22/06/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/06/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics. The last Labour


Government got it wrong on immigration says Ed Miliband. But


in practical terms, what would he do about it if he came to power?


Are the row about Jimmy Carr's tax affairs is still deafening everyone


at Westminster. Can a satirist survive a dose of his own medicine?


Nick Clegg is still in Rio. There is an Earth Summit going on but


have the claims of the environment effectively been mugged by grim


economic reality? And have social media sites given


political voice to these young mothers in the Midlands?


All that in the next hour. With us for the duration, newspaper


columnist and chairman of the Social Market Foundation think-tank,


who was on this week with the last night, Mary Ann Sieghart. And the


titan of the Mail on Sunday, that's what it says here, and he gave me a


tenner if I said I would say it, Peter Hitchens. First, the banks


are on the news. Late last night, one of the international rating


agencies, Moody's, downgraded a whole range of banks including


British banks such as Barclays, HSBC and the Royal Bank of Scotland.


This matters because the ratings they get can influence how much it


costs them to borrow a on the wholesale markets, when they borrow


from each other. If they have to pay more, they will pass extra


costs on to their customers. These customers are you and me. I guess


this was inevitable. It was inevitable. We have been expecting


it for months. As banks and the Eurozone get more and more dodgy,


British banks' exposure to them becomes more worrying. We are not


very exposed to Greek banks but we are to Spanish and Italian ones. It


does make a difference. It makes a difference to you and me. It sounds


abstract but if their pay more for their money, but when they lend it


to last, they will charge just more. And we have lent to French and


German banks to are exposed. There is a domino effect for a start


people wonder why -- domino effect. People wonder why. The rate that


the banks pay are rising and rising. I do not understand the point of


the rating agencies. They failed to predict or warn against the crash


itself. And now they seem to be scrabbling around trying to make


out that they know what is going on and doing harm in the process. Who


will benefit? I wish they were shut up. They are not inaccurate to


downgrade. I think they are right to downgrade. They failed before


the credit crunch but we have nothing to put in their place.


Investors need some form of writing the bonds that they want to buy. If


you will be allowed to invest in Triple A bonds, where the borrower


is guaranteed to pay you back, then you need to know what the credit


worthiness is of the borrower. they are a reliable, objective


source of information or are they trying to overcompensate for


previous failings? They do not actually make the market, they tend


to follow the market. This ratings agency is now catching up with what


most people have already known. The wider picture, Peter, which seems


incapable of resolution for a less miracles happen at the EU summit


next week, is that it just seems that the inability to sort the


Eurozone is now a constant track on the world economy including the


British economy. -- drag. wonder if this is not comparable to


the months before Britain pulled out of the ERM. Everyone said that


if we left, it would be a disaster and in fact it was not. The end of


the Eurozone and the end of the single currency cannot come soon


enough for the sake of the country. Since the whole thing seemed from


the start, and I have climbed from the beginning to have been against


it, on sound economic and political grounds, from the start it was


wrong, so why might it be possible that getting rid of it will


actually be the stimulant that the European economies need? If we're


going to get into competitive opposition, I was against it from


the start at as well. A felt so strongly about the economics of it.


I thought it was bound to go wrong and it has. At the time, people


said that if you include what countries are involved, it is not


what is described as a optimal area. It turns out that the country's


beginning with the name -- letter A them were more viable. The if it


was confined to Germany, Scandinavia, maybe France, it could


retrench to that. Possibly, but you need to have pretty strong


political and fiscal union even to make that work. You have to


persuade German voters that they should subsidise the poorer parts


of France, say, forever. And they do not have the same communality


that we in the south-east have with people in the north-east.


problem is that Germany is benefiting from the Euro because it


is a substantial devaluation of the Deutschmark. That is why they cling


on to it. Under any circumstances, they would get out of it. It is


time for our daily quiz. Britain is in trouble with Brussels again. Our


question for today, why is the European Commission taking Britain


to court this time? Is its failure to manufacture Cornish pasties in


to manufacture Cornish pasties in Cornwall, too much bacteria in


British cheese, the price of strawberries at Wimbledon or


strawberries at Wimbledon or failure to pay enough tax on


imports of garlic? Difficult questions. Tougher than Guess The


Year. At the end of the show, we will have a wild stab at the answer.


Do you have any idea? I do. That what -- that is what happens when


you have bright people on the programme. Politicians do not often


met -- admit they got it wrong. When they do, it is big news. Ed


Miliband today says that Labour got it wrong when in government on the


issue of immigration. He said that voters to raise concerns about


issues of immigration are not begets after all. In 2010, Gordon


Brown famously described Gillian Duffy, a pensioner from Rochdale,


as a bigot after she raised the issue of immigration with him. What


is the background to this? Under Labour, immigration sword. Official


Labour, immigration sword. Official figures showed that net migration


from 1997 and 2010 was 2.5 million. That is the official figure.


