :33:21.invoke the subject of green jobs because green jobs killed jobs in
:33:21. > :33:25.the real economy. Green jobs only exists because of taxpayer subsidy.
:33:25. > :33:30.We see this in the windfarm industry, onshore or whinge farms -
:33:30. > :33:37.- onshore wind farms operate on a 100% subsidy. Offshore wind farms
:33:37. > :33:40.operate on a 200% subsidy. These are not real jobs. I think it is
:33:40. > :33:45.time that we judge to the environmental movement on what it
:33:45. > :33:50.has actually achieved. What it has done is really quite serious harm.
:33:50. > :33:54.We have seen rain forests chop down to grow palm oil to create biofuels.
:33:54. > :33:59.We have had agricultural land diverted to biofuels, causing
:33:59. > :34:03.starvation and poverty. We have windfarms blighting the landscape,
:34:03. > :34:09.chopping up birds and killing bats. The environmental movement has
:34:09. > :34:13.damaged the global economy. Globally, over the last three years,
:34:13. > :34:19.more investor money has gone into renewable technologies than into
:34:19. > :34:23.conventional energy sources. I do not think investors share your view.
:34:23. > :34:27.Much of that is government money. lot of that is from the private
:34:27. > :34:33.sector. But subsidised. There is a subsidy in the system for renewable
:34:33. > :34:38.technologies. It is coming down dramatically as costs fall globally
:34:38. > :34:42.in solar by 75% in the past five years. There is promise and
:34:42. > :34:46.investors disagree. The tragedy of the situation in the UK is that
:34:46. > :34:49.blowing hot and cold, flood flopping on green as the coalition
:34:49. > :34:53.is doing, is killing investor confidence, which means that people
:34:53. > :34:58.will not put money into the economy. David Cameron was pictured with
:34:58. > :35:02.huskies, talking about selling -- installing a wind turbine in
:35:02. > :35:06.Downing Street, now he does not even go to the Rio summit. It
:35:06. > :35:14.cannot be denied that priorities have changed. He was in Mexico. He
:35:15. > :35:19.could have gone down. They were clashing, the G20 and real. -- real.
:35:19. > :35:22.Mr Clegg is still there. A correct me if I'm wrong, do not think he
:35:22. > :35:25.has made a speech on the Environment says he has become
:35:26. > :35:30.Prime Minister. I think there is a feeling that being green is a
:35:30. > :35:34.luxury you can afford during good times and not during bad times.
:35:34. > :35:38.Nick Clegg goes halfway round the world to the summit but he is only
:35:38. > :35:43.quoted on his reaction to Michael Gove's plans for all levels. What
:35:43. > :35:51.was interesting is how that time the BBC, which has been taken over
:35:51. > :35:57.by fanatics, has devoted to it. It is observable truth. The BBC does
:35:57. > :36:01.not believe it has any business to be impartial. That is why we have
:36:01. > :36:06.James on. Our eye and the exception that proves the rule. And you, for
:36:07. > :36:10.that matter. -- I am the exception. Having people on is not the same as
:36:10. > :36:17.having a general bias in favour of certain things. It has not bothered
:36:17. > :36:21.us because the cult is visibly dying. Fewer and fewer people
:36:21. > :36:26.believe in the science of man-made global warning. It is how they will
:36:26. > :36:31.get out of it, when it has eventually become so obvious that
:36:31. > :36:39.the thing was a cult and a scam. How will they get out of it?
:36:39. > :36:43.there is a fact, if he would shut up for a minute. Hang on a minute,
:36:43. > :36:46.I didn't come here to keep quiet. To keep quiet for the next few
:36:46. > :36:49.minutes. There is evidence that people do not worry about it so
:36:49. > :36:54.much. They do not worry about it and they do not think it is as
:36:54. > :36:58.important. They think scare stories were told. One of the fact, and I
:36:58. > :37:02.will put it like that to find out if it is true, is that people like
:37:02. > :37:06.James say that actually temperatures have not risen in this
:37:06. > :37:13.century and so we are right not to be worried about it so much. What
:37:13. > :37:17.say you? 1998 is the base year for that statement. 1998 is
:37:17. > :37:20.statistically an outlier year. It was a big bulge. If you look at the
:37:20. > :37:25.Trent, which any serious statistician will do overtime, it
:37:25. > :37:28.is consistently up. Some of the warmest years of light -- in record
:37:28. > :37:38.have been in the last 20 years or so. Have temperatures continue to
:37:38. > :37:39.
