:00:54. > :00:57.Good morning. Welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:57. > :01:00.So England are out of the football and the pain that is Wimbledon is
:01:00. > :01:03.about to begin. Oh, well. At least its stopped raining! On the
:01:03. > :01:05.programme this morning: David Cameron sets out huge changes to
:01:05. > :01:09.the welfare system. The under-25s may lose their housing benefit
:01:09. > :01:11.under a future Tory Government in a bid to end what he calls the
:01:11. > :01:14."something for nothing culture of entitlement". Have you ever
:01:14. > :01:17.wondered what a Central Bank actually does? We go behind the
:01:17. > :01:19.scenes at the Bank of England. And do you grind your teeth when you
:01:19. > :01:22.hear about things being "accessed", "catalysed", "showcased" or
:01:22. > :01:27."impacted"? We meet the minister who has declared war on pointless
:01:27. > :01:30.buzz-words. All that in the next half hour. And with us for the
:01:30. > :01:33.whole programme today is Dr Deanne Julius, the American economist and
:01:33. > :01:35.former member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee,
:01:35. > :01:45.who is now the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs think-tank Chatham
:01:45. > :01:48.House. Welcome to the programme. Let's start with Scotland, where
:01:48. > :01:50.the "Better Together" campaign is being launched as we speak with the
:01:50. > :01:57.former Chancellor, Alistair Darling, saying that Scotland will be
:01:58. > :02:03.stronger if they retain the union. I hope that as somebody who feels
:02:03. > :02:07.passionately about the future of the country in which I have lived
:02:07. > :02:11.many years, is that I can encourage them to stay in the United Kingdom
:02:11. > :02:17.because of the strength it brings us at home and because of the
:02:17. > :02:20.influence it gives us abroad. Alistair Darling. How should he go
:02:20. > :02:25.about persuading his fellow countrymen in Scotland that the
:02:25. > :02:28.union is the best way forward? think he should focus on the
:02:28. > :02:34.economics case. The identity politics could be strong, but the
:02:34. > :02:38.economic case is clear-cut. That Scotland will be disadvantaged.
:02:38. > :02:42.Devolution means devolving assets and liabilities. In the case of
:02:42. > :02:45.Britain our debt is actually high these days, thanks to the financial
:02:45. > :02:49.crisis and the bailing out to the Royal Bank of Scotland among other
:02:49. > :02:53.things. So Scotland would take on its share of that debt. It would
:02:53. > :02:57.have to finances it on the world capital markets.
:02:57. > :03:02.Alex Salmond is not proposing that Scotland join the Euro, for example.
:03:02. > :03:06.It would be difficult, so in that sense separation on a financial
:03:06. > :03:10.economic basis, no doubt he will not want to frighten the horses in
:03:10. > :03:15.Scotland? Even if he keeps the pound, what that means is that
:03:15. > :03:19.Scottish banks will be supervised from London it means that when
:03:19. > :03:23.Scotland needed to borrow money to finances its own budget deficit, it
:03:23. > :03:29.sounds like they would be running a deficit, they would have to do that
:03:29. > :03:34.with Scottish issues, the Scottish- backed pound debt that puts them in
:03:34. > :03:38.the same situation that Italy is in or Spain. Are you saying that
:03:38. > :03:41.Scotland could not survive on its snon Not at all, but it would be
:03:41. > :03:46.more detective than the pro- devolution people paint it. They
:03:46. > :03:51.would not have control of their currency, they would need to really
:03:51. > :03:54.develop a track record and credibility in economic management.
:03:54. > :03:58.Alex Salmond has talked long and hard about the Reeve knews that
:03:58. > :04:02.Scotland should have gotten and would get from the North Sea oil,
:04:02. > :04:08.that Scotland's fortunes would rest largely on that? I think he is
:04:08. > :04:12.right that the fortunes would rest largely on oil, but it is a huge
:04:12. > :04:17.bet. 30 years ago it would have been a great bet. That is why the
:04:17. > :04:22.deal was done with the formula, giving more revenues to Scotland
:04:22. > :04:26.than it produced in taxes, but now production in the North Sea has
:04:26. > :04:32.been declining in the last decade. Most of the big fields have been
:04:32. > :04:38.discovered, so unless there is a massive new recovery, it is unlike
:04:38. > :04:43.that the revenues for the Scottish oil will be there. They will go
:04:43. > :04:47.down. Now, the coalition has introduced some of the biggest
:04:47. > :04:52.changes to the welfare system in 60 years, but today, the Prime
:04:52. > :04:56.Minister is to talk about new changes. David Cameron is to float
:04:56. > :05:00.the idea of removing Housing Benefit from many under 25s,
:05:00. > :05:05.forcing them to live with parents. He is to suggest limited
:05:05. > :05:09.unemployment benefit to two years, a system used in parts of America
:05:09. > :05:16.and hint at restricting handouts for those with large numbers of
:05:16. > :05:20.children. Here is Labour's Stephen T hirbgs mms talking about it today.
:05:20. > :05:23.The Government is right to be worry being the Welfare Bill. The
:05:23. > :05:27.Government should be concentrating on ensuring that there are jobs
:05:27. > :05:30.available for young people, requiring them to take the jobs up,
:05:30. > :05:34.but there are over 1 million young people out of work. There are not
:05:34. > :05:39.the jobs, so threatening them with throwing them on the streets is not
:05:39. > :05:41.going to help. Well with us now is one of the
:05:41. > :05:43.Conservative members of the Work and Pensions Select Committee,
:05:43. > :05:51.Harriet Baldwin, good morning, welcome to the programme.
:05:51. > :05:54.Is this back to basics on the welfare state, the end of
:05:54. > :05:58.compassionate conservatism? Is it compassionate to have a situation
:05:58. > :06:03.where a young person's whose family have never been in the benefit
:06:03. > :06:08.system, stays at home in their childhoodhood bedroom until they
:06:08. > :06:12.are able to afford to move out on their own, and then looks across
:06:12. > :06:15.the road to see someone in the benefit system, presents to the
:06:15. > :06:20.Housing Association and is able to move into accommodation.
:06:20. > :06:26.So what do you say to the critics, Labour this morning, that young
:06:26. > :06:30.people will be out on the streets. 165,000 people who don't have
:06:30. > :06:34.enough commercial money to pay for rents, what will happen.to them?
:06:34. > :06:39.is vital that the welfare state acts as a support to those sorts of
:06:39. > :06:43.young people coming out of care, or perhaps are fleeing from domestic
:06:43. > :06:47.violence, they absolutely need that new start in life, but if they
:06:47. > :06:50.would be able to live at home with their parents until past the age of
:06:50. > :06:56.25, I don't think that is unreasonable for us to have a
:06:56. > :07:00.discussion and as a state say it does make sense to put you on a
:07:00. > :07:04.even playing field with some of the other young people. Do you agree
:07:04. > :07:09.with people choosing having to have children and for the financial
:07:09. > :07:14.reward then avoid working? I don't think so, but I do think for a
:07:14. > :07:18.young person at the age of 16, 17, who has had a child, and is able
:07:18. > :07:23.therefore to move into accommodation with that child, and
:07:23. > :07:26.then is actually automattically entitled to further increases in
:07:26. > :07:30.accommodation and further increases in income if they have more
:07:30. > :07:34.children, I think you cannot be surprised that today in families
:07:34. > :07:39.with four or more children I think it is, or five or more, more of
:07:40. > :07:44.them are workless than in work. You are on regard saying that
:07:44. > :07:52.unemployed families should get child tax credits for no more than
:07:52. > :07:56.four children? That is what I floated in a study, said that the
:07:56. > :07:59.automatic entitlement should end. We should have conversations about
:08:00. > :08:03.requiring skills, education, to try to help you bring the children up
:08:03. > :08:08.out of poverty. Are the policies sounding cruel or
:08:08. > :08:11.sensible? Something must be done. I'm not sure about with which
:08:11. > :08:14.policies should be addressed, but it is clear that the country has
:08:14. > :08:18.gotten itself into a situation where it cannot afford the Welfare
:08:18. > :08:22.Bill it has. It is almost a quarter of Government spending. It is
:08:22. > :08:25.transferring from taxpayers to various sorts of welfare recipients.
:08:25. > :08:31.Housing Benefit is a huge part of that �20 billion. So the solution
:08:31. > :08:37.is hard to come up with. Nothing is easy, but something must be done.
:08:37. > :08:41.It was in the States that Clinton brought in reforms in the 90s, that
:08:41. > :08:47.ended the automatic entitlement to additional welfare. If you were an
:08:47. > :08:52.out of person work who had never taken on training, but the
:08:52. > :08:55.automatic entitlement went. But cab you achieve it? Can you
:08:55. > :09:01.save another �10 billion, which is what the Chancellor would like to
:09:01. > :09:07.see after the next election by targeting working age benefits
:09:07. > :09:12.alone? Does it not need to be spread over the generations,
:09:12. > :09:16.looking fo for, at example, the pensioners? The package must be
:09:16. > :09:22.looked at. Housing Benefit strikes me as one of the areas to be looked
:09:22. > :09:26.at. I was shocked as a person who had not grown up in the country, to
:09:26. > :09:32.learn once you have accommodation in social housing that you have it
:09:32. > :09:36.for life life. That seems ridiculous. What about targeting
:09:36. > :09:40.elderly pensioners's benefits that they get? The Prime Minister is to
:09:40. > :09:46.make it clear that the 2010 fan festow says we will not touch it,
:09:46. > :09:52.but I have said that for a company director, they would get a winter
:09:52. > :09:55.fuel allowance and a large cash for fuel in the winter. Buts that what
:09:55. > :09:59.a manifesto pledge. You don't think that the Prime
:09:59. > :10:02.Minister should change that? Well, he is the Prime Minister. You have
:10:02. > :10:08.said that something must be done. You both said it that times are
:10:08. > :10:13.tough, that we should be looking at those winter fuel payments for
:10:13. > :10:18.example? I am on the record as saying we should look at that for
:10:18. > :10:22.the richer. Why 2015? Because of the manifesto
:10:22. > :10:28.arrangement. It is not a huge amount of money.
:10:28. > :10:33.But if we are talking about saving �1.2 billion, you have �10 billion
:10:33. > :10:38.to find you will not getting from targeting working age benefits
:10:38. > :10:42.along, or Housing Benefit, but look across the board? Indeed, but that
:10:42. > :10:47.is what they are doing with the idea of a welfare cap.
:10:47. > :10:50.That seems sensible. This is a Labour policy, to have a regional
:10:50. > :10:54.been fifth cap. I think it would make sense to look at different
:10:54. > :11:02.parts of the country where the housing a less expensive and set it
:11:03. > :11:07.lower than the 26,000 we have set it at nationally. Why should it not
:11:07. > :11:11.be for the coalition, looking at Housing Benefit now? I think we
:11:11. > :11:17.should be raising the debate now. It would be interesting to hear
:11:17. > :11:22.what the partners would say on this. They have been collaborative so far.
:11:22. > :11:25.I think it is healthy to have the discussion. I hope that there is
:11:25. > :11:31.area with common ground with the Liberal Democrats, but given how
:11:31. > :11:34.slow the process of welfare reform is, it took two years to get the
:11:34. > :11:38.welfare act through in Parliament, but we have to think about it now.
:11:38. > :11:42.How happy with the backbenchers? Imagine they would be happy.
:11:42. > :11:47.They would support this? Is it standing David Cameron in good
:11:47. > :11:51.stead, trying to appeal to what people say, the red meat for the
:11:51. > :11:55.Conservative Party? It is down the people we meet every week in our
:11:55. > :11:58.constituencies. They work hard. They take home at the end of the
:11:58. > :12:02.day less than someone would on benefits with a large number of
:12:02. > :12:05.children. I don't think it is fair to the children not to have that
:12:05. > :12:10.conversation with the parent or parents and I don't think it is
:12:10. > :12:13.fair to other taxpayers to be necessarily supporting that as a
:12:14. > :12:21.long-term lifestyle choice. Harriet Baldwin. Thank you very much.
:12:21. > :12:27.Have you ever wondered what the bank of England does? Or the
:12:27. > :12:30.European Central Bank? Teetering away. Well, we have wondered. So we
:12:30. > :12:37.sent Susannah to the Bank of England Museum to see what she
:12:37. > :12:43.could find out. # Went to the bank just to get a
:12:43. > :12:48.little money # Well, he told me that they re
:12:49. > :12:53.choir was # I started feeling funny. # The
:12:54. > :12:58.Bank of England is aiming to keep the prices of the power to set the
:12:58. > :13:00.interest rates. The bank, every month has a meeting
:13:00. > :13:05.of the International Monetary Fund, they decide whether to move the
:13:05. > :13:10.interest rates up or down. The point of doing that is to try to
:13:10. > :13:17.meet the inflation target of 2%. So using the bank rate or the interest
:13:17. > :13:21.rates, is really to try to keep inflation under control.
:13:21. > :13:25.But the European Central Bank fulfils that role if your currency
:13:25. > :13:30.is the Euro. There are 17 different countries in the eurozone, which
:13:30. > :13:35.means that the ECB has to come up with a one size fits all interest
:13:35. > :13:39.rate. If we had a German Central Bank
:13:39. > :13:45.maybe the interests rates would be higher for Germany than Greece or
:13:45. > :13:48.Spain. So there are discussions with the counsel of the ECB, but
:13:48. > :13:51.the governments have to deal with the fact that their country is not
:13:51. > :13:54.in sink with the rest of the eurozone.
:13:54. > :13:58.Mervyn King is thought to be in favour of using more of what is
:13:58. > :14:02.known as quantitative easing. It is described as printing money,
:14:02. > :14:07.but it is creating money electronically at the bank. What
:14:07. > :14:13.the bank does with it, is it goes to financial institutions and says,
:14:13. > :14:17.basically, give us your gilts, which are a supersave risk-free
:14:17. > :14:21.government debt. So a transaction takes place and the financial
:14:22. > :14:26.institutions use the cash to buy riskier assets. That gets the money
:14:26. > :14:32.into the economy, it creates a demand bolsters confidence as the
:14:32. > :14:35.money moves around. The European Central Bank has the
:14:35. > :14:39.power to do quantitative easing too, although it has chosen not to.
:14:39. > :14:42.Increasing the amount of money in the economy, which is what
:14:42. > :14:46.quantitative easing does, can raise inflation.
:14:46. > :14:50.If the money is spent, quite rapidly, when the economy has not
:14:50. > :14:55.stepped up its production, then there is more demand than is being
:14:55. > :15:01.produced in the economy. That creates some bottlenecks and
:15:01. > :15:05.inflationary pressures. The bank can -- the Bank of England
:15:05. > :15:08.can bail out as the learned of last resort, but the European Central
:15:08. > :15:12.Bank does not have the power. Although they are under pressure to
:15:12. > :15:18.do more. It is more difficult for the ECB to
:15:18. > :15:22.bail out a bank directly. They have lent a lot of money to banks, but
:15:22. > :15:26.the responsibility is still very much with national Government.
:15:26. > :15:34.In if the eurozone ends up with banking union, the ECB could look
:15:34. > :15:40.The central banks, like the Bank of England and the European Central
:15:40. > :15:42.Bank, have key roles in stabilising the European economy. With a Cisse
:15:42. > :15:48.member of the German parliament, representing the Christian Social
:15:48. > :15:52.Union, the sister party to Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats.
:15:52. > :15:56.Welcome to the programme. What you say to other European leaders who
:15:57. > :16:00.say that the Germans are the problem here, that they are Paul
:16:00. > :16:05.King the use of the European Central Bank to bailing out
:16:05. > :16:11.southern European countries? only the Germans, all the Eurozone
:16:11. > :16:15.member countries have already spent a lot of money on bail out. We paid
:16:15. > :16:18.for Greece alone more than 100 times as much as the United States
:16:18. > :16:23.did after the Second World War with the Marshall programme. It is not a
:16:23. > :16:26.question of money, it is a question of political consequence. These
:16:26. > :16:34.countries have to show the political will to undertake the
:16:34. > :16:37.necessary reforms and fiscal consolidation necessary. Do you not
:16:37. > :16:41.think that countries like Greece and Italy with EU governments are
:16:41. > :16:46.showing that they are willing to take the steps that are necessary
:16:46. > :16:50.to deal with their structural debt problems, but they need more help
:16:50. > :16:55.because of the spiralling problem of debt and the fact that the
:16:55. > :17:00.markets have got their grip on these countries? We need a mix of
:17:00. > :17:06.policies, but to suggest that the amount of money Eurozone member
:17:06. > :17:10.countries should pay will lead to overstretched bail-out funds. There
:17:10. > :17:14.is a limit of effectiveness of financial aid, and also a limit of
:17:14. > :17:17.political acceptance in the recipient countries as well as in
:17:17. > :17:21.the donor countries for. Do you think Angela Merkel is the most
:17:21. > :17:25.unpopular leader on the Continent at the moment? It is not a question
:17:25. > :17:29.of how popular a leader is, the question is whether the
:17:29. > :17:33.contributions of a country are adequate to solve the crisis.
:17:33. > :17:37.you see the Germans, that they could do more, that Angela Merkel
:17:37. > :17:40.is the key to unlocking the crisis? And at the moment, she is refusing
:17:40. > :17:46.to take the steps that other leaders are asking her to do.
:17:46. > :17:49.think she is walking a tightrope. The German perspective is
:17:50. > :17:54.irrelevant. That is her constituency. If I were in her
:17:54. > :17:59.place, I would be reluctant to take on an open-ended commitment to
:17:59. > :18:01.support countries over which there is no effective fiscal control. She
:18:01. > :18:08.has a difficulty there although I'm sure she is committed to saving the
:18:08. > :18:12.Euro. She is under pressure to do more. Is that not the point? Angela
:18:12. > :18:17.Merkel does not want the Euro to collapse. Germany has done well out
:18:17. > :18:22.of it. Are Germans not worried that that is the consequence? In order
:18:22. > :18:27.to avoid the collapse of the Euro, the donor countries will have to
:18:27. > :18:32.keep their own credibility. This is not a question of Germany alone. It
:18:32. > :18:35.is a question for France and Italy. They will have to keep their
:18:35. > :18:40.credibility. Will we will have to keep the credibility of the bail-
:18:40. > :18:44.out fund. This is the crucial question. In the end, do you think
:18:44. > :18:51.that there will have to be full fiscal and political union for the
:18:51. > :18:59.Euro to survive? We need closer economic co-ordination at the -- at
:19:00. > :19:05.least. Full banking union? You would be a supporter that? -- in
:19:05. > :19:10.support of that. All the discussions of fiscal union or
:19:10. > :19:15.banking union always lead to a discussion on fresh money. This
:19:15. > :19:19.will not be sufficient. We will have to undertake structural
:19:19. > :19:23.reforms in the framework of the European Monetary Union, but the
:19:24. > :19:26.crisis cannot be solved by fresh money alone. Do you think it is
:19:26. > :19:29.inevitable, even though there is a new government in Greece, that
:19:29. > :19:34.Greece will leave the Euro eventually, that they will not be
:19:34. > :19:41.able to survive? It is not the German Government's position, but
:19:41. > :19:46.my personal view is that Greece will have to do that to regain
:19:47. > :19:53.competitive ness -- competitiveness. Her do you do that? If you do that
:19:53. > :19:58.within that the Euro, we would have to cut social benefits, and keep
:19:58. > :20:02.the high living costs. This will cause social tensions. I would
:20:02. > :20:05.prefer, and I believe it would be better for Greece to do this
:20:05. > :20:10.outside the Eurozone. Of course, this would cause problems. But they
:20:10. > :20:18.could recover quicker outside the Eurozone. In that what Angela
:20:18. > :20:22.Merkel wants? It is my personal view. Do you think that is right?
:20:22. > :20:27.Do you agree that in the end, that is what Greece will have to do?
:20:27. > :20:30.Eventually, they will have to relieve -- leave the Euro. It seems
:20:30. > :20:36.they are in an unsustainable position, not just economically but
:20:36. > :20:40.politically. They have had difficulties, with a messy
:20:40. > :20:43.coalition which is promising things which are not on offer. It seems
:20:43. > :20:49.that they will have to leave, possibly not in the next three or
:20:49. > :20:53.four ones, because agreement a been patched together, but by the end of
:20:53. > :20:59.the year, certainly, they will be out. I doubt they will leave
:20:59. > :21:04.voluntarily. They will have to be forced out. The trigger will
:21:04. > :21:08.probably be the troika, the IMF, the ECB and the Europeans saying
:21:08. > :21:13."We cannot release additional bail- out funds because you have not
:21:13. > :21:20.capture Cross's". The would like that to happen? -- kept your
:21:20. > :21:25.promises. In Portugal, Spain and Italy we see political consensus on
:21:25. > :21:31.the necessity of structural reforms and fiscal consolidation. This is a
:21:31. > :21:40.great difference with Greece. There is more time and chance to recover
:21:40. > :21:49.for Spain and Italy especially. For example, looking only at public
:21:49. > :21:58.debt, including implicit debt, Italy is even stronger than Germany.
:21:58. > :22:05.The debt, including a plus a debt, will be at 192% in Italy, with 146%.
:22:05. > :22:09.Italy is a strong economy. They will have to keep his credibility.
:22:09. > :22:15.One thing I can guarantee is that we will be talking about this at
:22:15. > :22:18.months to come. Thank you very much. Time for a paradigm shift.
:22:19. > :22:23.International developed minister -- international development minister
:22:23. > :22:28.Alain de Gaulle -- Alan Duncan has issued a memo a urging staff to
:22:28. > :22:31.stop using buzzwords in internal memos. He says that staff risked
:22:31. > :22:35.damaging Britain's reputation by using language that the rest of the
:22:35. > :22:39.world does not understand. Let us look at what has gotten so hot
:22:39. > :22:43.under the collar. What are some of the words that targeting the
:22:43. > :22:47.Minister so hot under the collar? He does not want to hear anyone
:22:47. > :22:52.leverage or mainstream anything. And he certainly does not like what
:22:52. > :22:58.he describes as a meaningless term of "Going forward". In the memo he
:22:58. > :23:04.says "We do not ever access, showcase, catalyse or impact
:23:04. > :23:09.anything." He finds a baffling when a sentence begins "Grateful for
:23:09. > :23:14.you're" Instead of "I would be grateful for Europe." And whatever
:23:14. > :23:20.you do, do not refer to his apartment's work in "The
:23:20. > :23:23.humanitarian space." The team here had a holistic approach to this,
:23:23. > :23:28.cascaded down and decided to facilitate the booking of the key
:23:28. > :23:32.contributor to help achieve maximum impact. I have practised at all
:23:32. > :23:38.morning! Alan Duncan is here for some quality face time. We are
:23:38. > :23:42.primed for upwards the back. Were you cringing? I was cringing.
:23:42. > :23:46.Otherwise, you are perfect of course. I am on my best behaviour
:23:46. > :23:52.here, hoping that I do not misuse or abuse the English language. Is
:23:52. > :23:56.this just about grammar? Are you just fed up with the phrases that
:23:56. > :24:04.are used, the jargon that is used, in the media world and the
:24:04. > :24:12.political world? Both. I describe myself as a grammar fascist. I send
:24:13. > :24:18.staff looking for a lost'sometimes. This is also about meaning.
:24:18. > :24:22.Sometimes people choose words to suggest purpose, with insufficient
:24:22. > :24:24.thought behind them. If you cannot express yourself clearly, it
:24:24. > :24:29.suggests you're not thinking clearly and if you're not thinking
:24:29. > :24:34.clearly, we end up with rotten policy. Is it the case that this is
:24:34. > :24:40.our culture revolves, that people use those phrases, "At the end of
:24:40. > :24:46.the day," "Damning report," Is that just how people speak? Of course
:24:46. > :24:49.some of these words emerge and you do not want to destroy the
:24:49. > :24:52.evolution of language. The danger and Whitehall is that you end up
:24:52. > :24:59.with Whitehall war for which people in individual departments
:24:59. > :25:02.understand but nobody else does. -- waffle. Do they understand it?
:25:02. > :25:06.there is a danger they do not understand it. Who is the worst
:25:06. > :25:10.offender? I would never name anybody. My office a brilliant and
:25:10. > :25:13.they have got the message. By and large, the great thing about
:25:13. > :25:17.officials and the British Civil Service is that if you make your
:25:17. > :25:20.views clear, they will respond. They are professionals. What they
:25:20. > :25:25.do not like above all is uncertainty. I hope I have given
:25:25. > :25:32.some clarity. I have to say, the quality of the written word now
:25:33. > :25:36.coming across my desk as inevitably improved. We are no longer the
:25:36. > :25:41.hippy wing of government. Economists like you're the worst
:25:41. > :25:45.offenders. When we speak to each other, yes. -- You are the worst
:25:46. > :25:49.offenders. When I was at the Bank of England, I had to learn to speak
:25:49. > :25:53.economic speak. But I applaud Alan for what he's doing because I think
:25:53. > :25:55.one of the great remaining advantages the British have on the
:25:55. > :25:59.international stage is that they can speak English properly.
:25:59. > :26:06.have they been mimicking Americans in some way, by using that more
:26:06. > :26:09.colloquial language? I think business is often the worst
:26:09. > :26:15.offender. Some of the language that creeps into the boardroom is
:26:15. > :26:21.laughable. But perhaps the worst American habit is when the verb --
:26:21. > :26:25.they've her a noun, they take a noun, like showcase, "You're
:26:25. > :26:29.showing something," And the next thing that happens is you are
:26:29. > :26:36.showcasing it. I would like to stamp on that. Do you think about
:26:36. > :26:42.that? Perhaps I can respond. What annoys me about the English use of
:26:42. > :26:47.words, "To be perfectly honest," I despise that phrase. We are all
:26:47. > :26:52.perfectly honest. And if we are not, we should not say that we are.
:26:52. > :26:56.is like being half pregnant. either honest or you're not!
:26:56. > :27:00.dislike people calling something of fierce. If it is surely obvious,
:27:00. > :27:06.one needn't say it. If it is not truly obvious, that is such a
:27:06. > :27:10.future. We have to avoid saying, "Of course you know." People might
:27:10. > :27:16.not know. There is a question of the BBC being institutionalised and
:27:16. > :27:19.there is a language that grows up in institutions like the BBC and in
:27:19. > :27:25.Parliament. David Cameron, we looked briefly through his speeches
:27:25. > :27:33.and he uses "Wake-up call." What is that? Literally waking you up?
:27:33. > :27:39.suppose it is. Let me give you a BBC example. "We now battle
:27:39. > :27:45.things." Battle against them. Gradually this Americanisation, or
:27:45. > :27:52.American turn of phrase has crept into a number of BBC news bulletins.
:27:52. > :27:59.The rough things like "Only time will tell," And so energising. What
:27:59. > :28:04.is that Kim acolyte synergy, when you're working together. -- What is
:28:04. > :28:10.that? We like Synergy, when you are working together. Are these phrases
:28:10. > :28:14.meaningless or are they nice ways of finishing off reports? I think
:28:14. > :28:18.that one is all right, because sometimes poetic turns of phrase
:28:18. > :28:23.become widely used and then become widely understood. So long as they
:28:23. > :28:28.are grammatical and not horrible, horrible twist of language, then I
:28:28. > :28:34.think we can live with them. Who is the worst offender, politician-
:28:34. > :28:37.wise? I do not think I can think of anyone. The Department of Education,
:28:37. > :28:43.I would nominate as a department that is particularly bad when it
:28:43. > :28:46.comes to jargon. Why? I was on the Learning and Skills Council for two
:28:46. > :28:51.years and it took me 18 months to figure out what in the world all
:28:51. > :28:55.these terms meant. And we will leave that thought in every one's