Unofficially, it could be bigger. The coalition has committed to


bringing immigration down to tens of thousands. But latest figures


show that in the first year of the coalition, net migration was still


250,000. The vast number of those came to the UK to study. Ed


Miliband's ideas include keeping a place conditional controls on


migration for a new EU countries such as Croatia. Labour did not do


that when in power. A crackdown on recruitment agencies that advertise


for immigrant workers. You would think that would be illegal. And an


early warning system if some industries are employing


disproportionately large numbers of foreign workers. That would be


interesting to monitor. And more action such as heavier fines on


employers to undercut the minimum employers to undercut the minimum


wage. Here is what he had to say this morning. Why did we not listen


more? I think by the end of our time in office, we were too dazzled


and sanguine about globalisation, too sanguine about the impact of


globalisation and migration or economic growth. We lost sight of


who was benefiting from that growth. Whose living standards were being


squeezed. And to those who lost out, we were too quick to say "Like it


or lump it." The truth is, the public were ahead of us in seeing


some of the problems of migration. They were seeing them in their own


communities. The shadow Immigration Minister, Chris Bryant, is with us.


When did you realise that Labour got it wrong? I remember when that


Gillian Duffy thing happened in the general lection. I thought, you


know what, she looks remarkably like a lot of my constituents, who


have had concerns about immigration for a long time. In particular,


they came to me and said "My son has just got a job in Gloucester


and it is great but after five weeks, suddenly the employers


decided to get rid of the British workers and bring in a Contractor


from Poland and undercut their wages." That is when it came to hit


home. That is why ever since I have had this job, I have been saying


that I think it is really important that we got two things wrong in


government. First of all, we went it alone. We and Ireland were the


only countries in Europe who decided that anyone could come and


work here from the first day of joining the European Union. That


was a mistake. A you were warned at the time. And we got it wrong. Ed


Miliband said in his speech that we were in a sense that dazzled by the


global economy. We wanted to be able to do well in it. -- bedazzled.


If you wanted to have a conservatory built on your house,


it was good because it meant that it was cheaper but it was not so


good if you were the kind of person that built in eight -- work in a


company that build conservatories. What was the second thing? We left


it too late before we introduced a point based system, which would


have meant that people coming into this country were only the people


who could actively contribute to society. That meant in particular


for a lot of British people, including people who came to the


country 20 years ago or whose parents came 30 years ago, it meant


that if they were close to the national minimum-wage, their wages


were undercut. When Michael Howard propose the point based system in


the 2005 election, Labour excoriated them. We got it wrong.


It is quite a big mistake. It is. That is why Ed Miliband, and I'm


sure this will not be the last speech he will make about


immigration. Thus the first time I have heard of a continued dialogue.


It is a mistake to see immigration as standing on its own. For many,


it is also about the welfare state and housing and public services and


the economy. If you got it wrong on those two things, does that mean


that if you add up these mistakes, that there are too many foreigners


in Britain? It stands to logic the defiance saying that we should have


introduced proper Kurds when the new countries join the European


Union and that we should have introduced a point based system,


that I am of course saying that too many people came in when we were in


power. What you make of this mea culpa? I think it is probably


sensible. -- what do you make. There are a properly looked at the


opinion polls and seen that the two reasons why Labour voters deserted


the party at the last election were immigration and welfare. The two


are often combined and belabour probably have to do this to get


themselves re-elected. A row of it a pamphlet about this after the


general election because I felt very strongly that particularly in


areas like mine, it is not about opinion polls. You do not need


opinion polls to tell you this, you just have to knock on doors. It was


one of the issues that came back time and time again. That is not to


say that places like La Rhondda, which grew on the back of


immigration from Italy and Ireland, do not recognise that welcoming


foreigners is a strong British principle. It has happened very


fast and change the nature. And the numbers were huge. -- changed the


nature. You will hear the sound of the barn door closing as the horse


has bolted. I find most objectionable about this is that,


having been showered with buckets of slime and hose down with abuse


from people from the left for saying exactly this for 15 years, I


now have to sit and listen to these people try to get political credit


for agreeing with me. The Labour Party is a party full trendies who


love to have cheap waiters and cheap servants and all the things


they benefit from, but it also relies on the votes of people who


actually do not benefit from immigration. They have discovered


that if they are going to get back into office, they will have to


grovel to them. The damage has already done. You have not admitted


the other thing. Andrew Neather admitted this in the Evening


Standard some years ago, that this was a deliberate policy to


transform the country. He meant it to be so. You have done it now.