:37:39. > :37:43.rise? Yes. In fact, NASA put 2005 in its state above 1998. Professor
:37:43. > :37:50.Phil Jones of the climatic Research Unit, you could not get more
:37:50. > :37:53.warmest than that man, he has said there is no statistical warming
:37:53. > :37:59.trend since 1995. If it has increased a tall, it is so tiny as
:37:59. > :38:02.to make no difference. I will send you the Graf later. But this
:38:02. > :38:06.matters. If people feel the temperatures are not rising, they
:38:06. > :38:13.are unlikely to follow the green agenda when it comes to global
:38:13. > :38:17.warming. I saw an interesting poll yesterday conducted by Ipsos MORI.
:38:17. > :38:27.Do you know who people trust most on this issue? They trust the
:38:27. > :38:28.
:38:28. > :38:31.scientists. 66% are people trust scientists and only 9% Trust
:38:31. > :38:35.journalists. You know most of the people who talk on this subject,
:38:35. > :38:42.they are not scientists. Even on the global warming sight, they are
:38:42. > :38:50.mainly lobbyists. Are you a scientist? I am not. My case rests.
:38:50. > :38:55.If I can finish. Of course. vast majority of physicists and
:38:56. > :38:59.scientists say that global warming is accelerating. Even a of global
:38:59. > :39:02.warming is not happening, and I'm not a scientist and a warm-up line
:39:02. > :39:07.on this, surely it makes sense to use more sources of energy that
:39:07. > :39:10.will not run out and fewer sources of energy that will run out? Or oil
:39:10. > :39:16.and coal will eventually run out of the Sun will not stop shining. What
:39:17. > :39:26.is the problem? One. About scientists. Scientists questions --
:39:27. > :39:28.
:39:28. > :39:32.scientific questions are not decided by majority, they are
:39:32. > :39:35.defined by results. That is meaningless. There is an energy
:39:35. > :39:41.crisis here. In a few years' time we will not have enough electricity
:39:41. > :39:45.to run the sort of economy that we have, particularly the heavy
:39:45. > :39:50.electronic economy we have become. There is an urgent need to provide
:39:50. > :39:57.reliable power and wind power and solar power will not and cannot do
:39:57. > :40:01.it. One of the things, on this matter you cannot laugh at this
:40:01. > :40:05.movement, because they are preventing serious consideration.
:40:05. > :40:09.We have loads of shale gas. And we will do another debate on that
:40:09. > :40:13.another day. I would like to say before you go, if you could both
:40:13. > :40:17.block on this issue, off what has been happening to temperatures over
:40:17. > :40:22.the past 15 years, if we could take you Bloggs and put them on the
:40:22. > :40:25.Daily Politics website, let us get a debate going. I think it is one
:40:25. > :40:31.of the key issues that is determining people's attitudes.
:40:31. > :40:34.would be delighted. Earlier this week, we thought that came to was
:40:34. > :40:38.the second highest mountain on earth. It delays. Since then, we
:40:38. > :40:42.have discovered that it is not a pile of rocks in the Himalayas, it
:40:42. > :40:45.is Jimmy Carr's money in Jersey. Apparently it is a kind of
:40:45. > :40:50.Investment Trust which allowed the comedian to avoid the kind of
:40:50. > :40:54.income tax that the rest of us get lumbered with. Where was my
:40:54. > :40:58.accountant when I needed him? David Cameron described this legal
:40:58. > :41:02.behaviour as "Morally unacceptable." Yesterday, the Jimmy
:41:02. > :41:07.Carr did the fastest climb down in history, pulling out of the scheme
:41:07. > :41:10.and apologising. He had to apologise on Twitter. In the House
:41:10. > :41:17.of Commons, Labour pointed out a lack of even-handedness in the
:41:17. > :41:21.Government's combination. -- condemnation. The depth to Prime
:41:21. > :41:26.Minister rushed to the TV studios to condemn the tax-avoidance scheme
:41:26. > :41:29.used by Jimmy Carr. -- Deputy Prime Minister. Oddly, he did not condemn
:41:29. > :41:33.as morally repugnant the tax- avoidance scheme are used by
:41:33. > :41:42.Conservative supporter, Gary Barlow, who has given a whole new meaning
:41:42. > :41:48.to the phrase, Take That. If it is also morally repugnant, why has he
:41:48. > :41:54.just been given a OBE in the birthday Honours? Why is the Prime
:41:54. > :41:58.Minister's view of what is dodgy in the tax system are so partial.
