:00:39. > :00:46.Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. David Cameron
:00:47. > :00:53.travels to Cardiff to announce new powers for the Welsh Assembly. The
:00:54. > :00:58.state-owned bank RBS announces it will restructured to deal with ?38
:00:59. > :01:03.billion of bad assets. George Osborne said the move will make it
:01:04. > :01:07.easier to sell off the bank and get taxpayers' money back. Should
:01:08. > :01:11.football fans have more say over how clubs are run? We will discuss
:01:12. > :01:17.a plan to make English football more German. And in the first of a
:01:18. > :01:24.series on political thinkers, we have the low-down on Karl Marx. If
:01:25. > :01:31.you want to understand and have an interest in social justice, you
:01:32. > :01:39.cannot ignore Karl Marx. We never ignore Karl Marx on the
:01:40. > :01:44.day the politics. -- the Daily Politics. We asked for the duration,
:01:45. > :01:50.I am joined by the Birgitte Nyborg and Kasper Juul or British
:01:51. > :01:57.political commentary. Zoe Williams, of the Guardian newspaper, and Ian
:01:58. > :02:01.Collins, a broadcaster. We start with RBS, which is always in the
:02:02. > :02:08.news. The chief executive announced a pre-tax loss of ?634 million.
:02:09. > :02:12.That was for the three months to September. He put an end to
:02:13. > :02:19.speculation the bank would be split to deal with the ?38 billion of bad
:02:20. > :02:25.assets. These are moments that are not expected to be repaid. This is
:02:26. > :02:31.what the Chancellor said he was on a trip to a bicycle shop. I am
:02:32. > :02:35.determined to build a banking system that supports the British
:02:36. > :02:39.economy and today RBS undertakes a new direction to deal with that by
:02:40. > :02:44.dealing with toxic assets and making sure it is focused on the UK,
:02:45. > :02:55.and making sure it is the best small business bank. It should be a
:02:56. > :03:04.boost the economy and not a burden. We are joined by a City commentator,
:03:05. > :03:08.Allister Heath. Explain to us what the internal bad bank is. Surely
:03:09. > :03:13.the bad loans will still be on the balance sheet? You are not the only
:03:14. > :03:21.one to not understand what is going on. There is a weird triangulation,
:03:22. > :03:25.moving the assets from the bank, injecting taxpayers' cash, and
:03:26. > :03:33.dealing with them, and the status quo. I think it is not viable, the
:03:34. > :03:38.plan, it is more about substance. Nothing much will change. It still
:03:39. > :03:44.has three years to get rid of the bad assets. I do not think it has
:03:45. > :03:50.been doing as badly as people think, reducing bad assets by 85 per cent.
:03:51. > :03:54.But what has happened is the Chancellor thought it was going
:03:55. > :03:58.faster and he now realises that it will take a few more years and he
:03:59. > :04:03.will not be able to privatise the bank before the election and he is
:04:04. > :04:08.upset about that. He wants to change RBS and make it entirely a
:04:09. > :04:11.domestic and retail business bank, getting rid of the investment
:04:12. > :04:17.banking division and the US division and possibly the eye which
:04:18. > :04:23.division. He is trying to remodel the back. -- the Irish division. Is
:04:24. > :04:28.that in the best interests of taxpayers and when it maximise the
:04:29. > :04:33.resale value? And is it the best way to run the operation? A lot of
:04:34. > :04:37.today is not substance, it is not a really bad bank in the traditional
:04:38. > :04:43.sense. If he had wanted to do that, he should have done at five years
:04:44. > :04:47.ago. He was not in charge. They thought the way they were managing
:04:48. > :04:52.it would be the right way and now they are changing their mind. I
:04:53. > :04:59.would like to get another question in before it is time for dinner!
:05:00. > :05:05.Why is it still losing over ?600 million in a single quarter? It
:05:06. > :05:10.still has a lot of bad debt. They are still a lot of problems. The
:05:11. > :05:14.biggest problem for this and other banks is the endless spate of
:05:15. > :05:19.scandals that keep on hitting them. There is now an investigation into
:05:20. > :05:24.foreign-exchange markets and whether they have been manipulated.
:05:25. > :05:30.In terms of getting rid of bad assets, the bulk of that has
:05:31. > :05:35.happened. In some ways, they are fighting yesterday's battle. A lot
:05:36. > :05:39.of people underestimated the problem they still had. Maybe one
:05:40. > :05:45.year ago, even though the economy is recovering, there are still
:05:46. > :05:49.challenges. If you want to kick start credit in the economy, you
:05:50. > :05:54.have to get rid of the bad assets but pretending you are creating a
:05:55. > :06:00.bad bank by redefining some assets, it is an accounting change. I do
:06:01. > :06:04.not think it will help the problems. It does not look like the
:06:05. > :06:09.Chancellor gets his windfall this side of the election. He has had
:06:10. > :06:14.plenty. There are many interesting things about this. Fighting the
:06:15. > :06:18.last battle, as they say, regulators are always fighting the
:06:19. > :06:27.last thing because they do not understand what is going on. If you
:06:28. > :06:36.look at why they have lost 634, rather an -- and over 400 million,
:06:37. > :06:43.they are looking at payment protection in -- protection
:06:44. > :06:50.insurance. The Balkan bad debts have been offloaded. -- the bulk of
:06:51. > :06:58.the bad debt. They pursued banking in a dishonest way and it will
:06:59. > :07:02.continue until they stop it. I am probably the one person who
:07:03. > :07:10.bothered to try to read the last RBS business report. It is the most
:07:11. > :07:16.extraordinary concocted peace of writing you have ever... Whether
:07:17. > :07:21.you are an economist or not, put on to paper. Nobody can understand it.