There is no point saying that we're sorry we did that. You're not sorry


at all. You are sorry that it has cost to popularity. Over to you!


Bucket of slime is one of Peter's absolute favourite phrases. He used


it six times on Question Time the other day ago. -- other week ago.


It is a bit of an irony when someone who writes for the Daily


Mail start complaining about buckets of Slyne being poured over


people. -- buckets of slime. There is no point arguing. It is true


that many migrants to this country have dramatically assisted our


economy. They have become major employers, they have been


entrepreneurs, they have won Nobel prizes. So what is your problem?


should have been making sure that the people who could add value to


the country came in and not everybody else. If you look at the


health service, there are many migrants working there. You want to


have your cake and eat it. Why do a. You want to say that immigrants are


wonderful. You are in favour of beating cake and in favour of cake.


What is the point of cake without eating it? You look at it and think,


if I don't eat it, I will be healthier. You think immigrants are


wonderful but we have too many? That is a logical. I think you


ought to be drawing a distinction. -- illogical. I do not think it's a


great idea to have mass migration of people with no skills into this


country. I think it is a good thing to have British universities having


lots of foreign students coming to this country, studying, going back


to their own country and then having a strong desire to do trade


You accepted when Andrew asked to whether there were too many people


in the country, you accepted and that their world. I am not saying


there are too many people in the country. You're not saying that?


Too many foreign people? I was asked a specific question which was,


during the people we talked about, did we get it wrong? What I am


saying is, look, we have already said, we should have had proper


restraints on the number of people coming in... You clearly accepted


the point. I think you are backing away from it. Because you know what


is coming next, if there is too many foreign people in the country,


what are you going to do about it? I am not saying there are too many


foreign people in this country. are not? You did earlier. I said


too many migrants came initial period of time into this country


and we should have done a better job. And they are still here,


obviously. They are not all here. According to the ONS, the


population of Britain has risen by 3 million because of labour


migration policy, that is a lot of people. And Andrew... It may be


good or bad but it is a lot. A lot of the migrants that come to this


country every year our students who come to do three-year courses. I


think it is good for the British economy. Those people all go back.


A well, they don't all go back. vast majority. It is a way into


this country as well. No. There are no rights guaranteed. Some people


came to train as doctors and then... I wonder what you are going to do


about it. In some ways it is refreshing you are saying you got


it wrong but I can't see anything you're proposing will make a


difference other than to the margin. You are still proposing a cap on


immigration? There isn't a cap now. You oppose any controls on student


We think the government was absolutely right to say we would


tackle the issue of fake colleges and that is another thing we should


have done when we were in office. Do you think the government is


right... It has shown no success in doing this so far but it is early


days. Do you think the Government is right to be aiming to get net


migration down to the tens of thousands. I don't think it stands


a chance of doing it. My concern about the particular target of a


net migration, which is the difference between those coming in


and going out, but the best way of dealing with it is to try to


persuade people to leave the country. There is a danger that you


would do things that could be very damaging for the economy. The bit I


think has been always left out of this argument, by people like Peter


and those on the right of British politics, is the element about what


it does to local workforces. That is the bit where I think there is


far more we can do, about making sure that you can't just say


everybody we want to employ in this company, even though it is a


company that serves Morrisons, or ASDA or were there, has got to be


able to speak Polish. It would be good if they would all speak


English. There are things you can do about making sure the minimum


wage is possible -- properly enforced. Whenever you hear the


word crack down, it is phoney. It means nothing will happen. We are


not the government. If you were in office, it would just be another of


those eye-catching policies with which the Prime Minister could be


personally associated and nothing would happen. You want to have the


votes of people whose opinions you secretly despise. No, no, sorry.


The bit I object to about that, my constituents have been expressing


these used to make, I have put them very clearly and I think it is


right that we have policies at the next general election that address


these issues. Which will amount to nothing in practice. Your cynicism


is a beauty to behold. It is experience. I have heard of before.


The big challenge is to come up with policies that can convince


people... Absolutely, that will it -- this is only the first part.


will put that for another day. coming back!


You might use a mobile phone to pay your bills, catch up on the


television or make sure you have take a whole week's worth of The


Daily Politics and Sunday Politics. But have you ever used it to


organise a political campaign, save a local hospital or plant trees in


a park? It seems that some people, including many who never thought


they had a scintilla of interest in politics, are doing just that. We


sent Kate Conway to Nottingham to meet some.


Women used to talk politics here, on the stoop, hanging out the


washing. Over the fence. It is tempting to think that all of that


has disappeared. But here in Retford, working-class women are


doing garden wall politics, but they are doing it on line, on their


mobile phone, and changing the way local services are run. When Adele


Mumby found out there were plans to change the local maternity unit,


she decided to do something about it. Having six children and being a


mother, understanding what it meant and implications that that had, it


got to me and I thought I have to do something about this. I


contacted a local councillor, Graeme Oxby, and I contacted John


Mann, and I said I have got some information. But it wasn't enough.


My 10-year-old daughter's set it up there, as -- because I have no idea


how to use Facebook or a phone. Within 10 minutes, there were 32


members. Within an hour, it grew and grew. From text messages and


Facebook, a campaign was born. And the local Labour MP, John Mann,


says it is those very tools that social media has created a new type


of voter. They haven't been engaged with politics. Here we are suddenly


finding that non-voters, the so- called alleged apathetic, right in


the middle of big politics, serious politics, changing things. I got


two tonnes of soil delivered free of charge, railway sleepers. I got


health and safety down here, the teenage lads designed it and built


it. It is spot on. While the government may be planning a new


force of 5,000 community organisers around the country, Lorna tells me


she doesn't think they need outside help. The community is something


that might interest people, but at the same time, we are doing it


ourselves, we don't need somebody to be told you are in charge of the


community, we are the community. They are not taking their cue from


politicians, it is at the other way around. Would you ever read the


tweets of John Mann or any other MP? No, I don't read tweets. Never.


Which doesn't surprise this expecting political communications.


It is about having an ongoing dialogue with the community, as


opposed to blasting out a press release. It is about using these


tools to find issues that people in the local community care about, and


work out a way in which they as a politician and a leader can make a


change in the community. For the Labour MP, John Mann, it is another


way of winning. If we get those people partnering with us, we win


an election. We will win an election by a significant majority.


We are back in power. And if we trust those people and we transfer


some real power to them, on their agendas, on their priorities, on


their terms, I think we could be in power for a long time.


Luke Bozier used to be Labour's e- campaigns campaigns -- e-campaigns


manager, he is now working for the Tories, launching a political rival


to Twitter. Have these social media sides have a negative or positive


effect? Absolutely positive. Politicians used to exist in a bit


of a vacuum and the only time they would hear the voices of those they


claim to represent his when they were back in their constituencies.


A politician could only see a few handfuls of people every week.


Twitter and Facebook, if a politician is into those networks,


they get instant feedback. The work that they do, the things they say,


they instantly get opinions from the public. That has a massive


impact on politics. It has been a benefit to our democracy? Maybe it


has. It seems to me the old- fashioned methods worked just as


well. In my home town of Oxford, we had a campaign to save the public


libraries. It used all kinds of old-fashioned things like people


ringing each other up, the newspapers getting involved and a


fantastic, thrilling public meeting addressed by Philip Pullman. At the


end of it we saved the public libraries. I do remember a single


click of Facebook page on the whole thing. You are not on Twitter, are


you? Were you looking? How would you know. I am on Facebook, there


is a Peter Hitchens must die on Facebook. We are all on that.


I don't know why you have to restrict yourself to 27 words or


whatever it is. I can't see the point. Other people are welcome to


it. They are no substitute... I think you need both. Twitter is


one tool, it gives a lot of people a voice. Facebook is good for


organising, e-mail is good for campaign and fund-raising. You also


need the real stuff as well. Where we have seen digital impact


elections, for example in 2008 with Obama, they used digital with the


real old stuff. That is positive. They used the internet to raise


money. They did, they raised a fortune and it is good for that.


They raised millions in very small donations. Twitter has changed the


new cycle, even more. It has speeded it up even more. I rely on


Twitter for my news feed now. I don't have to go to the BBC News


website or to the Press Association to see what is going on. I look on


Twitter and it is fantastic. It is more than 140 characters because


people linked to a much more interesting Web page. It is a left-


wing electronic mob. It is not left wing, for goodness sake. It is


overwhelmingly left wing. How do you know? Because I am abused on it.


We are all abused on it. There is a mob searching backwards and


forwards. It has as many views as the people who use it. During the


Budget, even before the Chancellor sat down, hashtag granny tax had


come up. And pasty tax. suddenly it runs. Whereas the


politicians themselves are not great at using it. More than half


of MPs have Twitter. At the end of the England Ukraine match, Ed


Miliband, or somebody else to write it for him, says, great result for


England, credit to all the players. It is so banal, it could have been


him. I am sure the England team work over the moon. Were Ian Haig's


tweets are pretty pathetic. Some MPs are great on Twitter. Tom


Watson, Chris Bryant, Stella Creasy, Louise Minchin. Your newspaper it


increasingly runs quotes based on stories from Twitter. I thought


blogging seemed to be perfectly sensible. I thought Britain was a


step too far. I think you have to select the bits of the electronic


revolution that work for you. I think Facebook is already fading


ever think Twitter will be forgotten in five years. Mention


.com is the new one, I hope we can mention -- welcome you on that.


What is the difference between your website and Twitter? It is a niche


complement to Twitter, for people's interested in specific topics. At


In you can get 180 characters. Maybe you can sign up Peter? Toyota


is a great discipline for try and get things done concisely --


Twitter is. It is. You don't have to work for weeks to build up a


following list, once you join you have that. The focus on the topics


that interest you. Thank you for being with us.


The first Earth Summit in 20 years has been taking place in Rio this


week and ends today. The aim is to end sustainable -- reach


sustainable development goals with targets for production and


consumption. The Prince of Wales warned the gathering of the danger


We are facing increasing challenges. I have watched in despair at her


slow progress has sometimes been and how the outright sceptical


reluctance by some to engage with the critical issues of our day have


often slowed that process to a standstill. The Prime Minister


dispatched his deputy to the diplomatic jungle. There he is.


Looking for Michael Gove. He was pessimistic about the chances of


success. When you're dealing with 190 countries are bound -- around


the negotiating table, you have a problem. UN de diluting things so


that everybody agrees and the end result is more insipid than you


would like. -- you end up. As the attempt to challenge climate change


been lost in the misery of the global downturn? James Delingpole -


- James Delingpole is the author of a book about how environmentalists


are killing the earth. Let us come to friends of the Earth. Is the


harsh reality, the undeniable truth not that apart from Prince Charles,


in an age of austerity and uncertainty, people care less about


the environment and more about where the jobs are coming from?


do not think that is true. I do not think that is the case. Poll after


poll shows that in the centre ground of politics, there is a lot


of concern, almost as much as there was. Mr Obama and Mr Cameron could


not be bothered to go. They're only sent Mr Clegg. The problem for Mr


Cameron is that there is a drag out to the right in the Conservative


Party with the debate is getting caught up. That means it will be


difficult for him because this is an important centrist issue. But if


he has pulled out to the right, fearing to lose voters from UKIP,


then... Mr Obama, 80 thought this mattered in the November election,


he would have gone. -- if he thought. It is very polarised in


the US. In the UK, fascinatingly, while our economy has flatlined,


the green sectors within the economy, including energy and also


recycling and waste disposal, have grown by around about 5%. They are


trend bucking sectors. Just because the economy is doing badly is no


reason to turn our backs on saving the planet? I'm sorry you had to


invoke the subject of green jobs because green jobs killed jobs in


the real economy. Green jobs only exists because of taxpayer subsidy.


We see this in the windfarm industry, onshore or whinge farms -


- onshore wind farms operate on a 100% subsidy. Offshore wind farms


operate on a 200% subsidy. These are not real jobs. I think it is


time that we judge to the environmental movement on what it


has actually achieved. What it has done is really quite serious harm.


We have seen rain forests chop down to grow palm oil to create biofuels.


We have had agricultural land diverted to biofuels, causing


starvation and poverty. We have windfarms blighting the landscape,


chopping up birds and killing bats. The environmental movement has


damaged the global economy. Globally, over the last three years,


more investor money has gone into renewable technologies than into


conventional energy sources. I do not think investors share your view.


Much of that is government money. lot of that is from the private


sector. But subsidised. There is a subsidy in the system for renewable


technologies. It is coming down dramatically as costs fall globally


in solar by 75% in the past five years. There is promise and


investors disagree. The tragedy of the situation in the UK is that


blowing hot and cold, flood flopping on green as the coalition


is doing, is killing investor confidence, which means that people


will not put money into the economy. David Cameron was pictured with


huskies, talking about selling -- installing a wind turbine in


Downing Street, now he does not even go to the Rio summit. It


cannot be denied that priorities have changed. He was in Mexico. He


could have gone down. They were clashing, the G20 and real. -- real.


Mr Clegg is still there. A correct me if I'm wrong, do not think he


has made a speech on the Environment says he has become


Prime Minister. I think there is a feeling that being green is a


luxury you can afford during good times and not during bad times.


Nick Clegg goes halfway round the world to the summit but he is only


quoted on his reaction to Michael Gove's plans for all levels. What


was interesting is how that time the BBC, which has been taken over


by fanatics, has devoted to it. It is observable truth. The BBC does


not believe it has any business to be impartial. That is why we have


James on. Our eye and the exception that proves the rule. And you, for


that matter. -- I am the exception. Having people on is not the same as


having a general bias in favour of certain things. It has not bothered


us because the cult is visibly dying. Fewer and fewer people


believe in the science of man-made global warning. It is how they will


get out of it, when it has eventually become so obvious that


the thing was a cult and a scam. How will they get out of it?


there is a fact, if he would shut up for a minute. Hang on a minute,


I didn't come here to keep quiet. To keep quiet for the next few


minutes. There is evidence that people do not worry about it so


much. They do not worry about it and they do not think it is as


important. They think scare stories were told. One of the fact, and I


will put it like that to find out if it is true, is that people like


James say that actually temperatures have not risen in this


century and so we are right not to be worried about it so much. What


say you? 1998 is the base year for that statement. 1998 is


statistically an outlier year. It was a big bulge. If you look at the


Trent, which any serious statistician will do overtime, it


is consistently up. Some of the warmest years of light -- in record


have been in the last 20 years or so. Have temperatures continue to


rise? Yes. In fact, NASA put 2005 in its state above 1998. Professor


Phil Jones of the climatic Research Unit, you could not get more


warmest than that man, he has said there is no statistical warming


trend since 1995. If it has increased a tall, it is so tiny as


to make no difference. I will send you the Graf later. But this


matters. If people feel the temperatures are not rising, they


are unlikely to follow the green agenda when it comes to global


warming. I saw an interesting poll yesterday conducted by Ipsos MORI.


Do you know who people trust most on this issue? They trust the


scientists. 66% are people trust scientists and only 9% Trust


journalists. You know most of the people who talk on this subject,


they are not scientists. Even on the global warming sight, they are


mainly lobbyists. Are you a scientist? I am not. My case rests.


If I can finish. Of course. vast majority of physicists and


scientists say that global warming is accelerating. Even a of global


warming is not happening, and I'm not a scientist and a warm-up line


on this, surely it makes sense to use more sources of energy that


will not run out and fewer sources of energy that will run out? Or oil


and coal will eventually run out of the Sun will not stop shining. What


is the problem? One. About scientists. Scientists questions --


scientific questions are not decided by majority, they are


defined by results. That is meaningless. There is an energy


crisis here. In a few years' time we will not have enough electricity


to run the sort of economy that we have, particularly the heavy


electronic economy we have become. There is an urgent need to provide


reliable power and wind power and solar power will not and cannot do


it. One of the things, on this matter you cannot laugh at this


movement, because they are preventing serious consideration.


We have loads of shale gas. And we will do another debate on that


another day. I would like to say before you go, if you could both


block on this issue, off what has been happening to temperatures over


the past 15 years, if we could take you Bloggs and put them on the


Daily Politics website, let us get a debate going. I think it is one


of the key issues that is determining people's attitudes.


would be delighted. Earlier this week, we thought that came to was


the second highest mountain on earth. It delays. Since then, we


have discovered that it is not a pile of rocks in the Himalayas, it


is Jimmy Carr's money in Jersey. Apparently it is a kind of


Investment Trust which allowed the comedian to avoid the kind of


income tax that the rest of us get lumbered with. Where was my


accountant when I needed him? David Cameron described this legal


behaviour as "Morally unacceptable." Yesterday, the Jimmy


Carr did the fastest climb down in history, pulling out of the scheme


and apologising. He had to apologise on Twitter. In the House


of Commons, Labour pointed out a lack of even-handedness in the


Government's combination. -- condemnation. The depth to Prime


Minister rushed to the TV studios to condemn the tax-avoidance scheme


used by Jimmy Carr. -- Deputy Prime Minister. Oddly, he did not condemn


as morally repugnant the tax- avoidance scheme are used by


Conservative supporter, Gary Barlow, who has given a whole new meaning


to the phrase, Take That. If it is also morally repugnant, why has he


just been given a OBE in the birthday Honours? Why is the Prime


Minister's view of what is dodgy in the tax system are so partial.


Philip green as interesting tax relationships but far from being


labelled morally repugnant, he is heading up a government review.


While the Prime Minister talks are talking TV studios, the reality is


that his government is cutting HMRC Resources, making it much harder to


tackle tax avoidance schemes. In the botched Budget, his government


has given every millionaire a legal way to reduce their tax bill by


cutting tax for the rich as 1%. There are a number of measures that


we are introducing. The anti- avoidance rule measures to make


sure that at least some tax is paid by those on high incomes. The


Chancellor will be at the dispatch box on Tuesday to answer questions.


Last night, Jimmy Carr was recording his Channel 4 programme,


8 Out of 10 Cats, which airs tonight. The 8 Out of 10 Cats pay


their taxes, apparently. The fellow comedians did not let him off the


hook, badly. Toby Young and Matthew buckshot are with us. -- Matthew


Oakeshott. A should satirists to be sent to a higher standards than


others? Jimmy Carr had let himself wide open by doing a sketch on one


of his shows attacking Barclays Bank for using exactly the kind of


tax avoidance scheme but he was using himself. Game set and match?


The difference to bring Gary Barlow and Jimmy Carr is that they are


both guilty of tax avoidance but Jimmy Carr is also guilty of the


son of hypocrisy. Not only did he write that sketch where he took the


mickey out of Barclays for trying to do exactly what he has tried to


do, but he also banks at Barclays, it now turns out. Really?! You


cannot be guilty of tax avoidance if that is not illegal. No. You can


be morally guilty. That is different. I think satirists are


held to a higher standard and should be. The point of satire,


dating back to the Greeks, was for the little man to tilt at the


titans of the Establishment. To make him feel better about the fact


that he himself earns very little. It is to comfort the afflicted and


afflict the comfortable. The problem is that this tone that many


of these left-wing comedians take is very much at odds with their own


riches. It turns out that Jimmy Carr is not a little man at all, he


is actually a fully paid-up member of the ruling class. He bought his


house in north London for �8.5 million in cash. He paid cash!


was a loan from his company, don't forget. Is it possible, taking the


figure of Armando Ianucci now. He has made a career out of satirising


the establishment and now takes an will be. Does that undermine him?


don't know. I see what you mean about the court jesters. I think of


Jimmy Carr, his problem is he did not give �50 to the Tories. Then


David Cameron would not have objected. Like Mr Brown giving �2.5


million to the Lib Dems. I do not offend that either. There is a


difference, a serious point here. There is a difference a dream


morally repugnant and illegal. I think it is right to draw that


distinction. The key point for David Cameron and George Osborne is,


what will we do about it now? How do we make this behaviour legally


repugnant as well. Three it is such a huge loophole. Why not close it?


That is what I'm saying. Let us just ask, a lot of this activity is


deeply damaging to the country. We need the money. It is also deeply


unfair. It is not technically illegal because the advisers to


these people are far, far better Who needs the money? What is this


morality staff? Why is it Betty -- better for me or anybody else to


give money that they have learnt to a government, which will throw it


away on such things as wind farm subsidies, police who never go out,


schools which apparently teach people to be more ignorant. The


whole point about tax avoidance... If all the police in this country


were abducted by aliens tonight, most people wouldn't notice. What


do they do? What about the schools you send your children to? As a


matter of fact, the schools are so bad, they would be better off being


kept at home. Tax avoidance by definition it is legal. You tell me


the point at which it becomes immoral. Do you agree? I want to


make the same point from a slightly different angle. If there is this


important distinction between what you are morally obliged to play and


what you are legally obliged to play, the maximum amount you are


allowed to pay under the law shouldn't be the ceiling. If you


believe in higher taxation, you are morally obliged to pay more tax


than you are legally allowed to under the current system. If you


think the highest rate of tax should be higher, you should


actually donate money to HMRC, in addition to the maximum amount. The


tizz an interesting idea but totally unrealistic. -- it is an


interesting idea. I am happy to pay more tax and I would like to make


more tax. But I -- to pay more tax. But only if that is part of


everybody having to. So you want me to pay more tax? I want everybody


to pay more tax but I also wanted to be fair. We are drifting right


of the main point, which is no one can say what the line is between


morally repugnant and not. There are some things that are the wrong


side of the line. What Jimmy Carr did is the wrong side of the line,


as well as many other people who David Cameron is not prepared to


condemn, very selective condemnation. That is what we have


got to do. The biggest scandal of them all his non-dom status. A one


to ask Toby, do you have any objections to Jimmy Carr paying


only 1% tax? No, no one is morally obliged to pay more than they are


legally required to. Your admirably run a new free school, who is going


to fund that if we will pay 1% tax? I don't think he is morally at


fault, I think you have to simplify the tax code, which is what the


Chancellor tried to do in his last Budget. And failed. You don't think


it is anti-social to pay 1% tax? You need to simplify the tax code


and close some of the loopholes. I don't think he is morally at fault.


Have you never used a tax avoidance scheme? You don't even put money


into an ISA? I am best in my pension but it is not using a tax


avoidance scheme. It is available to everybody. So is this. This is


not available to everybody. This is only available to people who have


very expensive advisers. You can only put money into an ISA if you


have the savings in the first place and many people watching this have


no savings. You never advise your clients to go into tax-avoidance


schemes? No, I advise pension funds and charities who are tax free


anyway, actually. It is an important point. I pay my pension


fund contributions, have stopped because I and 65 but I get the same


tax breaks as everybody else. This is different because this is a


secret scheme, until exposed by the Thames, which most people didn't


know about and is very expensive. People who can't afford to pay into


a pension can't take advantage of Doing some things to mitigate your


tax is one thing. Being a multi- millionaire and only paying 1% of


your tax is surely wrong. I find it really odd that you don't see


anything wrong in paying 1% tax. Using these artificial schemes to


dodge tax. If I were legally able to pay as little tax, and I


challenge anyone to say sincerely that they feel different, if you


were legally able to pay as little tax as Jimmy Carr did, you would


take the opportunity. I would not. I could do that and I don't. I


could buy one of these schemes, and I don't. I choose not to because I


think it is grossly wrong and it should be illegal. We are going to


move on. The end of another week here at Westminster.


Even though they are travelling on for Britain. With David Cameron in


Mexico and Nick Clegg in Brazil. Being a world leader isn't easy,


especially when you have got to go to G20 summits in... Sunny Mexico.


Greece turned the head honchos pale, and Spain, Egypt and Syria didn't


give them a load -- rosy glow, either. David Cameron failed to see


eye-to-eye with Argentina President Christine Nestor Kirchner. --


Krisztina de curtain-up. O-levels to be on the way back. A some Lib


Dem colleagues are not happy. Simon Hughes could be in hot water.


the deputy... The Foreign Secretary make clear... I won't mention to


the Deputy Prime Minister his slip. It is entirely between ourselves.


Andy's four walls. And all of us, but we won't tell, will we? -- and


An interesting week Michael Gove. Interesting week for Michael Gove,


of course - starting out the week upsetting Lord Leveson and ending


it by upsetting Nick Clegg about the idea of bringing back O-levels.


And another kind of Big Sam that would go with them, they used to be


called CSC's. -- another kind of exam that would go with them. Toby


and Matthew are still here. Michael Gove is up to something entirely


different. This is a vote which began on Jeremy Hunt, it is the


separation of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties, which


will eventually become an actual split. There will be a lot of


posturing by work -- both parties. This is the Tory party pretending


it is more conservative. This proposal has no hope of becoming a


practical fact. Is that true? The Lib Dems say they were not told


about it. We understand the Prime Minister was not told about it


either, so Mr Clegg should not feel too out of joint. Would it be good


or bad to have more robust exams in our schools? I agree that this is


all about the Tories differentiating. As with Leveson,


this is about Michael Gove starting off his leadership campaign of the


Tory party several years earlier. I take with a pinch of salt that


David Cameron didn't know anything about it. Will the Lib Dems attempt


to stop this happening? We will stop it happening, it is not in the


coalition agreement, there is no point did, it is a political stunt.


Why are you against it? The last thing we want is a major


reorganisation of the educational system. And 80 s was -- the NHS one


There is already available in schools but a Bach we have a two-


I think all children should be held to a higher standard and we hope


all our children will sit O-levels, if the change goes through. I think


Nick Clegg over-reacted, I don't see why he has decided to make it a


test of strength. He said, I knew absolutely nothing about this, I


have been completely in the dark, but I am against it. It was almost


confessing that it was a knee-jerk reaction. He didn't condemn it for


the reason you have said, that it would involve too much


reorganisation, he said, this is a policy for the few, not the money.


Because only a few children will be able to take O-levels. But the


proposal is that the vast majority of children to be able to take O-


levels, as they do in Singapore. In Singapore, 80% of children should


take O-levels, why should our children not be as intellectually


able? We have to compete against Singapore. I think are in tile


school system -- our entire school system is coasting. It is importer


that we introduce more rigour into our examinations. -- important that.


Bright children are not challenged enough. Our education system is


biased towards the middle. It is really aimed at children who are


being listed -- lifted from a D, to a C grade. O-levels were designed


for a selective state secondary education system. They were


introduced in 1981 with that in mind. They had to go because the


comprehensive system, introduced by Labour with Tory support, made it


impossible to sustain those levels of education. The GCSE was


introduced to blur the fact that standards had been reduced. Unless


you address that, and Michael Gove has neither the power nor intention


to address it, it is all posturing. The point is that if Michael Gove


was serious about doing this and getting it through the government,


you don't suddenly leak it to the Daily Mail. They is no evidence


that Michael Gove bleak it himself. If you want a policy to happen, you


discuss it properly and you get by it. He doesn't need legislation for


this? Doesn't he? Who knows? Any major change has to be agreed by


the cabinet say it ain't going to happen. We have to go.


There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.


The question was: Over what crime is the European Commission taking


Britain to court? Answer: it's the garlic. Apparently it's left a bad


taste in the mouth. Remind me how you will stop this. The garlic?


change in the exam system if it doesn't need a bill. The edge it


Asian department will always oblige. No cabinet and -- the education


department will always oblige. cabinet minister can go off on his


own back and do something like that. The One O'clock News is starting


over on BBC One now. I'll be back on BBC One on Sunday with the


Sunday Politics at 11:00, with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury,


Download Subtitles