:41:58. > :42:02.Philip green as interesting tax relationships but far from being
:42:02. > :42:05.labelled morally repugnant, he is heading up a government review.
:42:05. > :42:10.While the Prime Minister talks are talking TV studios, the reality is
:42:11. > :42:14.that his government is cutting HMRC Resources, making it much harder to
:42:14. > :42:18.tackle tax avoidance schemes. In the botched Budget, his government
:42:18. > :42:26.has given every millionaire a legal way to reduce their tax bill by
:42:26. > :42:33.cutting tax for the rich as 1%. There are a number of measures that
:42:33. > :42:38.we are introducing. The anti- avoidance rule measures to make
:42:38. > :42:46.sure that at least some tax is paid by those on high incomes. The
:42:46. > :42:50.Chancellor will be at the dispatch box on Tuesday to answer questions.
:42:50. > :42:57.Last night, Jimmy Carr was recording his Channel 4 programme,
:42:57. > :43:01.8 Out of 10 Cats, which airs tonight. The 8 Out of 10 Cats pay
:43:01. > :43:09.their taxes, apparently. The fellow comedians did not let him off the
:43:09. > :43:19.hook, badly. Toby Young and Matthew buckshot are with us. -- Matthew
:43:19. > :43:19.
:43:19. > :43:24.Oakeshott. A should satirists to be sent to a higher standards than
:43:24. > :43:28.others? Jimmy Carr had let himself wide open by doing a sketch on one
:43:28. > :43:34.of his shows attacking Barclays Bank for using exactly the kind of
:43:34. > :43:37.tax avoidance scheme but he was using himself. Game set and match?
:43:37. > :43:41.The difference to bring Gary Barlow and Jimmy Carr is that they are
:43:41. > :43:45.both guilty of tax avoidance but Jimmy Carr is also guilty of the
:43:45. > :43:48.son of hypocrisy. Not only did he write that sketch where he took the
:43:48. > :43:53.mickey out of Barclays for trying to do exactly what he has tried to
:43:53. > :43:59.do, but he also banks at Barclays, it now turns out. Really?! You
:43:59. > :44:04.cannot be guilty of tax avoidance if that is not illegal. No. You can
:44:04. > :44:08.be morally guilty. That is different. I think satirists are
:44:08. > :44:13.held to a higher standard and should be. The point of satire,
:44:13. > :44:18.dating back to the Greeks, was for the little man to tilt at the
:44:18. > :44:22.titans of the Establishment. To make him feel better about the fact
:44:22. > :44:28.that he himself earns very little. It is to comfort the afflicted and
:44:28. > :44:33.afflict the comfortable. The problem is that this tone that many
:44:33. > :44:36.of these left-wing comedians take is very much at odds with their own
:44:36. > :44:43.riches. It turns out that Jimmy Carr is not a little man at all, he
:44:43. > :44:49.is actually a fully paid-up member of the ruling class. He bought his
:44:49. > :44:58.house in north London for �8.5 million in cash. He paid cash!
:44:58. > :45:03.was a loan from his company, don't forget. Is it possible, taking the
:45:03. > :45:07.figure of Armando Ianucci now. He has made a career out of satirising
:45:07. > :45:13.the establishment and now takes an will be. Does that undermine him?