:07:22. > :07:26.Nobody knows what is going on. Different people and wrote it. The
:07:27. > :07:31.overseas arm does not know what the domestic arm is doing. If they lend
:07:32. > :07:42.domestically, bat will be fabulous. It says to me that is his almost
:07:43. > :07:48.meant to be that complicated. It is the end of RBS as a major
:07:49. > :07:55.international...? It will cover domestic banking. That is a good
:07:56. > :08:01.thing. We have lost sight of what a bank is supposed to do. Briefly it
:08:02. > :08:13.was one of the biggest banks. But why? Because it was not doing due
:08:14. > :08:20.diligence on the lending. I am bored with RBS. And I am with RBS,
:08:21. > :08:26.also. It has been a busy Friday for the Cabinet. George Osborne has
:08:27. > :08:29.been touring a bicycle shop. David Cameron and Nick Clegg hot-footed
:08:30. > :08:35.it to Cardiff to announce new powers for the Welsh Assembly. What
:08:36. > :08:39.we believe in is a strong Wales within a strong United Kingdom and
:08:40. > :08:44.I think it will make for better government. It is good for the
:08:45. > :08:48.Government to be responsible for raising some of the money that its
:08:49. > :08:53.Benz. That leads to better conversations about how to raise it
:08:54. > :08:56.and spend it and how to spend it effectively and how to manage your
:08:57. > :09:04.economy battered. I think the changes will be good for Wales and
:09:05. > :09:12.accountable government. We can go to our political correspondent.
:09:13. > :09:15.What does this mean for Wales? The debate in the past couple of years
:09:16. > :09:20.has been about Scotland and independence, but, quietly, the
:09:21. > :09:24.Welsh Assembly has added to its powers and already has control of
:09:25. > :09:30.health, education transport and other things. It shifted on, the
:09:31. > :09:35.debate, on how it raises money and how it should be responsible for
:09:36. > :09:39.the money it spends each year. David Cameron and Nick Clegg came
:09:40. > :09:43.to announce that the Welsh Government will have the power to
:09:44. > :09:49.borrow money. They want to build a new motorway, so that is important.
:09:50. > :09:53.And also taking control of stamp duty and other taxes. The most
:09:54. > :09:58.significant is the proposal to take over responsibility for collecting
:09:59. > :10:05.some income tax in Wales. Some politicians are talking about
:10:06. > :10:09.cutting taxes in Wales here. They would have to have a referendum,
:10:10. > :10:15.endorsed by the people first. The Welsh Government is saying, we do
:10:16. > :10:19.not want to take on the power over income tax and the Treasury using
:10:20. > :10:23.it as an excuse to cut funding for the Welsh Government. It sounds
:10:24. > :10:29.like a big headline, but it is not cut and dried yet. Is there
:10:30. > :10:36.correlation between the more powers devolved to Cardiff and the worse
:10:37. > :10:42.the Health and school system gets? This is one of the proposals. If
:10:43. > :10:48.they are not devolved, should it have a knock on effect on the money
:10:49. > :10:52.coming in from the Treasury that stop one argument from David
:10:53. > :10:56.Cameron is that that it is about growing up as a country and taking
:10:57. > :11:00.responsibility for money you spend. There are politics about this
:11:01. > :11:06.because we will hear more about what has happened in Wales in the
:11:07. > :11:11.Scottish referendum campaign. The Unionist side saying you can have
:11:12. > :11:18.more powers without going the whole way and leaving the United Kingdom.
:11:19. > :11:25.In other words, devolution can work. When will England get home rule?
:11:26. > :11:32.Factory, it is hilarious. The idea that Wales is a country no more
:11:33. > :11:39.than England. Of course it is not a country. Check the United Nations.
:11:40. > :11:47.I doubt. It is not a country. It is not a nation state, it is still a
:11:48. > :11:51.country. We are the United Kingdom. We are regions. The idea that
:11:52. > :11:55.something the size of a postage stamp has four administrative
:11:56. > :12:02.bodies is a massive waste of money. The idea that nobody questions it
:12:03. > :12:06.is like a huge elephant in the room. Do you see something that will
:12:07. > :12:12.counteract the complaints we will get from Wales? I do not agree. You
:12:13. > :12:17.can have a conversation as you would in America between federal
:12:18. > :12:24.and state legislation and rights without reference to how large the
:12:25. > :12:33.state is. What you are talking about his self governance. Many
:12:34. > :12:40.people believe that everything you can make at a local level you
:12:41. > :12:46.should make at a local map will. We have county councils. Wales is like
:12:47. > :12:50.a big county council. The more they raise revenue, the more autonomy
:12:51. > :12:54.they can have a good decisions. When you look at what they do, they
:12:55. > :12:59.ring-fence budgets and freeze taxation. The council may have
:13:00. > :13:08.rights on paper, but they have no actual money. Should England have
:13:09. > :13:16.more home rule? From Wales? If Wales can set tax rates and if
:13:17. > :13:19.Scotland can. Scotland has total control of schools and its health
:13:20. > :13:26.system. Should England have the same? They do not interfere with
:13:27. > :13:33.what we do any way. Every Scottish MP can vote on English schools and
:13:34. > :13:38.Scottish schools. You want to hound the Scottish MPs for fun. I was
:13:39. > :13:47.asking a serious question! It is time for the daily quiz. It is ?5.
:13:48. > :13:54.A huge donation for the Poppy Appeal. That has doubled my fee!
:13:55. > :13:59.Wife did the Green Party leader Natalie Bennett give me ?5
:14:00. > :14:08.yesterday? At the end of the show, our guests will give the correct
:14:09. > :14:12.answer. A new campaign group in favour of change in Britain's
:14:13. > :14:16.relationship with the EU has a survey out. Almost half the
:14:17. > :14:18.business leaders said the cost of complying with single-market
:14:19. > :14:26.regulations outweigh the benefits of being in the European Union.
:14:27. > :14:29.It's part of a growing debate about our membership if the European
:14:30. > :14:35.Union. Here's a reminder of where we are. In January, David Cameron
:14:36. > :14:41.made a keynote speech on in which he pledged an in-out referendum on
:14:42. > :14:45.the UK's membership of the EU. In his speech the Prime Minister said
:14:46. > :14:49.it was time for British people to have their say. Before negotiations
:14:50. > :15:00.can get under way, he has to wait for the European elections. The
:15:01. > :15:05.next important date is the British election on 7th May 1920 15. If
:15:06. > :15:10.there is a Conservative victory, there will be an intense period of
:15:11. > :15:12.renegotiation with the European Union for a new settlement between
:15:13. > :15:40.UK and the European Union. Why would our European partners
:15:41. > :15:45.allow us to essentially do a pick and mix? First of all, I am not sure
:15:46. > :15:49.that is what would be happening, because there is a lot of discontent
:15:50. > :15:54.about what the EU is doing in terms of centralisation, all over Europe.
:15:55. > :15:57.Secondly, I think there is a real danger from the rest of the EU
:15:58. > :16:02.needlepoint if you that if no change is made, and if there is a poll in
:16:03. > :16:06.2017 and beyond, that Britain would leave, and I think a lot of
:16:07. > :16:15.countries in the EU do not want to see that happening. But if this is a
:16:16. > :16:18.unilateral Britain negotiating, and if it becomes a grand plan for
:16:19. > :16:23.reform, in which everybody would be involved, well, firstly, I would
:16:24. > :16:26.suggest to you that there is no consensus about what these reforms
:16:27. > :16:33.would be, and secondly, it would take forever. It would take a
:16:34. > :16:36.decade. I am not sure the EU has got a decade to get all of this done,
:16:37. > :16:42.but there are really serious problems in the Eurozone. Not as
:16:43. > :16:47.serious as they nobody is talking about Greece leaving now. Not at the
:16:48. > :16:53.moment, but only because huge debts have been run up they may well come
:16:54. > :16:57.back to bite everybody belatedly soon. But there will have to be
:16:58. > :17:00.substantive changes in Europe to make the Eurozone viable in the
:17:01. > :17:04.long-term, and that is going to involve considerable changes of all
:17:05. > :17:08.sorts, which provides us I think with an opportunity, for the people
:17:09. > :17:13.not in the euro, to redefine the role we are going to have. Give me a
:17:14. > :17:19.concrete example of how British business would benefit if we were
:17:20. > :17:23.either out of the EU or if they was a major renegotiation and we stayed
:17:24. > :17:27.in, how would we benefit? Well, I think some of the changes which
:17:28. > :17:31.would be made would be ones which are detailed in the report, issues
:17:32. > :17:42.around employment law, health and safety, taxation, all of these other
:17:43. > :17:46.issues which have been raised. I think the real emphasis which comes
:17:47. > :17:49.out of this report is that it is business wants to have these
:17:50. > :17:53.decisions taken in London and not in Brussels, and they do not believe
:17:54. > :17:58.that a one size fits all approach on these issues works well. But
:17:59. > :18:02.overall, is it your view that British business still wants to stay
:18:03. > :18:06.in? I think British business does want to stay in, if they can get
:18:07. > :18:11.changes made along the lines that we propose. Does it want to stay in if
:18:12. > :18:17.all that is on offer is the status quo? I think that would be a much
:18:18. > :18:21.closer call, and it depends a bit on what happens with the Eurozone and
:18:22. > :18:26.the euro over the next few years. But if those who want to see Britain
:18:27. > :18:30.staying in the euro want to support the right course, I think they want
:18:31. > :18:34.to support ours, because they are much more likely to stay in the EU
:18:35. > :18:41.if the changes we advocate are made. What is your take on this,
:18:42. > :18:45.Zoe? I think it hinges on being able to renegotiate with trading
:18:46. > :18:49.partners. A lot of people think it is not that important, because our
:18:50. > :18:53.non-European partners are not buying very much. Resume ugly, one hopes
:18:54. > :19:02.that once the EU recovers, they will buy much more from us. In terms of
:19:03. > :19:06.volume, it is still our biggest... Exactly, and that is not going to
:19:07. > :19:11.change. It is only changing rapidly because the EU is skint, but once
:19:12. > :19:15.they recover, we are not going to replace our EU trading partners with
:19:16. > :19:27.the new countries, not in a million years. The whole thing is an organic
:19:28. > :19:30.process, is it not we can have a pick and mix approach, everybody
:19:31. > :19:34.goes, that is fine, we want to keep you in the EU so much that you can
:19:35. > :19:40.have what you want, and if they did say that, there would be a good case
:19:41. > :19:44.for it, but we do not know. Hold on, Mrs Merkel may well agree to a pick
:19:45. > :19:47.and mix approach, but she is now going to have to form a grand
:19:48. > :19:53.alliance with the social Democrats, and they are against the pick and
:19:54. > :19:58.mix. That is assuming she loses. There is no evidence whatsoever that
:19:59. > :20:05.M Hollande, whose son the ratings are falling by the minute, is going
:20:06. > :20:10.to do Britain any favours at all. And I detecting a certain animosity
:20:11. > :20:16.towards Europe? No, what you detect Israel politic, which is the
:20:17. > :20:21.opposite of the position that our guest is taking, that the Europeans
:20:22. > :20:36.will be in any mood to do us any favours, and why should they? --
:20:37. > :20:39.realpolitik. Are you talking about the heads of state, the various
:20:40. > :20:44.treasuries within it, the commissioners? Is it the whole
:20:45. > :20:50.immovable system called the EU, or is it individuals within it? The
:20:51. > :20:58.thing is, they do tend to vote as a block, you rarely get a situation
:20:59. > :21:03.where they are split. They might want to say, hello, EU, we have got
:21:04. > :21:08.a new idea, let's give it a go. The logic of a Treasury Minister in
:21:09. > :21:11.France would have to see that. That is right. Also, there are enormous
:21:12. > :21:16.problems going to be created by the rest of the EU if we leave. We pay
:21:17. > :21:21.in net something like ?12 billion per year. Who is going to replace
:21:22. > :21:28.that? But you would want to bring that down, presumably. We would want
:21:29. > :21:32.to bring it down a bit, yes. Here is the irony, that the only way you
:21:33. > :21:35.will get this kind of reorganisation you are talking about is if Mr
:21:36. > :21:42.Cameron wins the next election, and I thought you donate money to the
:21:43. > :21:48.Labour Party? Well, I think there is a feeling across the political
:21:49. > :21:52.spectrum that we want changes. Mr Miliband is not promising to
:21:53. > :21:57.renegotiate anything. Well, I do not think that is entirely true, they
:21:58. > :22:03.want some changes. But not a major renegotiation. The only person
:22:04. > :22:08.promising a renegotiation, and then a referendum, in or out, is David
:22:09. > :22:12.Cameron. I think that so you really need Mr Cameron to win the next
:22:13. > :22:16.election. Well, it is not just Mr Cameron who is saying that we will
:22:17. > :22:23.be having a referendum. You need to prepare the ground. Mr Miliband is
:22:24. > :22:31.not promising one. No, but the Lib Dems are moving a little bit in that
:22:32. > :22:36.direction. Really? I do not know, but I do think that if you want to
:22:37. > :22:40.stay in... It is interesting that if that is your line, it would seem to
:22:41. > :22:44.me that your best chance of getting there is a Tory government. Do you
:22:45. > :22:49.now regret within the Labour Party this donation of shares, which led
:22:50. > :22:55.to the accusations of tax avoidance? Well, there was no tax avoidance at
:22:56. > :23:02.any stage. I said accusations. Well, the I do not regret it at all.
:23:03. > :23:06.Giving them shares, why did you not just give them the dosh? Because I
:23:07. > :23:11.had not got the dosh. Why did you not sell the shares and give them
:23:12. > :23:18.the dosh? I did not want to sell the shares. So why did you not -- so why
:23:19. > :23:25.did you just give them away? You do not pay dividends. Yes, we do. You
:23:26. > :23:32.are a private company. That does not stop us paying dividends. How big is
:23:33. > :23:39.your dividend? It is normally about a third, up to 40%, of the net
:23:40. > :23:43.profit we make. But you measure a dividend by its value to the shares,
:23:44. > :23:47.so, if the Labour Party has got ?1 million worth of shares, what income
:23:48. > :23:54.will it get? It produces about ?8,000 a month. Just about enough to
:23:55. > :24:02.keep Ed Miliband in Boston red Sox shirts. Wine are you giving money to
:24:03. > :24:10.the Labour Party? I have always supported the Labour Party. I think
:24:11. > :24:14.there are loads of people on the left who want to negotiate about the
:24:15. > :24:22.EU. There is nobody who has put it on the table, nobody who has made
:24:23. > :24:25.that statement, but that does not mean it is part of -- it is not part
:24:26. > :24:38.of the discussion. Workers of the world Unite! Go on,
:24:39. > :24:44.you know you want to. Yes, the teachings of Karl Marx have been in
:24:45. > :24:49.the news a fair amount recently, with David Cameron accusing Ed
:24:50. > :24:53.Miliband living on a Marxist planet, after he announced plans to freeze
:24:54. > :24:59.energy prices. So, does Marx have any relevance to the 21st century?
:25:00. > :25:03.In a new Daily Politics series on political thinkers, Giles has been
:25:04. > :25:06.checking out the story of Karl Marx, with an all-time fan, the
:25:07. > :25:30.left-wing columnist Owen Jones. London's trashy, trendy SoHo is not
:25:31. > :25:34.the first place that comes to mind when you think of Karl Marx. He
:25:35. > :25:39.would be very at home here. He was at home here. He lived in this
:25:40. > :25:42.building in the 1850s, and London became the Communist capital of the
:25:43. > :25:46.world. I am off to meet a man who not only thinks Karl Marx is much
:25:47. > :25:51.maligned, but that he is still relevant today. That is quite hard
:25:52. > :25:55.for 21st century society, when the man was waiting here, exiled from
:25:56. > :26:00.Paris, in the 1850s. But my guest wants to drag him from museum relic
:26:01. > :26:08.to modern relevance, via the pub. So, come on, why do you like Marx so
:26:09. > :26:12.much? I could not avoid him growing up. I have got four generations of
:26:13. > :26:16.family who were involved in some sort of radical politics. More than
:26:17. > :26:20.a few copies of Karl Marx were lying around when I was growing up. We are
:26:21. > :26:28.sat opposite the British Museum, where he wrote Das Kapital, but he
:26:29. > :26:32.was often more comfortable sat in the pub. He certainly like to drink,
:26:33. > :26:36.he went on these infamous pub crawls. He is reputed to have
:26:37. > :26:40.smashed a mirror in this very pub with a bar stool. He was chased by
:26:41. > :26:45.police officers because of his drunken antics. That is not what
:26:46. > :26:49.makes me interested in Marx, it is his ideas, and I think a lot of them
:26:50. > :26:52.are still relevant today. One example, alienation, the idea that
:26:53. > :26:57.by working for someone else, you lose control of your own life, your
:26:58. > :27:00.destiny, your humanity. I think today, when you work in a call
:27:01. > :27:12.centre or an office, you could certainly drink to that. As Karl
:27:13. > :27:17.Marx himself would say, prost! Another expert says, like him or
:27:18. > :27:27.loathe him, Marx is a huge figure. Karl Marx is the one who has got an
:27:28. > :27:35.ism, the only person for whom you can be a Marxist. The criticism of
:27:36. > :27:39.him, however, is extensive. Marx is criticised for exactly the reason
:27:40. > :27:44.that his admirers admire him. According to him, it is production
:27:45. > :27:49.which explains everything else and many of his critics say that is just
:27:50. > :27:54.plain wrong. There is another issue, which is that he thought about the
:27:55. > :28:03.role of the Communist Party in a way that, with hindsight, we can see
:28:04. > :28:10.enabled Lenin to develop his idea of the Vanguard Party, which opened up
:28:11. > :28:16.the way to the authoritarian states of the Soviet era. That is clearly
:28:17. > :28:22.something to put to our fan, but not before I have shown him something at
:28:23. > :28:27.the Marx Memorial library. So, for decades after it was first
:28:28. > :28:34.rubbished, this very early edition of the The Communist Manifesto. This
:28:35. > :28:39.was when Engels was still alive, and do not forget, this is the second
:28:40. > :28:44.most read book on earth. But is that not the problem, of all think, he is
:28:45. > :28:47.the one that gets the charge, you are responsible for the death of
:28:48. > :28:53.millions of people. Blaming Marx for the Stalinist totalitarian regimes,
:28:54. > :28:57.which killed millions of people, it is a bit like blaming Jesus for the
:28:58. > :29:00.Crusades. There is nothing in his book whatsoever which backs the
:29:01. > :29:05.Stalinist police state. But there is lots in there about revolution.
:29:06. > :29:10.Absolutely, but do not forget, he is writing at a time when despots
:29:11. > :29:14.dominated the European continent. Even in Britain, there was not
:29:15. > :29:18.universal suffrage, even for men. He later argued that if you had
:29:19. > :29:22.universal suffrage for men, you could have a democratic, peaceful
:29:23. > :29:23.transition to socialism, as it would allow a majority of working people
:29:24. > :29:47.to be elected to Parliament just. Karl Marx's grape is a big monument.
:29:48. > :29:59.Of the jury it was quite small -- his grave. Originally, it was quite
:30:00. > :30:05.small. There he is. What an relevance does Karl Marx have to
:30:06. > :30:10.politics today? Is it over? You would have to be an armed
:30:11. > :30:18.revolution or even on the left to think that he was a prescient bloke.
:30:19. > :30:23.He wrote how capitalism lurched constantly from crisis to crisis.
:30:24. > :30:27.He also predicted capitalism would create a huge working-class and on
:30:28. > :30:32.a global scale, that is what has happened. If you want to understand
:30:33. > :30:41.the world, and you are interested in social justice, you cannot
:30:42. > :30:56.ignore Karl Marx. Owen Jones joins us now. You are a fan of Karl Marx?
:30:57. > :31:03.He was a big influence. Like row -- Ralf Miliband, does that mean you
:31:04. > :31:07.hate Britain?! The Daily Mail, which hates everything about
:31:08. > :31:11.Britain, demonising somebody on the left. Often you have the left
:31:12. > :31:18.construed as the enemy within when the left is about fighting for
:31:19. > :31:23.country which is more equal. That is not hating the country. The
:31:24. > :31:37.British Communists were not that keen to fight for Britain until
:31:38. > :31:45.Nazis had invaded. If you want me to defend Stalinism, you have the
:31:46. > :31:55.wrong person. You said in the film you cannot blame Karl Marx for the
:31:56. > :32:01.gulag. Give me a Marxist state that did not lead to that. It was not
:32:02. > :32:06.about prescriptions and saying this is what socialism would look like.
:32:07. > :32:12.It was an analysis of capitalism. Give me a state that did not lead
:32:13. > :32:18.to terrible loss of life. You had two branches of Marxism. One of
:32:19. > :32:25.them ending up in totalitarianism and starred in. If you look at the
:32:26. > :32:32.German Social Democrats, they themselves are an offshoot of
:32:33. > :32:36.Marxism. In 1958, the Democrats met and repudiated Karl Marx. They
:32:37. > :32:44.presided over a country that became one of the richest in the world.
:32:45. > :32:49.The German Social Democrats were in power longer than that. However
:32:50. > :32:54.they are involved, and it is a crucial point, Marxism is an
:32:55. > :33:01.analysis of capitalism. It did not say what socialism would look like.
:33:02. > :33:06.Name me a Marxist country in the 20th, 21st century, that did not
:33:07. > :33:13.need to a terrible loss of civil liberties, poverty and degradation?
:33:14. > :33:17.As I had said, when you look at European social democracy, the
:33:18. > :33:22.French Socialists, the German Social Democrats, in Spain, the
:33:23. > :33:27.Socialist Workers' Party, those originated from the Marxist
:33:28. > :33:31.tradition. And the modern form of social democracy, even though it
:33:32. > :33:41.has departed from where it began, it traces its origins to Marxism. I
:33:42. > :33:51.was asking for any example. I have given examples. They detested the
:33:52. > :33:55.parliamentary road to socialism. That is a misconception. When they
:33:56. > :33:59.are talking about the revolution they discussed at the time when
:34:00. > :34:13.kings and despots ruled Europe, what Karl Marx said, in the early
:34:14. > :34:18.18th Fifties. -- 1850s. We were not ruled by a despot. Britain was not
:34:19. > :34:25.a democracy then. It excluded working-class people. The point I
:34:26. > :34:32.am making is what Karl Marx said was if you had universal suffrage,
:34:33. > :34:38.instead of armed insurrection, in a country like Britain, as it moved
:34:39. > :34:43.to Universal's up bridge, it would allow the majority of people from
:34:44. > :34:48.working-class Britain to be elected -- universal suffrage. The air must
:34:49. > :34:55.be something wrong with Marxism if everywhere where it has been
:34:56. > :35:00.attempted to implement it, it has ended up with totalitarianism, the
:35:01. > :35:07.loss of democracy. We keep coming back. You will get annoyed because
:35:08. > :35:13.you will find me repetitive. The Soviet totalitarian system... It is
:35:14. > :35:20.not just the Soviet, it is China and Cuba. Venezuela has shades of
:35:21. > :35:25.it. Venezuela is a separate case. The point is that modern social
:35:26. > :35:35.democracy, the lap, in this country, and across Europe, -- if you like.
:35:36. > :35:43.A Social Democrat is about accepting capitalism as the best
:35:44. > :35:48.model that needs to be changed. A society not in the interests of the
:35:49. > :35:54.people at the top, but extending democracy. It is about empowering
:35:55. > :36:06.working people in the broadest sense. Shifting power from those at
:36:07. > :36:13.the top. Are you a Marks is? I would not say I am. I would say I
:36:14. > :36:18.am influenced -- are you a Marxist? I am influenced. I will give you
:36:19. > :36:22.another example. The senior economist at UBS bank, he wrote an
:36:23. > :36:27.article talking about how we need to learn from Karl Marx. You cannot
:36:28. > :36:34.understand the modern world without looking to him. There is something
:36:35. > :36:39.superstitious about the way nobody can hear the word without saying we
:36:40. > :36:45.will be Communists, we are going to die! The millions of Russians and
:36:46. > :36:50.Chinese that turned out to be true. You have not had to live in these
:36:51. > :37:00.societies. You asked me what I thought and you talk to the me. --
:37:01. > :37:05.talked over me. This man was an economist. He told the world what
:37:06. > :37:12.was going wrong with capitalism. He told the world right on many issues.
:37:13. > :37:17.The fact that some people use his name to start revolutions that
:37:18. > :37:23.resulted in comm Estates is nothing to do with Karl Marx. East Germany,
:37:24. > :37:31.the Democratic Republic, would we ever argue... Good Marxism and bad
:37:32. > :37:37.Marxism, a narrative forced... It is crazy. Surely the lesson is that
:37:38. > :37:43.if you tinker with left-wing politics, that is where you end up?
:37:44. > :37:54.The lesson is not if you go near Karl Marx, we will end up in a
:37:55. > :37:59.gulag. Read it, find out if it is true, and if you find something,
:38:00. > :38:04.take it seriously. You keep saying he was right. He predicted the
:38:05. > :38:13.collapse of capitalism. The last time I looked, cap and it --
:38:14. > :38:18.capitalism... It you look at the process where he predicted the end
:38:19. > :38:22.of capitalism, he was talking about cannibalistic capitalism, so
:38:23. > :38:26.rapacious it closed down competition between itself and you
:38:27. > :38:29.ended up with large corporations running everything. It you see
:38:30. > :38:39.something like the energy markets and the public markets, it is
:38:40. > :38:46.happening in front of us. We have run out of time. His Ed Miliband a
:38:47. > :38:55.Marxist? I do not think any... Well, the Daily Mail. It is interesting,
:38:56. > :39:00.the rhetoric, if you want a fairer society and you want working people
:39:01. > :39:07.to have wealth and power, you are a frothing at the mouth, a guest. I
:39:08. > :39:18.am a democratic socialist who wants a society where wealth and power is
:39:19. > :39:28.distributed -- -- Marxist. If you understand it, people are looking
:39:29. > :39:34.to Karl Marx. And you cannot get rid of it. You are a failure at
:39:35. > :39:40.giving us a better system. We are waiting for the Utopia. The
:39:41. > :39:48.argument that left have to come up with is a coherent alternative that
:39:49. > :39:52.resonates with people. We gave you the airwaves to do it today. We
:39:53. > :40:01.have been talking about Karl Marx and the Soviet Union for most of it,
:40:02. > :40:06.but fair enough. I found that... Never mind. We will be looking at
:40:07. > :40:15.political thinkers ranging from Edmund Burke to Thomas Paine. The
:40:16. > :40:19.Trans Atlantic row over States by none civilians took a new turn with
:40:20. > :40:34.John Kerry saying that in some cases you are -- US buying has gone
:40:35. > :40:41.too far. -- US spying. We are in danger of sleep walking. It is not
:40:42. > :40:44.planned, it is not the actions of benevolent individuals, it is the
:40:45. > :40:48.trend of what will happen if nothing is done to stop it. The
:40:49. > :40:55.definitions of war and peace are no longer the same and the enemies of
:40:56. > :40:58.faces, it can be argued. That argument is one that prime
:40:59. > :41:02.ministers and Home Secretaries have put. If we shake up the law in
:41:03. > :41:09.response to this fear, chipping away at liberty and privacy, they
:41:10. > :41:13.have won. Every operation that has foiled a terrorist plot in this
:41:14. > :41:17.country has been dependent upon communications data over the past
:41:18. > :41:23.decade and it is essential for the agencies to have those powers. UK
:41:24. > :41:30.surveillance over citizens has increased exponentially. The legal
:41:31. > :41:35.basis has sometimes appeared strained. At best, oversight is
:41:36. > :41:41.frayed. Legitimate debate is at risk of being drowned out by
:41:42. > :41:48.assertions of national security. Spying is dangerous. It is about
:41:49. > :41:54.risk. Our men and women put their lives at risk to protect Britain.
:41:55. > :42:00.There is a downside of getting it wrong. If you do, people die. The
:42:01. > :42:04.this is the secret state laid bare. The Government acting without the
:42:05. > :42:11.knowledge or permission of citizens, a breach of the moral and legal
:42:12. > :42:16.rights of individuals. Just like when they take away the votes of
:42:17. > :42:27.the misguided, but common good is not a defence. Our basic rights as
:42:28. > :42:31.individuals have to be sacrosanct. We have been joined by the
:42:32. > :42:36.Conservative MP who spoke in that debate. You say the surveillance
:42:37. > :42:43.has grown exponentially. What is the evidence? Reports show that.
:42:44. > :42:47.You have raw numbers. It is difficult to delve down into them.
:42:48. > :42:52.I do not have the numbers to hand, but there has been an increase, for
:42:53. > :43:03.example, in the interception of communications data and wide use of
:43:04. > :43:12.surveillance. We do not have a huge amount of data. The annual report
:43:13. > :43:16.showed it has increased. Do you think telephone calls are being
:43:17. > :43:24.monitored? Is it depends what you mean, they look at what is called
:43:25. > :43:29.the envelope. If you trawl back over a long period, and you can
:43:30. > :43:33.develop a close picture of what people are doing. And the
:43:34. > :43:39.distinction drawn between the envelope and content. It breaks
:43:40. > :43:47.down quite quickly. How many people does GCHQ employee? Many hundreds.
:43:48. > :43:55.5000. But even 5000 could not keep tabs on every telephone call. This
:43:56. > :44:00.is an Aunt Sally. There is no doubt the scope of surveillance has
:44:01. > :44:06.increased. Do we know what they are doing? Do we have proper oversight?
:44:07. > :44:18.These are questions the Secretary of State in the US is asking, John
:44:19. > :44:26.Kerry. We had a good debate, but we will have to see a closer scrutiny
:44:27. > :44:31.Opel what is going on. -- scrutiny over what is going on. Then reason
:44:32. > :44:34.why it's certain types of surveillance have increased is
:44:35. > :44:39.because the nature of terrorism has changed. It does not involve people
:44:40. > :44:45.flying planes into buildings any more, coming from Saudi Arabia, it
:44:46. > :44:52.involves people in this country, communicating with each other to
:44:53. > :44:57.plan to kill. That is why these are Bateman's, I would suggest, has
:44:58. > :45:00.grown. I suspect the nature of terrorism has not changed, but the
:45:01. > :45:15.nature of communication. There is no doubt they should have
:45:16. > :45:18.the powers to pursue that, although quite what the safeguards should
:45:19. > :45:22.be, that is another question. But we want to make sure that we have got a
:45:23. > :45:29.rough idea of what they are doing. We want to make sure the legal
:45:30. > :45:32.position is protected. If you believe in democracy and the rule of
:45:33. > :45:38.law, and at the same time you want to pursue national security, it
:45:39. > :45:40.cannot be healthy. Is it your view that Parliament oversight is too
:45:41. > :45:46.weak and should be strengthened? Yes. I think Sir Malcolm Rifkind and
:45:47. > :45:53.the IOC do a reasonable job, I have no doubt about their individual
:45:54. > :45:56.capacity, but I think the Intelligence And Security Committee
:45:57. > :46:01.needs to be made of it more independent, like they have in the
:46:02. > :46:05.US. Although in the US, they did not produce any better results than in
:46:06. > :46:09.Britain, they were not monitoring what their own intelligence services
:46:10. > :46:12.were up to. Well think if you look over the years, it has produced a
:46:13. > :46:16.bit more transparency. Across the board in Congress, and from the
:46:17. > :46:22.Secretary of State, we are hearing from them, we are going to act. I
:46:23. > :46:25.think this committee needs to be a proper committee of Parliament, and
:46:26. > :46:30.accountable to Parliament. The tweaks that need to be done
:46:31. > :46:37.relatively small, to make that work more effectively. What do you say? I
:46:38. > :46:41.spoke to someone, I do not know whether you would call her a spook,
:46:42. > :46:47.somebody who formerly worked in one area of intelligence, who said, a
:46:48. > :46:51.lot of this, as bad as it is, and we have heard about governments doing
:46:52. > :46:54.things without the permission of the citizens, a lot of this is the
:46:55. > :46:59.vanity project of the different head honchos who sit there in the
:47:00. > :47:04.intelligence services. The idea that the Prime Minister is saying, spy on
:47:05. > :47:08.Merkel, it is just nonsense. Most of the time, it is just because they
:47:09. > :47:12.are able to, because they are allowed to, and they have the
:47:13. > :47:18.technology, so, give it a go. They may need it, they might not. But
:47:19. > :47:21.surely there is a widespread view that American intelligence is just
:47:22. > :47:31.off the reservation, and it seems to be on the rampage. But I think it is
:47:32. > :47:34.because they can do it, as distinct from looking for a specific story.
:47:35. > :47:39.What are they going to find on Angela Merkel's phone, for goodness
:47:40. > :47:43.sake of she is the Chancellor of the most powerful country in Europe. I
:47:44. > :47:57.do not think she is going to be leaving voice mails. This is absurd,
:47:58. > :48:01.it is absolutely absurd. I care a lot less about foreign leaders
:48:02. > :48:04.surveilling themselves, and more about Big Brother looking at
:48:05. > :48:08.innocent British citizens. The point is that even if the surveillance is
:48:09. > :48:13.done almost inadvertently, because they can, and you do it on such a
:48:14. > :48:16.scale, and there are so many contractors, thousands having access
:48:17. > :48:21.to it, it actually ends up making us more vulnerable. And I do not think
:48:22. > :48:27.it helps the cause of the agencies. There is one other point, but if you
:48:28. > :48:29.think of all of this controversy around national security
:48:30. > :48:33.surveillance, what do you think about the snooper's charter, which
:48:34. > :48:38.was proposed, to extended to town halls and quangos? I hope that one
:48:39. > :48:42.effect of this will be to cut off at the legs the idea of increasing even
:48:43. > :48:47.further that kind of surveillance. England's football clubs have
:48:48. > :48:52.revenues of more than ?3 billion a year, with much of it coming from
:48:53. > :48:54.football fans paying for tickets, TV subscriptions and merchandising. But
:48:55. > :48:58.there is a growing mood among fans that they have been taken for
:48:59. > :49:03.granted, and they want more say over how the clubs are run. It has been
:49:04. > :49:08.on the minds of politicians as well. Mark Denten reports. It is a damp
:49:09. > :49:11.evening, but this club are going through their paces in training. It
:49:12. > :49:14.is what happens off the pitch which is really interesting, because this
:49:15. > :49:19.is a place where fans really have their say. We have our annual
:49:20. > :49:24.general meeting, where the fans can turn up, the chairman, all of the
:49:25. > :49:32.roles are voted on. It is up to the fans. If you have done a good job,
:49:33. > :49:37.you stay. If you have not, you can be voted out as easy as that. 50
:49:38. > :49:42.miles away, nine levels up the football ladder, a rather different
:49:43. > :49:46.mood. There have been a series of protests by Newcastle United fans
:49:47. > :49:49.against the club's owner. Just outside St James' Park, in this pub,
:49:50. > :49:55.you will not struggle to find frustrated fans. The board have
:49:56. > :50:00.never taken our support seriously. It is almost as if the fans have
:50:01. > :50:07.supported the club despite what has gone on at board level. Newcastle in
:50:08. > :50:12.my it is a one club city. In recent years particularly, the club has
:50:13. > :50:17.been disengaged from the people who put money into the club. I want a
:50:18. > :50:23.fan member on the board, I think that would be enormously important.
:50:24. > :50:27.It would make a big difference to the football club and it might stop
:50:28. > :50:31.the football club making PR disasters as frequently as they do.
:50:32. > :50:35.Just a few months ago, the Government said it wanted to bring
:50:36. > :50:39.in a law as soon as possible to give fans a bigger say in the running of
:50:40. > :50:44.football clubs. But we have learned that idea has now been shelved. It
:50:45. > :50:49.seems there is not enough time in the Parliamentary schedule - no
:50:50. > :50:57.option for extra time for a foot or fans law. But people over there want
:50:58. > :51:00.action. -- a football fans' law. At this Business School, there is a
:51:01. > :51:07.conference organised by the supporters trust at Newcastle. It is
:51:08. > :51:11.just unfair to raise expectations, to go with what appears to be a
:51:12. > :51:16.populist idea, and then simply to say, we do not have time now, we are
:51:17. > :51:20.not going to do this. It helps them to appear to be part of the people
:51:21. > :51:26.they represent, but it is just not high enough up on their agenda,
:51:27. > :51:30.which is disappointing. They do things these fans have a big say in
:51:31. > :51:34.the running of their club. In fact, there is a national and on anyone
:51:35. > :51:40.owning more than half a football club. In Germany, traditionally, all
:51:41. > :51:46.clubs are member owned. That means we, the members, the club belongs to
:51:47. > :51:50.us. For example, at the AGM, we have the right to change the club
:51:51. > :51:54.statute. If you are a member, you really feel the club belongs to you.
:51:55. > :51:59.You are not just a fan, you are a lot more. It is our club, instead of
:52:00. > :52:02.something you just support. Grassroots football, the players
:52:03. > :52:08.show their skills but it is the fans that call the shots. It is the kind
:52:09. > :52:12.of thing supporters at top clubs can only dream of. It is the way English
:52:13. > :52:16.football works these days, and tackling it would be a challenge. We
:52:17. > :52:23.asked the Premier League and the Football League for an interview,
:52:24. > :52:26.but they both declined. The Government's sports Minister also
:52:27. > :52:33.declined. We are joined by the Labour MPm Thomas, who did not
:52:34. > :52:38.decline. Don't you think politicians have more to worry about than
:52:39. > :52:42.football? I think we do, but I think there are football clubs across the
:52:43. > :52:49.country which are hugely important in the lives of their fans and
:52:50. > :52:52.communities up and down the UK. I think the number of clubs where fans
:52:53. > :52:57.are saying, we want to have more of a say in the running of our club,
:52:58. > :53:01.the numbers of clubs which have got into financial trouble, suggests
:53:02. > :53:03.that with the Premier League and the Football League not being willing to
:53:04. > :53:07.act, then the Government should be willing to act to give for the oil
:53:08. > :53:13.fans more of a say. Is that not a matter between the fans and their
:53:14. > :53:17.club? Well, it is, but at the moment, the odds are stacked against
:53:18. > :53:21.the football fans being able to get a say in the running of their club,
:53:22. > :53:26.unless the club gets into financial trouble. The reason we need
:53:27. > :53:30.government to act is because then, you have the chance of the playing
:53:31. > :53:34.field being levelled up, and fans being given more of a right perhaps
:53:35. > :53:38.to send a representative along to board meetings, perhaps to have much
:53:39. > :53:42.more information about the way in which their club is run. That is
:53:43. > :53:46.surely not too much to ask and would not take too much Parliamentary time
:53:47. > :53:51.to deliver. If fans should in your view have this power, why shouldn't
:53:52. > :53:54.workers have the right to be on the boards of the companies they work
:53:55. > :54:00.for? Well, in some countries, that is the case. I belong to the
:54:01. > :54:03.co-operative party, and we think that people should have more ability
:54:04. > :54:08.and support to cooperate in the running of enterprises. It just
:54:09. > :54:13.seems to pick on foot hole, which, at the end of the day, is just a
:54:14. > :54:18.sport. Whereas if this is an important principle, of consumers
:54:19. > :54:21.and workers being involved, then should they not be playing a much
:54:22. > :54:28.bigger role in the running of our companies? Why is it not right for
:54:29. > :54:34.the people who work for British Telecom or Vodafone or Tata Steel?
:54:35. > :54:38.Used the example in your package of Germany. In Germany, for example,
:54:39. > :54:43.much of the energy supply increasingly is delivered right
:54:44. > :54:46.energy cooperatives, individual people combining, pulling resources,
:54:47. > :54:51.to produce energy. We know it works in Germany, both in foot and in
:54:52. > :54:58.energy and in other ways. Why can't we have more of those types of
:54:59. > :55:04.models in the UK? But where would it leave a company, and I say company
:55:05. > :55:08.advisedly, like Manchester United? It is a multi-billion pound empire,
:55:09. > :55:13.so how would it work? It seems to me there is nothing wrong with the idea
:55:14. > :55:21.of one of Manchester United's fans being elected by their supporters
:55:22. > :55:25.trust, and Manchester United has the biggest such trust in the country,
:55:26. > :55:30.being elected to sit on their board. So, you have got one guy
:55:31. > :55:34.sitting on this board full of Arab sheiks and American businessmen and
:55:35. > :55:38.sponsors and all the rest of it, property developers, and you have
:55:39. > :55:43.got this one we chuck on his own... It does not sound fair! There is
:55:44. > :55:48.always a risk of somebody going native in that sense. But if you are
:55:49. > :55:58.answerable to all of the other fans through the trust, your
:55:59. > :56:01.accountability is different. I am very interested that you would raise
:56:02. > :56:05.the example of Manchester United, because it is the key of everything
:56:06. > :56:08.that has gone wrong in foot all. The Glazer family come in, they did not
:56:09. > :56:12.have the money to buy it, they borrowed the money, and in order to
:56:13. > :56:19.pay back the money, they screwed the fans for all they are worth. You say
:56:20. > :56:22.it is just sport, it is only foot all, but what you are talking about
:56:23. > :56:27.is a massive thing which people care deeply about, which is a huge binder
:56:28. > :56:33.of communities, which is a huge pride and joy, and big corporations
:56:34. > :56:40.come in and sting the people for everything they have got it is
:56:41. > :56:44.terrible. I love the idea that Labour are going to come in and give
:56:45. > :56:50.us free energy, and a free football club as well. How generous! Thank
:56:51. > :56:56.you for your advice, but... We have run out of time. I mentioned
:56:57. > :57:08.Manchester United because it is the only football team I have heard of.
:57:09. > :57:12.Now, The Week In 60 Seconds. High noon for the dirty half-dozen, with
:57:13. > :57:20.MPs gunning for the big six energy firms at a select committee hearing.
:57:21. > :57:25.And the heat is on at the Old Bailey. David Cameron's former spin
:57:26. > :57:28.doctor Andy Coulson and seven former colleagues are in the dock over
:57:29. > :57:36.allegations of phone hacking. They deny the charges. High Speed 2
:57:37. > :57:40.trundled onwards, with APs MPs voting to start spending money on
:57:41. > :57:47.the project. We had the news that two thirds of the text received in
:57:48. > :57:56.this campaign were fake. The vans themselves have been sent home. And
:57:57. > :57:59.he really is Red Ed, at least when it comes to the Boston red Sox. He
:58:00. > :58:03.was up all night watching his favourite baseball team and treating
:58:04. > :58:13.his delight at their victory in the World Series.
:58:14. > :58:20.All these politicians, they talk about football because they think it
:58:21. > :58:23.links them to the people. Even people who went to public school and
:58:24. > :58:27.never touched a football. There is Ed Miliband doing something which,
:58:28. > :58:32.there is no votes in it, I thought it was rather endearing. He loves
:58:33. > :58:36.baseball, so he stayed up all night to watch the red Sox. There are no
:58:37. > :58:42.votes in it on paper, because none of us are red Sox fans, but it is an
:58:43. > :58:49.identity builder. It is, I may seem a bit geeky, and IM, but I am also a
:58:50. > :58:58.bit like you, because I stay up all night. He is looking for a
:58:59. > :59:02.personality, isn't he? He knows a lot about it. I thought it was very
:59:03. > :59:09.human of him. Time to find the answer to the quiz, and the question
:59:10. > :59:15.was, why did the Green Party leader Natalie Bennett give me five quid?
:59:16. > :59:24.Because she offered to pay your next month's gas bill? No, it is because
:59:25. > :59:28.she bet me that UKIP would have more councillors than the Green Party, or
:59:29. > :59:33.the other way around. Thank you to all of my guests. I will be back on
:59:34. > :59:39.Sunday with The Sunday Politics. My guests will include Len McCluskey
:59:40. > :59:44.and the Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain. Bye-bye.