:45:13. > :45:17.don't know. I see what you mean about the court jesters. I think of
:45:17. > :45:22.Jimmy Carr, his problem is he did not give �50 to the Tories. Then
:45:22. > :45:28.David Cameron would not have objected. Like Mr Brown giving �2.5
:45:28. > :45:31.million to the Lib Dems. I do not offend that either. There is a
:45:31. > :45:36.difference, a serious point here. There is a difference a dream
:45:36. > :45:43.morally repugnant and illegal. I think it is right to draw that
:45:43. > :45:48.distinction. The key point for David Cameron and George Osborne is,
:45:48. > :45:53.what will we do about it now? How do we make this behaviour legally
:45:53. > :45:59.repugnant as well. Three it is such a huge loophole. Why not close it?
:45:59. > :46:03.That is what I'm saying. Let us just ask, a lot of this activity is
:46:03. > :46:07.deeply damaging to the country. We need the money. It is also deeply
:46:07. > :46:17.unfair. It is not technically illegal because the advisers to
:46:17. > :46:18.
:46:18. > :46:22.these people are far, far better Who needs the money? What is this
:46:22. > :46:26.morality staff? Why is it Betty -- better for me or anybody else to
:46:26. > :46:32.give money that they have learnt to a government, which will throw it
:46:32. > :46:38.away on such things as wind farm subsidies, police who never go out,
:46:38. > :46:45.schools which apparently teach people to be more ignorant. The
:46:45. > :46:50.whole point about tax avoidance... If all the police in this country
:46:50. > :47:00.were abducted by aliens tonight, most people wouldn't notice. What
:47:00. > :47:00.
:47:00. > :47:10.do they do? What about the schools you send your children to? As a
:47:10. > :47:17.matter of fact, the schools are so bad, they would be better off being
:47:17. > :47:22.kept at home. Tax avoidance by definition it is legal. You tell me
:47:22. > :47:26.the point at which it becomes immoral. Do you agree? I want to
:47:26. > :47:30.make the same point from a slightly different angle. If there is this
:47:30. > :47:33.important distinction between what you are morally obliged to play and
:47:33. > :47:36.what you are legally obliged to play, the maximum amount you are
:47:36. > :47:40.allowed to pay under the law shouldn't be the ceiling. If you
:47:40. > :47:43.believe in higher taxation, you are morally obliged to pay more tax
:47:43. > :47:46.than you are legally allowed to under the current system. If you
:47:46. > :47:51.think the highest rate of tax should be higher, you should
:47:51. > :47:57.actually donate money to HMRC, in addition to the maximum amount. The
:47:57. > :48:02.tizz an interesting idea but totally unrealistic. -- it is an
:48:02. > :48:10.interesting idea. I am happy to pay more tax and I would like to make
:48:10. > :48:17.more tax. But I -- to pay more tax. But only if that is part of
:48:17. > :48:22.everybody having to. So you want me to pay more tax? I want everybody
:48:22. > :48:27.to pay more tax but I also wanted to be fair. We are drifting right
:48:27. > :48:33.of the main point, which is no one can say what the line is between
:48:33. > :48:37.morally repugnant and not. There are some things that are the wrong
:48:37. > :48:40.side of the line. What Jimmy Carr did is the wrong side of the line,
:48:40. > :48:44.as well as many other people who David Cameron is not prepared to
:48:44. > :48:52.condemn, very selective condemnation. That is what we have
:48:52. > :48:55.got to do. The biggest scandal of them all his non-dom status. A one
:48:55. > :48:59.to ask Toby, do you have any objections to Jimmy Carr paying
:48:59. > :49:06.only 1% tax? No, no one is morally obliged to pay more than they are
:49:06. > :49:12.legally required to. Your admirably run a new free school, who is going
:49:12. > :49:16.to fund that if we will pay 1% tax? I don't think he is morally at
:49:16. > :49:23.fault, I think you have to simplify the tax code, which is what the
:49:23. > :49:29.Chancellor tried to do in his last Budget. And failed. You don't think
:49:29. > :49:35.it is anti-social to pay 1% tax? You need to simplify the tax code
:49:35. > :49:39.and close some of the loopholes. I don't think he is morally at fault.
:49:39. > :49:44.Have you never used a tax avoidance scheme? You don't even put money
:49:44. > :49:50.into an ISA? I am best in my pension but it is not using a tax
:49:50. > :49:56.avoidance scheme. It is available to everybody. So is this. This is
:49:56. > :50:00.not available to everybody. This is only available to people who have
:50:00. > :50:04.very expensive advisers. You can only put money into an ISA if you
:50:04. > :50:08.have the savings in the first place and many people watching this have
:50:08. > :50:12.no savings. You never advise your clients to go into tax-avoidance
:50:12. > :50:17.schemes? No, I advise pension funds and charities who are tax free
:50:17. > :50:21.anyway, actually. It is an important point. I pay my pension
:50:21. > :50:25.fund contributions, have stopped because I and 65 but I get the same
:50:25. > :50:28.tax breaks as everybody else. This is different because this is a
:50:28. > :50:32.secret scheme, until exposed by the Thames, which most people didn't
:50:32. > :50:42.know about and is very expensive. People who can't afford to pay into
:50:42. > :50:55.
:50:55. > :50:59.a pension can't take advantage of Doing some things to mitigate your
:50:59. > :51:06.tax is one thing. Being a multi- millionaire and only paying 1% of
:51:06. > :51:11.your tax is surely wrong. I find it really odd that you don't see
:51:12. > :51:16.anything wrong in paying 1% tax. Using these artificial schemes to
:51:16. > :51:20.dodge tax. If I were legally able to pay as little tax, and I
:51:20. > :51:23.challenge anyone to say sincerely that they feel different, if you
:51:23. > :51:30.were legally able to pay as little tax as Jimmy Carr did, you would
:51:30. > :51:34.take the opportunity. I would not. I could do that and I don't. I
:51:34. > :51:38.could buy one of these schemes, and I don't. I choose not to because I
:51:38. > :51:45.think it is grossly wrong and it should be illegal. We are going to
:51:45. > :51:51.move on. The end of another week here at Westminster.
:51:51. > :52:01.Even though they are travelling on for Britain. With David Cameron in
:52:01. > :52:01.
:52:01. > :52:07.Mexico and Nick Clegg in Brazil. Being a world leader isn't easy,
:52:07. > :52:11.especially when you have got to go to G20 summits in... Sunny Mexico.
:52:11. > :52:18.Greece turned the head honchos pale, and Spain, Egypt and Syria didn't
:52:18. > :52:26.give them a load -- rosy glow, either. David Cameron failed to see
:52:26. > :52:35.eye-to-eye with Argentina President Christine Nestor Kirchner. --
:52:35. > :52:41.Krisztina de curtain-up. O-levels to be on the way back. A some Lib
:52:41. > :52:49.Dem colleagues are not happy. Simon Hughes could be in hot water.
:52:49. > :52:55.the deputy... The Foreign Secretary make clear... I won't mention to
:52:55. > :53:00.the Deputy Prime Minister his slip. It is entirely between ourselves.
:53:00. > :53:10.Andy's four walls. And all of us, but we won't tell, will we? -- and
:53:10. > :53:16.
:53:16. > :53:19.An interesting week Michael Gove. Interesting week for Michael Gove,
:53:19. > :53:22.of course - starting out the week upsetting Lord Leveson and ending
:53:22. > :53:25.it by upsetting Nick Clegg about the idea of bringing back O-levels.
:53:25. > :53:31.And another kind of Big Sam that would go with them, they used to be
:53:31. > :53:37.called CSC's. -- another kind of exam that would go with them. Toby
:53:37. > :53:40.and Matthew are still here. Michael Gove is up to something entirely
:53:41. > :53:43.different. This is a vote which began on Jeremy Hunt, it is the
:53:43. > :53:48.separation of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties, which
:53:48. > :53:53.will eventually become an actual split. There will be a lot of
:53:53. > :53:58.posturing by work -- both parties. This is the Tory party pretending
:53:58. > :54:03.it is more conservative. This proposal has no hope of becoming a
:54:03. > :54:06.practical fact. Is that true? The Lib Dems say they were not told
:54:06. > :54:11.about it. We understand the Prime Minister was not told about it
:54:11. > :54:18.either, so Mr Clegg should not feel too out of joint. Would it be good
:54:18. > :54:22.or bad to have more robust exams in our schools? I agree that this is
:54:22. > :54:26.all about the Tories differentiating. As with Leveson,
:54:26. > :54:32.this is about Michael Gove starting off his leadership campaign of the
:54:32. > :54:36.Tory party several years earlier. I take with a pinch of salt that
:54:36. > :54:40.David Cameron didn't know anything about it. Will the Lib Dems attempt
:54:40. > :54:43.to stop this happening? We will stop it happening, it is not in the
:54:43. > :54:48.coalition agreement, there is no point did, it is a political stunt.
:54:48. > :54:54.Why are you against it? The last thing we want is a major
:54:54. > :55:04.reorganisation of the educational system. And 80 s was -- the NHS one
:55:04. > :55:14.There is already available in schools but a Bach we have a two-
:55:14. > :55:17.
:55:17. > :55:22.I think all children should be held to a higher standard and we hope
:55:22. > :55:25.all our children will sit O-levels, if the change goes through. I think
:55:25. > :55:29.Nick Clegg over-reacted, I don't see why he has decided to make it a
:55:29. > :55:33.test of strength. He said, I knew absolutely nothing about this, I
:55:33. > :55:36.have been completely in the dark, but I am against it. It was almost
:55:36. > :55:40.confessing that it was a knee-jerk reaction. He didn't condemn it for
:55:40. > :55:44.the reason you have said, that it would involve too much
:55:44. > :55:47.reorganisation, he said, this is a policy for the few, not the money.
:55:48. > :55:51.Because only a few children will be able to take O-levels. But the
:55:51. > :55:56.proposal is that the vast majority of children to be able to take O-
:55:56. > :56:00.levels, as they do in Singapore. In Singapore, 80% of children should
:56:00. > :56:05.take O-levels, why should our children not be as intellectually
:56:05. > :56:13.able? We have to compete against Singapore. I think are in tile
:56:13. > :56:18.school system -- our entire school system is coasting. It is importer
:56:18. > :56:22.that we introduce more rigour into our examinations. -- important that.
:56:22. > :56:28.Bright children are not challenged enough. Our education system is
:56:28. > :56:38.biased towards the middle. It is really aimed at children who are
:56:38. > :56:40.
:56:40. > :56:45.being listed -- lifted from a D, to a C grade. O-levels were designed
:56:45. > :56:48.for a selective state secondary education system. They were
:56:48. > :56:52.introduced in 1981 with that in mind. They had to go because the
:56:52. > :56:57.comprehensive system, introduced by Labour with Tory support, made it
:56:57. > :57:01.impossible to sustain those levels of education. The GCSE was
:57:01. > :57:05.introduced to blur the fact that standards had been reduced. Unless
:57:05. > :57:11.you address that, and Michael Gove has neither the power nor intention
:57:11. > :57:14.to address it, it is all posturing. The point is that if Michael Gove
:57:14. > :57:19.was serious about doing this and getting it through the government,
:57:19. > :57:29.you don't suddenly leak it to the Daily Mail. They is no evidence
:57:29. > :57:31.
:57:31. > :57:39.that Michael Gove bleak it himself. If you want a policy to happen, you
:57:39. > :57:43.discuss it properly and you get by it. He doesn't need legislation for
:57:44. > :57:49.this? Doesn't he? Who knows? Any major change has to be agreed by
:57:49. > :57:52.the cabinet say it ain't going to happen. We have to go.
:57:52. > :57:55.There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:57:55. > :58:04.The question was: Over what crime is the European Commission taking
:58:04. > :58:13.Britain to court? Answer: it's the garlic. Apparently it's left a bad
:58:13. > :58:17.taste in the mouth. Remind me how you will stop this. The garlic?
:58:17. > :58:22.change in the exam system if it doesn't need a bill. The edge it
:58:22. > :58:30.Asian department will always oblige. No cabinet and -- the education
:58:30. > :58:40.department will always oblige. cabinet minister can go off on his
:58:40. > :58:47.
:58:47. > :58:50.own back and do something like that. The One O'clock News is starting
:58:50. > :58:53.over on BBC One now. I'll be back on BBC One on Sunday with the
:58:53. > :58:56.Sunday Politics at 11:00, with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury,