:00:37. > :00:47.We now know that the 96 football fans who died at Hillsborough 27
:00:48. > :00:51.But should the current Chief Constable have
:00:52. > :00:56.Naz Shah has been suspended from the Labour Party over
:00:57. > :01:00.Has the Labour Leader been too slow to act over this and other
:01:01. > :01:04.We'll be speaking to Ken Livingstone.
:01:05. > :01:07.Leaving the European Union is a threat to jobs, wages
:01:08. > :01:12.and prices say the Prime Minister and a former union boss.
:01:13. > :01:14.But a group of economists claim quitting the single market
:01:15. > :01:17.would boost national income and raise living standards.
:01:18. > :01:28.# This is what it sounds like...#
:01:29. > :01:38.We put a Prince mega fan through his paces.
:01:39. > :01:44.I saw Prince live, you know. Did you? A great night, I think.
:01:45. > :01:46.From what I can remember, which isn't a lot.
:01:47. > :01:49.All that in the next hour and with us for the duration, former
:01:50. > :01:50.Liberal Democrat Leader, Deputy Prime Minister
:01:51. > :01:56.First this morning, the Chief Constable
:01:57. > :01:59.suspended following Tuesday's verdicts in the
:02:00. > :02:04.David Crompton is accused by campaigners of overseeing
:02:05. > :02:06.attempts to shift the blame on to Liverpool fans
:02:07. > :02:12.Police and Crime Commissioner, Doctor Alan Billings,
:02:13. > :02:15.who took the decision to remove David Crompton from his job,
:02:16. > :02:25.I've reached of this decision with a heavy heart,
:02:26. > :02:27.following discussions with David, both in the run-up to
:02:28. > :02:29.and following the delivery of the Hillsborough verdicts.
:02:30. > :02:34.My decision is based on the erosion of public trust and confidence,
:02:35. > :02:36.referenced in statements and comments in the House
:02:37. > :02:38.of Commons this lunch time, along with public calls
:02:39. > :02:40.for the Chief Constable's resignation from a number
:02:41. > :02:55.Nick Clegg, should David Crompton have been suspended? I think there
:02:56. > :02:57.should be no alternative. I spoke to AlanBillings about it, the day
:02:58. > :03:01.before the judgment came out. I think it was quite clear from that
:03:02. > :03:06.and other conversations that whilst of course David Crompton was not
:03:07. > :03:09.around 27 years ago, the decision by South Yorkshire Police to continue,
:03:10. > :03:14.after by the way having issued a fulsome apology to the families in
:03:15. > :03:18.Liverpool, to nonetheless, continue with a lot of the misinformation
:03:19. > :03:22.that had been perpet waited by South Yorkshire Police over so many years,
:03:23. > :03:27.was a huge error and quite, rightly, I think, he has taken responsibility
:03:28. > :03:31.for it. Is there a risk, that because of the failure to get to the
:03:32. > :03:36.truth for 27 years of what happened that day, at Hillsborough, that
:03:37. > :03:39.individual police officers today may be unfairly blamed for the actual
:03:40. > :03:47.deaths of the 96 fans, remember than, or just for the cover-up. Of
:03:48. > :03:52.course, there are lots of risks. I as a constituency MP in South
:03:53. > :03:55.Yorkshire, on behalf of of my constituents, I'm worried, for
:03:56. > :03:58.instance, that the good, dutiful professional dedicated police
:03:59. > :04:02.officers who work in the South Yorkshire force, who have nothing to
:04:03. > :04:04.do with the events, either what happened in Hillsborough or
:04:05. > :04:09.subsequent events, they are deeply demoralised now. Urgently, for the
:04:10. > :04:13.people of South Yorkshire we need to somehow try to restore a sense of
:04:14. > :04:16.morale and purpose to the force itself. Unfortunately for the force
:04:17. > :04:21.it goes wider than Hillsborough. If you look at the explanations of one
:04:22. > :04:25.of David Crompton's predecessors to the House of Commons about the
:04:26. > :04:29.horrific things that happened in Rotherham, the sexual exploitation,
:04:30. > :04:32.and some very vulnerable children there, claiming the force had no
:04:33. > :04:37.idea what was going on, I'm afraid this is another hammer blow against
:04:38. > :04:41.a force whose credibility has been damaged in so many respects over a
:04:42. > :04:45.long period of time. Should David Crompton resign, go permanently, do
:04:46. > :04:50.you think? To be honested. He is suspended now. This is not going to
:04:51. > :04:55.be fixed by whether or not he is suspended. We have a were found
:04:56. > :04:58.problem in a police force who for various, complex reasons, have
:04:59. > :05:01.simply not met the most basic standards not only of integrity but
:05:02. > :05:05.professionalism on a number of fronts over very many years.
:05:06. > :05:08.Something radical needs to be done. Whoever is elected as the Police and
:05:09. > :05:12.Crime Commissioner in South Yorkshire next week, this is their
:05:13. > :05:14.absolute number one priority. Now some people have said about
:05:15. > :05:18.disbanding the force, folding it into another one. I'm in the if that
:05:19. > :05:21.necessarily will produce better policing in the local area but
:05:22. > :05:26.clearly every option needs to be considered. A message on a website
:05:27. > :05:28.for the forces' retired officers said they had dedicated and
:05:29. > :05:32.courageous careers and they should be proud of their work, deit spite
:05:33. > :05:38.the inquests' conclusions. What is your response to that? It is a very
:05:39. > :05:42.insensitive thing to say, right now. In the very strict limits of how it
:05:43. > :05:45.might have been intended, of course it is right to say there are plenty
:05:46. > :05:49.of individual police officers, I know many of them, who are as good
:05:50. > :05:54.as police officers, any other around the country, and their integrity
:05:55. > :05:57.should not be willfully be besmirched because of what happened
:05:58. > :06:01.27 years ago or recently in the inquests but to say that now. It
:06:02. > :06:06.wasn't meant for public consumption But to say that - I can understand
:06:07. > :06:10.why the families of the 96 feel it was an incredibly crass and incense
:06:11. > :06:15.think of thing to say but look, I'm also a South Yorkshire MP. I want a
:06:16. > :06:18.good police force to do good work for my constituents and the problem
:06:19. > :06:23.at the moment you have a force in complete disarray. So after the PCC,
:06:24. > :06:27.the Police and Crime Commissioner elections next week, we finally have
:06:28. > :06:29.to turn a page on this very, very sorry history of the force over many
:06:30. > :06:31.years. Thank you. Our Guest of the Day,
:06:32. > :06:38.Nick Clegg, is a big music fan. But which '80s' popstar did
:06:39. > :06:41.he dress up as when he was Was it a) Mick Jagger, b) David
:06:42. > :06:46.Bowie, c) Freddie Mercury I know which one I'm ghg for. -- I'm
:06:47. > :06:58.going for. So the Bradford West MP
:06:59. > :07:05.Naz Shah was suspended from the Labour party yesterday,
:07:06. > :07:07.pending an investigation into whether tweets she sent before
:07:08. > :07:09.she was an MP were anti-Semitic. She had already resigned her
:07:10. > :07:12.minor and unpaid post as Parliamentary Private Secretary
:07:13. > :07:14.to the Shadow Chancellor, The party will hope to draw
:07:15. > :07:17.a line under the matter but today more questions
:07:18. > :07:20.are being asked about its handling of this and other
:07:21. > :07:22.allegations of anti-Semitism. Yesterday, MP Naz Shah
:07:23. > :07:29.was suspended by the Labour Party following the discovery of social
:07:30. > :07:31.media posts she made One post suggested the country
:07:32. > :07:38.should be moved to the United while another showed
:07:39. > :07:46.Martin Luther-King with the caption "never forget that everything Hitler
:07:47. > :07:49.did in Germany was legal", This is not the first time the
:07:50. > :07:55.Labour Party has been accused of Last month activists
:07:56. > :08:06.Gerry Downing and Vicki Kirby And yesterday, Bradford councillor,
:08:07. > :08:15.Mohammad Shabbir, was also excluded Several senior Labour politicians,
:08:16. > :08:18.including Lord Levy, say the party has a "serious
:08:19. > :08:23.issue" with anti-Semitism. Labour MPs John Mann
:08:24. > :08:25.and Wes Streeting have criticised leader Jeremy Corbyn
:08:26. > :08:26.for being "flat-footed" on the issue, and said
:08:27. > :08:41.they want to see the Labour The Board of Deputies a body that
:08:42. > :08:43.represents British Jews have called on them to implement a strategy on
:08:44. > :08:44.this issue. And we're joined now by the former
:08:45. > :09:09.Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, Who is facing calls to be suspended.
:09:10. > :09:15.I have heard a lot of criticism of Israel, I have never heard anything
:09:16. > :09:18.anti-Semitic. I think blurring the things undermines the real
:09:19. > :09:23.importance of anti-Semitism. A real anti-Semite doesn't hate the Jews in
:09:24. > :09:26.Israel, they hate their Jewish neighbour in Golders Green or Stoke
:09:27. > :09:32.Newington, it is a physical loathing. When Naz Shah MPed a very
:09:33. > :09:37.Kates the forceable removal of Israeli Jews to the United States,
:09:38. > :09:40.it is not anti-Semitism? No, it is over the top and rude. I supported
:09:41. > :09:46.Naz in her campaign to... Is that not anti-Semitism? No, she was rude,
:09:47. > :09:56.over the top, who am I to denounce anyone for doing that The forceable
:09:57. > :10:01.deportation of Jews? Wrong. Not anti-Semitic I don't think she S it
:10:02. > :10:04.was incredibly rude. I don't think she was an anti-Semite. When the
:10:05. > :10:09.investigation is finished they will say she was rude and over the top
:10:10. > :10:14.but they won't find evidence that she hates Jews. When she urges in an
:10:15. > :10:21.online poll that show wants people to vote her way because "The Jews
:10:22. > :10:23.are rowing", that's not anti-Semitic? We have to investigate
:10:24. > :10:27.the charges and contexts in which they are made. If she is
:10:28. > :10:32.anti-Semitic, like the other three or four members we have found to be
:10:33. > :10:37.anti-Semitic, she will be expelled. When she posted a tweet, linking to
:10:38. > :10:43.a blog which claimed that Zionism was grooming Jews to exert influence
:10:44. > :10:48.at the highest levels of public life s that not anti-Semitism? That's
:10:49. > :10:52.part of the classic anti-Semitic thing that there is an international
:10:53. > :10:56.Jewish conspiracy. She link to the blog. You have said there isn't a
:10:57. > :10:59.provenlt I suggest to you that the evidence I'm giving to you suggests
:11:00. > :11:03.that at the very least one should have an open mind? I have an open
:11:04. > :11:09.mind. No, you have said she is not anti-Semitic I see nothing to
:11:10. > :11:11.suggest to me that she is anti-Semitic, I wouldn't have
:11:12. > :11:19.supported here, if I thought she was. When she the puts on social
:11:20. > :11:24.immediate and disaccept nights a slogan "Never forget anything that
:11:25. > :11:27.Hitler did in Germany was legal." Is that not anti-Semitic? It is a
:11:28. > :11:32.statement of fact. Hitler passed the laws to allow him to do it. What is
:11:33. > :11:36.the point of the fact? It is history. But Hitler was mad, he
:11:37. > :11:41.killed six million Jews. Why would you undermine it was legal to kill
:11:42. > :11:45.six million Jews? She is not saying it is legal, but what they did in
:11:46. > :11:50.the way they ran that country allowed them not to kill only 6
:11:51. > :11:59.million Jews but kill the Communists and lefties like me. My father
:12:00. > :12:07.almost died when a Nazi sub, sinked his boat. We all have fares fathers
:12:08. > :12:12.like that, not all. So when the Luton Labour councillor was
:12:13. > :12:18.suspended after describing Hitler as "the greatest man in history" and
:12:19. > :12:21.saying she wanted Iran to wipe out Israel in a nuclear attack, that is
:12:22. > :12:25.not anti-Semitism? That is and that's why she has been suspended or
:12:26. > :12:29.expelled. You said there sent anti-Semitism in the Labour Party?
:12:30. > :12:33.No, what I have said is that in 47 years in the party, in all the
:12:34. > :12:36.meetings I have been n I have never heard anyone say anything
:12:37. > :12:41.anti-Semitic. There is bowed to be in a party of 500,000 people. You
:12:42. > :12:46.will have a handful of anti-Semites and a handful of racists. You don't
:12:47. > :12:52.seem to know what is going on, within your own party, and you have
:12:53. > :12:58.been a life-long member. When Vicky Kishy, when she says Jews have big
:12:59. > :13:05.noses and slaughter the oppresside that semitism? -- Vicky Kirby?
:13:06. > :13:09.That's anti-Semitic. You have dug out virtually every comment. All
:13:10. > :13:13.from recent years. You have said you never heard anything I never H You
:13:14. > :13:16.didn't know about these? When they erupted in the news, yes. I have
:13:17. > :13:23.never met any of these people. Meeting them is not the issue. It is
:13:24. > :13:27.what they said. When Kadim Hussein, former Labour Mayor of Bradford
:13:28. > :13:34.shared a post complaining that the schools in the area only taught, Ann
:13:35. > :13:37.Frank and six million zionists killed by Hitler that's not
:13:38. > :13:40.anti-Semitism? That's why he has been suspended. So there is a
:13:41. > :13:45.problem There is not a problem. You are talking about be a handful of
:13:46. > :13:49.people in a party of 500,000. Jeremy Corbyn has moved rapidly to deal
:13:50. > :13:53.with all of them. No he hasn't. He didn't want Naz Shah to be suspended
:13:54. > :13:58.order Vicky Kirby. She is the one by the way who says Jews have long
:13:59. > :14:01.noses and slaughter the oppressed. He met with Naz and they agreed she
:14:02. > :14:07.would stand down while the investigation goes on. He called her
:14:08. > :14:12.in to see him. We have hand #ye8d these things very rapidly. --
:14:13. > :14:15.handled these things. Miss Shah is a colleague and friend, also a member
:14:16. > :14:21.of the Labour Party, a Bradford councillor, who has not been
:14:22. > :14:28.suspended who refers to the Jewish people as zial, which you will know
:14:29. > :14:34.is a racial epitit. If it is, he will be expelled. You are talking
:14:35. > :14:37.about a huge investigation, virtually anything everyone has put
:14:38. > :14:42.on the internet and it has been found. You have said in 47 years it
:14:43. > :14:46.hasn't been a problem In 47 years I have not heard anyone say. You have
:14:47. > :14:50.missed this? No, many people are new and recent members of the party who
:14:51. > :14:54.joined in the big influx. 300,000 new people came N some of them are
:14:55. > :14:59.bound to be... Some of these are not part of the 300. Maybe you don't see
:15:00. > :15:09.anti-Semitism because you set a very high par bar for it. Afterall you
:15:10. > :15:14.are the man who welcomed Yuset Al-Kari to London in 2005. Called
:15:15. > :15:17.him a grossive voice. This is man who called for Jews and homosexuals
:15:18. > :15:21.to be killed. Is that not anti-Semitic? No this is the man who
:15:22. > :15:27.called on Muslims around the world to donate blood after the attacks of
:15:28. > :15:32.9/11. When he came to London I went to him with the mosque where I heard
:15:33. > :15:35.him say - no man should hit a woman and you should not discriminate
:15:36. > :15:40.against homosexuals. I cannot equate whey heard him say to... He has
:15:41. > :15:48.heard for Jews to be killed. You embraced him. A man who made a clear
:15:49. > :15:52.aented accept itedic statement? -- anti-Semitic He made no anti-Semitic
:15:53. > :15:56.statement here in London, this stuff has come out more recently.You
:15:57. > :16:00.didn't know this. No, all I knew was... You didn't do due diligence
:16:01. > :16:03.on him I don't investigate people.You don't worry about the
:16:04. > :16:10.people you may be sharing platforms. You talk about women, he also said
:16:11. > :16:16."To be be a solved from guilt a rained woman must have shown good
:16:17. > :16:24.conduct." None of with that was what he said in my presence. Hitler was
:16:25. > :16:28.kind to dogs He advocated at the mosque no Muslim should hit his
:16:29. > :16:33.wife. You didn't know that he said Jews should be killed. He didn't say
:16:34. > :16:38.anything like that at City Hall or the renalpents park mosque. There
:16:39. > :16:43.are now 11 MPs calling for you to be suspended from the Labour Party.
:16:44. > :16:47.-- from the You are under some pressure
:16:48. > :16:58.this mornings aren't you? I have said what I believe to be
:16:59. > :17:05.true, that Naz Shah is not anti-Semitic. She made remarks, but
:17:06. > :17:09.that does not make her an anti-Semite. There was a
:17:10. > :17:18.confrontation between you and John Mann. We can show you a bit of that.
:17:19. > :17:28.You are a Nazi apologist! You are rewriting history! Go back and check
:17:29. > :17:40.what Hitler did! You have obviously never heard of Mein Kampf! Have you
:17:41. > :17:46.never read it? From 1932. I had been a journalist since 1973 and I have
:17:47. > :17:54.never heard an MP calling a fellow MP a Nazi. A Nazi apologist. A
:17:55. > :17:59.Labour MP to pay former mayor of London and former Labour MP and
:18:00. > :18:03.Labour activist, chair of a Commission, Nazi apologist. He went
:18:04. > :18:08.completely over the top. I was doing a radio interview at the time and he
:18:09. > :18:13.was shouting, I am a racist, anti-Semitic. I have had that with
:18:14. > :18:18.John Mann before. Screening a couple of weeks ago I was a bigot down the
:18:19. > :18:23.phone. It does not worry you these Labour members, many of them in the
:18:24. > :18:30.mainstream, not Jo hold Blairite enemies, that they see an apologist
:18:31. > :18:35.for people making anti-Semitic statements in your party. I am not
:18:36. > :18:39.an apologist for anybody making anti-Semitic statements and they
:18:40. > :18:43.will be expelled from the party if they are doing but do not confuse
:18:44. > :18:49.that with criticising the Israeli government. It is not criticism of
:18:50. > :18:56.the Israeli government policies for a member to say Hitler was one of
:18:57. > :19:01.the greatest people in history and juice... They will be expelled from
:19:02. > :19:08.the party and that process has started. Can you continue as head of
:19:09. > :19:15.the foreign policy Commission, at given everything that has been said?
:19:16. > :19:19.These things -- these things dominate the news and people, down
:19:20. > :19:24.when they check what you have said. I am sure a lot of people have had
:19:25. > :19:31.phone calls from the Daily Mail, and when they talk to me, that is not
:19:32. > :19:37.what I am saying. We will leave Nazi -- we will leave Naz Shah to be
:19:38. > :19:43.investigated and if she is not found to be innocent, she will be
:19:44. > :19:49.expelled. Chris Ryan, the Labour shadow Leader of the House has said
:19:50. > :19:52.this. In Parliament today, he said anti-Semitism is wrong, and of
:19:53. > :20:01.story, I am tired of people trying to expel it away and, yes, I am
:20:02. > :20:06.talking to you, Ken Livingstone. He should check my record. We worked
:20:07. > :20:10.with Jewish groups to get across to our children the scandal of the
:20:11. > :20:14.Holocaust and the groups challenging anti-Semitism and I had a very good
:20:15. > :20:17.working relationship with the Jewish community. You are found to have
:20:18. > :20:21.brought disrespect to your office when you like and a Jewish
:20:22. > :20:28.journalist to a concentration camp guard. I cannot tell a journalist,
:20:29. > :20:32.whether they Jewish or, whatever, but if he is chasing me at night and
:20:33. > :20:37.barking questions at me, you might be rude to them and some people
:20:38. > :20:42.might hit them. He said he was just doing his job. You were found to not
:20:43. > :20:46.be doing your job, the enquiry found you had brought disrespect to your
:20:47. > :20:50.office. We went to the High Court and the judge opened his judgment by
:20:51. > :20:55.saying, I hope nobody here will suggest Mr Livingstone is
:20:56. > :21:01.anti-Semitic and we won the case. What you make of this? I understood
:21:02. > :21:06.the reason why it Labour MPs were calling for you to resign was not
:21:07. > :21:11.because she defended Naz Shah but it because you reportedly said
:21:12. > :21:16.something about Hitler's approach to Zionism in the 1930s, is that right?
:21:17. > :21:20.He did not speak does she did not win the election but became the
:21:21. > :21:27.largest party in 1932, his policy was not to kill Jews to deport them
:21:28. > :21:31.to Israel. I am shocked, in all my years of politics, I have never seen
:21:32. > :21:36.this perverse logic which throws Hitler and rewriting Hitler --
:21:37. > :21:40.history into a sensitive debate. What is this is to talk about Hitler
:21:41. > :21:47.and your views of his approach designers given what happened and
:21:48. > :21:53.given the sensitivities around the Jewish community here and around the
:21:54. > :21:56.world. Of course everybody defends a person's right to be critical of the
:21:57. > :22:02.Israeli government and my party, we have had issues. I have had to
:22:03. > :22:09.suspend people. You suspended one for three months. He said many awful
:22:10. > :22:13.things. The point is there is something, this was said last night,
:22:14. > :22:18.there is something on parts of the left in British politics that enters
:22:19. > :22:23.into an incredibly intellectual retorted justification to link
:22:24. > :22:28.Hitler and modern politics. Your colleagues think you are part of
:22:29. > :22:31.that. The simple truth, that was Hitler -- that was Hitler's policy
:22:32. > :22:38.when he first came to power, the move Germany's Jews to Israel. So
:22:39. > :22:43.that is all right? No, I denounced that. Why raise the point? I was
:22:44. > :22:53.interviewed and you have known me not to answer a question. I do not
:22:54. > :22:57.understand. I1940, Adolf Eichmann wanted to forcibly remove him to
:22:58. > :23:01.Madagascar and now we have a Labour MPs saying he should be forcibly
:23:02. > :23:05.removed to America, I do not understand the point. I was asked a
:23:06. > :23:10.question and I answered it, you have never known me not to. That was
:23:11. > :23:13.Hitler's bowl -- policy in 1932 when he came to power. You are a
:23:14. > :23:16.household name and people know you in the country and you are part of
:23:17. > :23:22.mainstream politics. I never thought I would see the day well-known
:23:23. > :23:27.politicians would rake over Hitler's views in a way that people would
:23:28. > :23:31.simply not understand. Things, they are either historically true or not.
:23:32. > :23:35.That is one reason I pursued my policies because I do study history
:23:36. > :23:39.because if you do, you can avoid making the same mistakes again.
:23:40. > :23:43.You're also a politician responsible for choosing your words carefully
:23:44. > :23:47.and not entering this weird and contorted view that allows you to
:23:48. > :23:56.talk about Hitler in the same breath as the Jewish community in Britain.
:23:57. > :23:59.It is extraordinary. What about political comparisons, is that not
:24:00. > :24:04.the problem? Why do you use the Holocaust is a political comparison
:24:05. > :24:10.to highlight your objects and to be Israeli government? That is what
:24:11. > :24:15.offends people. My objection to the Israeli government, for nearly 70
:24:16. > :24:21.years, Palestinians stock, why use the Holocaust and hip to underline
:24:22. > :24:24.that point? -- Palestinians. I make no point between the current Israeli
:24:25. > :24:29.policy and the Holocaust and Hitler, was asked the question in an
:24:30. > :24:34.interview. If you say, was it true we were invaded by the Normans in
:24:35. > :24:37.1066, I would say, yes, that is true. I will not avoid the truth.
:24:38. > :24:41.We're joined now by the Labour MP John Mann.
:24:42. > :24:47.You have seen them having a confrontation earlier. We have been
:24:48. > :24:50.speaking to Ken Livingstone and we showed your remarks, he says you are
:24:51. > :24:57.over the top calling him a Nazi apologist. He is a Nazi apologist
:24:58. > :25:00.and he is a worse historian than he is a politician. Factually
:25:01. > :25:05.inaccurate. He should read Mein Kampf, by Hitler. He should study
:25:06. > :25:10.what the Nazi state including what Hitler did when he came to power in
:25:11. > :25:14.1993 and the events of that year and he should see what the first and
:25:15. > :25:20.second and third thing that Nazi regime did and who it targeted and
:25:21. > :25:26.why. He should look at what he and his leaders said about Zionism. And
:25:27. > :25:33.he should reconsider why he has said these hugely offensive and grotesque
:25:34. > :25:38.remarks. The timing is calculated. And offensive as well. He should not
:25:39. > :25:42.be sat on Labour's National Executive Committee, he should be
:25:43. > :25:48.suspended today. What do you say to that? I simply say, go back and
:25:49. > :25:51.check, is what I said true or not? The BBC have a huge team of
:25:52. > :25:56.researchers and it would take a couple of hours to go back. What is
:25:57. > :26:02.the point? I was asked a question and I answered it. In 41 years since
:26:03. > :26:08.winning my first election, 45 years, I have never lied. I do not think it
:26:09. > :26:11.is entirely historically accurate because they had already started
:26:12. > :26:18.attacking the Jews when he came to power. It was not an attack to say
:26:19. > :26:22.he would deport all the Jews. You seem to be implying he was not such
:26:23. > :26:27.a bad guy because he just wanted to deport them and he just went wrong
:26:28. > :26:32.later on. People will think this is unbelievable. He was a monster from
:26:33. > :26:35.start to finish, it is simply the historical fact that his policy
:26:36. > :26:41.initially was to send Germany's Jews to Israel and there were private
:26:42. > :26:46.meetings between Zionism and Hitler's government that were kept
:26:47. > :26:51.confidential when they had a dialogue about whether to do that.
:26:52. > :26:55.Do you think Ken Livingstone is anti-Semitic? Yes, he is and his
:26:56. > :27:01.rewriting of history. He is factually wrong. Hitler was not a
:27:02. > :27:06.Zionist. He blocked any attempt to get Jews into what was then
:27:07. > :27:12.Palestine. And the reason he did so and he said so and it was expressed,
:27:13. > :27:17.was because a Zionist state would be an international Jewish conspiracy
:27:18. > :27:23.and a base for it. He said it in Mein Kampf and it was said by his
:27:24. > :27:28.foreign Minister who specified that in great detail in 1937, outlining
:27:29. > :27:33.why they were not prepared to allow Jews they wanted to get rid of the
:27:34. > :27:38.leave to go to what was then Palestine because it would have
:27:39. > :27:42.created a power base for an international Jewish conspiracy.
:27:43. > :27:48.Hitler was not a Zionist. And to suggest so is so grotesque. It is
:27:49. > :27:52.calculatedly offensive. I think you have lost it, Mr Livingstone, I
:27:53. > :27:55.think you need help. It is a deliberate calculated attempt to
:27:56. > :28:01.cause problems and to stir up hatred. What you on at the moment?
:28:02. > :28:05.You should certainly not be on Labour's National Executive! Do you
:28:06. > :28:10.understand why those remarks, you say you are telling the truth, but
:28:11. > :28:14.how they would it -- would set a community and people who lived and
:28:15. > :28:20.survived or died during the Holocaust? -- upset. That is not
:28:21. > :28:25.true, I have not said it was a Zionist, I said his policy in 1932
:28:26. > :28:31.was to deport Jews to Israel, that does not mean I agree. You said it
:28:32. > :28:35.today, do you withdraw that? I said that was his policy and it was
:28:36. > :28:38.followed by private conversations between the Zionist leadership and
:28:39. > :28:47.Hitler's government about whether to carry out that policy, he did not.
:28:48. > :28:54.You are raising these points about the early 1930s at a time when the
:28:55. > :28:58.party faces a crisis of anti-Semitism in its own ranks.
:28:59. > :29:01.People will be baffled this is what you are doing. I am not raising
:29:02. > :29:06.these points, and was planning a nice quiet morning in the garden
:29:07. > :29:10.until I am descended upon by these journalists saying, is this true? I
:29:11. > :29:17.would be happier to do the garden, it is a nice day out. You have been
:29:18. > :29:21.here and you have answered the question is, that cannot be said of
:29:22. > :29:26.all politicians. We are grateful for that. People will make up their own
:29:27. > :29:29.minds about what you're saying and we will let you go back your garden.
:29:30. > :29:32.John Mann, thank you. Now, what's the best way of dealing
:29:33. > :29:34.with Britain's drug problem? Stricter laws, better enforcement
:29:35. > :29:36.or harsher sentences perhaps? Well, our guest of the day,
:29:37. > :29:40.Nick Clegg, thinks not. In government, he was
:29:41. > :29:42.a big proponent of but failed to persuade his
:29:43. > :29:45.Conservative cabinet colleagues that Giles has been looking
:29:46. > :30:00.at the arguments. In British politics,
:30:01. > :30:02.it seemed we'd all agreed that cannabis and other drugs
:30:03. > :30:05.would and should be illegal. No politician who wanted office
:30:06. > :30:13.was going to seriously Whenever they have, they've lost
:30:14. > :30:17.and they've been told For a variety of reasons,
:30:18. > :30:21.countries like Uruguay, Portugal and nearly half the States
:30:22. > :30:24.of America have relaxed their laws on cannabis at least because,
:30:25. > :30:26.they say, total The intense attack on prohibition
:30:27. > :30:31.of cannabis over the last 30 years has led to a shift
:30:32. > :30:34.in the nature of cannabis. We no longer import balanced
:30:35. > :30:40.cannabis, which has a mixture of THC and cannabidiol,
:30:41. > :30:50.from Morocco or Lebanon, we have tended to result
:30:51. > :30:52.in home-grown cannabis, to get the maximum
:30:53. > :30:55.bang for their bucks. It's a chicken and egg
:30:56. > :30:57.argument about a plant. Does prohibition make
:30:58. > :30:59.underground drugs far stronger, open a gateway to experimentation
:31:00. > :31:01.with harder drugs? And even if that's the case,
:31:02. > :31:03.now it's out there, would decriminalisation
:31:04. > :31:05.or legalisation - they're means skunk, spice and other
:31:06. > :31:11.synthetic replacements would simply It's rather like suggesting that
:31:12. > :31:20.if we took a drug that was freely available, alcohol,
:31:21. > :31:22.that people wouldn't want to drink vodka or whisky,
:31:23. > :31:24.they would prefer just So the drugs genie
:31:25. > :31:31.is out of the bottle. But do people who are
:31:32. > :31:34.criminalised want to seek help? Does somebody with a criminal record
:31:35. > :31:37.for smoking something arguably less dangerous in moderation than alcohol
:31:38. > :31:41.find themselves marginalised? These are some of the arguments
:31:42. > :31:44.Nick Clegg has explored in other parts of the world,
:31:45. > :31:47.and others agree. Free markets in all drugs
:31:48. > :31:50.would be a disaster. But where countries have
:31:51. > :31:54.decriminalised the possession of drugs, we have seen often very
:31:55. > :31:57.good health gains. And the classic example of course
:31:58. > :32:00.is Portugal, where it realised it was economically unfeasible
:32:01. > :32:02.to continue the traditional way Let's look at Colorado,
:32:03. > :32:10.for instance, where they have decriminalised and
:32:11. > :32:12.legalised cannabis use. Amongst 12-18 year olds being
:32:13. > :32:16.randomly tested in high schools, we used to see about 5.6% of those
:32:17. > :32:20.young people testing So the drugs genie
:32:21. > :32:34.is out of the bottle. Now it's up to 57%
:32:35. > :32:36.since legalisation. But trading drugs initiatives aside,
:32:37. > :32:38.there is one problem that has always pushed drugs use,
:32:39. > :32:40.especially cannabis, You have a lot more people
:32:41. > :32:43.who wouldn't have developed psychosis, schizophrenia-like
:32:44. > :32:45.condition, if they hadn't And the trouble is that a good
:32:46. > :32:49.proportion of them are so dependent I rang a drug addict
:32:50. > :32:53.friend of mine who's in recovery and I said,
:32:54. > :32:55.Jamie, what do you think He said, well, if you legalise
:32:56. > :33:02.drugs, send the police round, put me in handcuffs,
:33:03. > :33:04.because in six months, I'd be dead. They've failed to understand
:33:05. > :33:07.what addiction means to people. If you're an addict,
:33:08. > :33:09.you can never get enough. For all the arguments for changing
:33:10. > :33:11.things, it seems the obstacles, if you'll forgive me,
:33:12. > :33:15.are as high as ever. We're joined now by the Mail
:33:16. > :33:25.on Sunday Columnist Peter Hitchens. Welcome to the Daily Politics but
:33:26. > :33:30.Nick Clegg you have returned from atending a UN summit in New York on
:33:31. > :33:36.drug reform, it was widely panned of being something of a damp squib.
:33:37. > :33:39.Disappointed? I wasn't surprised. You have such diverse opinions
:33:40. > :33:44.across the world so you have nations like Asia and China, Asian countries
:33:45. > :33:49.that want to chop people's hands off if you touch drugs and you have the
:33:50. > :33:52.huge experiment in Latin America towards decriminalisation and or
:33:53. > :33:56.legalisation, the film conflicted the two, so the world is quite
:33:57. > :34:01.polarised in its debate. So no wonder if you bring those countries
:34:02. > :34:04.together they can't agree. So nothing substantial was achieved?
:34:05. > :34:08.Not much was achieved there. What is happening is the interesting thing,
:34:09. > :34:11.what is happening in countries across the world who are
:34:12. > :34:14.experimenting, innovating, trying to do something different to reduce the
:34:15. > :34:19.harm of drugs, that's where the debate is now. Not in the UN it is
:34:20. > :34:22.more at national or even local level. Do you accept that because
:34:23. > :34:25.there are polarised positions, as Nick Clegg has outlined, it is very
:34:26. > :34:29.difficult, then, to look at what some people would argue is the
:34:30. > :34:33.sensible view of decriminalising some drugs, in ordered to reduce the
:34:34. > :34:38.number of people who are actually becoming addicted to harder drugs?
:34:39. > :34:41.Almost everything you have said was factually wrong there. The problem
:34:42. > :34:46.with this debate is it is conducted a the a level of ignorance which is
:34:47. > :34:48.positively astonishing. The biggest decriminalisation experiment
:34:49. > :34:54.probably in the Western world has been conducted in this country since
:34:55. > :34:57.1917 under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Cannabis has been effectively a
:34:58. > :35:04.decriminalised drugs for many years. The head of Flying Squad said so in
:35:05. > :35:07.1994. Lord hail school that well-known hippie instructed
:35:08. > :35:10.magistrates to stop sending people to to prison for cannabis possession
:35:11. > :35:13.in 1937. The number of people arrested and prosecuted has been
:35:14. > :35:18.dropping like a stone in the past few years. Before then the police
:35:19. > :35:22.invented something without asking Parliament, the cannabis warning, to
:35:23. > :35:27.let people off. Canning business possession has been decriminalised
:35:28. > :35:32.in this country. What is going on now is a well-fund the campaign, I
:35:33. > :35:36.call it billionaire dope, to achieve the next stage, the marketing,
:35:37. > :35:39.selling on internet, advertising and selling in shops and huge profits to
:35:40. > :35:44.be made, while at the same time - this is vital, the mental health
:35:45. > :35:46.risks, are enormous and Nick Clegg's party has been very rightly
:35:47. > :35:49.concerned about mental health, and the way it is neglected, a huge
:35:50. > :35:53.contribution to mentedal ill innocence this country is made by
:35:54. > :35:58.the very drugs which he seeks to legalise. Taking the point that in
:35:59. > :36:03.your view Peter hitch yins there has been a de facto... It is not my view
:36:04. > :36:07.the fact are available. I can present a book to Mr Clegg, if you
:36:08. > :36:11.read it, you will have to stop saying everything you say. Don't say
:36:12. > :36:16.you don't get any gift on this programme. In terms of mental
:36:17. > :36:20.illness, that's the big worry for people, that actually you can argue
:36:21. > :36:24.for decriminalisation and we will cite statistics from countries like
:36:25. > :36:28.Portugal that have shown you can then remove the barriers to help
:36:29. > :36:33.addict. But a because of the nature of the skunk or the cannabis which
:36:34. > :36:36.is now being dealt, you are getting increasing inspects of young people
:36:37. > :36:42.suffering from schizophrenia, why is your party still pushing that? I
:36:43. > :36:46.think Peter, bless him, just is on the wrong footing. Don't bless me.
:36:47. > :36:52.Drugs are bad for you. Right. They cause harm. I'm a dad, I don't want
:36:53. > :36:56.my kids hooked on drugs. You have to reduce the harm of drugs. What you
:36:57. > :37:00.can't doe, which is Peter and other - is shou wish it away and somehow
:37:01. > :37:02.think you can prohibit drugs out of existence. They have been in
:37:03. > :37:06.existence for thousands of years, they will always be with us. So as a
:37:07. > :37:10.society, if you want a grown-up debate you have to ask yourself why
:37:11. > :37:12.the war on drugs, and the prohibitionist approach has not
:37:13. > :37:15.worked and ask yourself, for instance, if you want to look at the
:37:16. > :37:21.evidence, and the data, why is it that we have just had the highest
:37:22. > :37:25.rate of drug-related fatalities in this country, 3,500 people,
:37:26. > :37:28.drug-related deaths in 2014. Portugal, after decriminalisation,
:37:29. > :37:31.and by the way, they didn't do it for some hippie instipt, they did it
:37:32. > :37:36.because originally they were worried about the link between drug
:37:37. > :37:41.addiction and hth HIV contamination, a spread of HIV. They have had 22
:37:42. > :37:44.drug-related fatalities. At some point people like Peter have to
:37:45. > :37:48.accept that the war on drugs is not working. If something is not
:37:49. > :37:52.working, I generally think you try something else. If you look at the
:37:53. > :37:56.cover of the book you will find to says - the war we nevering fought.
:37:57. > :38:03.Peter, can I just put to you... No, Nick Clegg is aski for an adult
:38:04. > :38:08.argument. Hang on, let me put the figures to you. In Portugal -
:38:09. > :38:13.because people are interested in evidence-based n Portugal the number
:38:14. > :38:17.of street deaths from drug overdozes, fell, the number of new
:38:18. > :38:22.HIV infections from dirty needles fell from 2,000 to 400. In
:38:23. > :38:27.Washington state, the first year of legalisation, raised a lot of money,
:38:28. > :38:30.too, that went into helping drug addict, but marijuana-related
:38:31. > :38:34.convictions fell by 81% after the first year of decriminalisation.
:38:35. > :38:36.There is a mix of figures. But everything comes down to
:38:37. > :38:39.decriminalisation and legalisation. Let us concentrate on something I
:38:40. > :38:45.know about and we can influence, what is going on in this country,
:38:46. > :38:49.the covert, de facto, decriminalisation of cannabis in
:38:50. > :38:53.this country. You need to look at the figures on the past five years
:38:54. > :38:56.alone the number of arrests for cannabis possession has halved. The
:38:57. > :39:00.head of Bristol police said earlier on this week they weren't bother to
:39:01. > :39:06.arrest people for cannabis propossess. If you stop pretend
:39:07. > :39:09.there is a savage prohibitionry war. This country isinvolved in a huge
:39:10. > :39:13.decriminalisation experiment. All the things you blame on prohibition
:39:14. > :39:17.are the result of this experiment about which you appear not to know,
:39:18. > :39:21.all the figures are available. Some obtained by you in parliamentary
:39:22. > :39:24.questions asked by you, you ought to know. If only people would discuss
:39:25. > :39:28.this and let's discuss it factually. I wrote a book on this, it contains
:39:29. > :39:32.the details of how this happened. Why don't you pay any attention, you
:39:33. > :39:36.say you are worried about your kids... Hang on. We have run out of
:39:37. > :39:41.time. If you are worried about your children you should not be pleased
:39:42. > :39:44.with the way they are exposed wholly to a completely unrestrained
:39:45. > :39:48.cannabis trade. Peter, hang on, let Nick Clegg answer Peter, of course
:39:49. > :39:51.is correct when he is saying that there is sort of de facto
:39:52. > :39:57.decriminalisation going on. Thank you. I'm going to right that down
:39:58. > :40:03.and quote T It is not a remarkable discovery. . You have never said T
:40:04. > :40:07.you have said a couple of years a... ALL TALK AT
:40:08. > :40:11.ONCE Pietersener, you need to let him speak, it is not a monologue.
:40:12. > :40:17.Let him speak. You do yourself no favours with this. I'm doing a big
:40:18. > :40:21.favour. Nick Clegg I'm pointing out his views are not remarkable. Of
:40:22. > :40:24.course there is de facto decriminalisation going on, the
:40:25. > :40:27.Chief Constable in Durham has made it clear his police officers are not
:40:28. > :40:34.going to arrest people for the personal possession of cannabis. On
:40:35. > :40:36.that narrow point I agree, let's have honesty decriminalisation is
:40:37. > :40:41.happening. What people doesn't address is that you have this sort
:40:42. > :40:45.of legal twilight world where it is happening in practice but it is not
:40:46. > :40:48.recognised in law, at the same time, it is the criminal gangs who
:40:49. > :40:56.nonetheless continue to profit from it all. My question is - to what -
:40:57. > :40:59.at what point is criminality, mass criminality the answer to drugs and
:41:00. > :41:03.the what were that they do to individuals? I have never understood
:41:04. > :41:07.why anyone think that is letting criminals run this industry is the
:41:08. > :41:12.best way to protect youngsters. Because they have no interest in
:41:13. > :41:15.protecting youngsters whatsoever. So let cynical businessman run t like
:41:16. > :41:18.they ran the tobacco industry. Thank you.
:41:19. > :41:33.A quiet day today. So the Prime Minister has today
:41:34. > :41:36.joined forces with the former General Secretary of the TUC,
:41:37. > :41:38.Brendan Barber, arguing that leaving poses a 'triple threat'
:41:39. > :41:40.to workers: on jobs, But this morning, in the Commons,
:41:41. > :41:44.eurosceptic Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin claimed
:41:45. > :41:46.that the government had done a dirty deal over the Trade Union Bill,
:41:47. > :41:49.watering it down in exchange for Union backing - and cash -
:41:50. > :41:51.for the 'Remain' campaign. It has been confirmed to me,
:41:52. > :41:54.through more than two independent sources,
:41:55. > :41:55.Number Ten instructed these concessions to be made,
:41:56. > :41:57.after the discussions This being true, would amount
:41:58. > :42:00.to the sale of Government policy This wreaks of the same
:42:01. > :42:06.as "cash for questions". This shows this Government really
:42:07. > :42:08.is at the rotten heart We're joined now by Patrick Minford,
:42:09. > :42:17.one of eight economists in favour of Britain leaving
:42:18. > :42:20.the European Union, who have said this morning that quitting
:42:21. > :42:22.the single market would boost national income and raise
:42:23. > :42:45.living standards. Would it not be fair to say when we
:42:46. > :42:47.have the IMF, EECD, the World Bank, Treasury, IMS, all saying that...
:42:48. > :42:50.That you represent a perfectly distinguish group of economists, you
:42:51. > :42:53.are outliars on this debate? When you are say we are outlayers, it is
:42:54. > :42:56.an impressive list but all Her Majesty's Government's friends which
:42:57. > :43:02.have been lined up to pitch in and how many have done any work on this?
:43:03. > :43:06.What we have done, is a lot of work on this, ape the glaring kind of
:43:07. > :43:10.hole in the modelling of the Government, in a nutshell, is that
:43:11. > :43:15.they have assumed we leave the tariffs of the EU in tact when we
:43:16. > :43:20.leave. Our point is this is crazy because the big gain from leaving
:43:21. > :43:26.the EU is to get rid of tariffs and go to unilateral free trade. That's
:43:27. > :43:29.the option. When you do that you unleash a dynamic of falling price,
:43:30. > :43:33.food prices for the poor, very important. Manufacturing prices.
:43:34. > :43:50.These are raised 20% by EU protectionism. Let me unpick that.
:43:51. > :46:02.Because that's interesting. First of all, does
:46:03. > :46:08.Our consumers are paying for it. All of these bodies you've spoken about
:46:09. > :46:13.have not looked to these point. The assumed wittingly carry on imposing
:46:14. > :46:19.the common external tariff on everybody outside. The entire point
:46:20. > :46:22.of leaving the EU is to gain freedom over our commercial policy, our
:46:23. > :46:30.trade barriers and move to free trade. Nick Clegg? I am perplexed.
:46:31. > :46:38.Is there any guest I will agree with? I didn't realise that was the
:46:39. > :46:44.exercise. I hear to disagree with everyone? I am perplexed because the
:46:45. > :46:48.single market is created by your former boss, Margaret Thatcher. If
:46:49. > :46:54.you pull out of it, but you just said you would. And then abide by
:46:55. > :46:58.WTO, it would absolutely hammer British export manufacturing,
:46:59. > :47:02.700,000 people working in the car many factoring industry in this
:47:03. > :47:06.country would suddenly faced 10% tariffs, the farming community would
:47:07. > :47:10.have 30% tariffs, the benchmark one Gisby kebab. You would have a very
:47:11. > :47:15.detrimental effect on manufacturing, yet the rest of our economy, so
:47:16. > :47:19.important to services. Would be a lot out of the actors we need to
:47:20. > :47:23.single market. I find it very curious free to do. You must read
:47:24. > :47:28.our report for the full answer but basically the single market does not
:47:29. > :47:34.apply much to services yet. Leslie that on one side because it's not
:47:35. > :47:38.that it is not complete. So we leave that on one side and it's small
:47:39. > :47:43.potatoes in this argument. That is the answer to your last point. On
:47:44. > :47:47.the first point, what you forget, who pays for all of this protection?
:47:48. > :47:54.The answer is the British consumer. In addition, the British consumer
:47:55. > :48:01.pays for higher prices, for German and French partners and German and
:48:02. > :48:06.French manufacturers. The British Digital carries an enormous load.
:48:07. > :48:11.For you see dust bodies are wiped out his element, they have forgotten
:48:12. > :48:18.that when we leave, the best policy is to get rid of all of this. Every
:48:19. > :48:23.first year student in those that free trade dominates protectionism.
:48:24. > :48:26.What the Treasury in their wisdom have neglected is that this move to
:48:27. > :48:31.free trade is beneficial to the British economy. You were talking
:48:32. > :48:35.about unilateral free trade, saying we should take with all of our
:48:36. > :48:40.tariffs, even if other countries keep their tariffs against us.
:48:41. > :48:45.Exactly. One of the things we make in our report is that trade
:48:46. > :48:49.agreements, which everyone is banging on about, have no effect on
:48:50. > :48:54.our welfare and trade. They divert trade, they do not affect the total
:48:55. > :48:57.of trade. This talk about trade agreements which Nick and his
:48:58. > :49:01.friends are banging on about is irrelevant. What matters is our
:49:02. > :49:04.tariffs because we are a small the world market. What we can influence
:49:05. > :49:10.is the price are consumers pay, and that is what we focus on. With all
:49:11. > :49:17.of these August bodies and great men like Nick have not looked at this.
:49:18. > :49:28.Where can I view as read about it? There is a pamphlet on our website.
:49:29. > :49:32.Thank you. Our poor children being let down by poor teaching? A report
:49:33. > :49:35.from the commission on inequality in education and the social market
:49:36. > :49:39.foundation, which is chaired by our guest of the day, Nick Clegg, says
:49:40. > :49:43.disadvantaged children are more likely to have less experienced
:49:44. > :49:47.teachers with fewer qualifications in more affluent ones. Adam has been
:49:48. > :49:51.asking people here in London to speak about the teachers who had a
:49:52. > :49:58.big impact on them. Who's your favourite and why? A man called Mr
:49:59. > :50:05.Rheingold, who was an ex-prisoner of war, fantastic teacher. And
:50:06. > :50:11.stimulated thoughts, ideas, and everything. I was always bottle of
:50:12. > :50:14.the class because I never listened. Never did any homework, and it was
:50:15. > :50:19.the maths teacher. I was always quite good at maths and she took me
:50:20. > :50:24.under the wing as she listened and I went up the class. That was a
:50:25. > :50:29.favourite. Mr locum for my English teacher. He just made everything
:50:30. > :50:32.fun. Is that the most important thing? Yes, because if you have fun
:50:33. > :50:39.while learning your reserved information better and learn to
:50:40. > :50:47.enjoy it more. He was yours? I didn't really like any of my
:50:48. > :50:53.teachers. At school? Mrs Hirst, English teacher, fantastic. Gave me
:50:54. > :50:57.a love of literature, brilliant. Stayed with me for my entire life.
:50:58. > :51:02.Do you think teachers can be taught how to be good? No, it would have to
:51:03. > :51:08.be Mr Farrell because he made economic relative and quite fun.
:51:09. > :51:16.Have you been using economic knowledge in the last few years? I'm
:51:17. > :51:20.a trainee accountant, so yes. You only Everything! I wouldn't go that
:51:21. > :51:24.far but I do treat him to the odd pint when I go back. You start out
:51:25. > :51:33.with him? Every Christmas. Who was your favourite teacher was like Ms
:51:34. > :51:37.Holden, the first time I ever liked will go up at conferences Lien the
:51:38. > :51:42.return of the Jedi. And she was a teacher. We are joined by the Vice
:51:43. > :51:49.the University. Nick Clegg Comey said this research of disadvantaged
:51:50. > :51:53.pupils get a grand slam of poor teaching. The research done by the
:51:54. > :52:01.social market foundation and a data lad that look at the latest facts
:52:02. > :52:04.and figures is that schools, catering for higher numbers of
:52:05. > :52:09.children and free school meals, which is the best if somewhat
:52:10. > :52:13.approximate way of doing it. It's the best measure of disadvantage,
:52:14. > :52:20.they tend to have teachers with law or no qualifications. Ohio numbers
:52:21. > :52:23.of teachers with low or no qualifications. Teachers without
:52:24. > :52:27.degrees in subjects are higher numbers of teachers without degrees
:52:28. > :52:31.in the subject they are teaching and higher turnover of teachers. For
:52:32. > :52:37.that reason a lower number of experienced. Those combined to
:52:38. > :52:40.create, despite the good efforts of the teachers there, lower quality
:52:41. > :52:45.teaching. This is long established that of all the things that affect a
:52:46. > :52:48.Chad Dawson at education, curriculum, class sizes, if it is
:52:49. > :52:56.called an academy or not. The quality of teaching remains at the
:52:57. > :52:59.most important thing. As we progress through this year along commission
:53:00. > :53:05.and peel away the different layers of the problem, it appears that the
:53:06. > :53:09.qualifications and longevity and experience of teachers in the
:53:10. > :53:17.classroom and schools need the most of their qualified teachers. It's
:53:18. > :53:20.the wrong way around, I understand. Having teachers who are qualified in
:53:21. > :53:23.the subject they are teaching, they should have good degrees or
:53:24. > :53:28.professional qualifications in that area. I was lucky when I was at
:53:29. > :53:33.school that my teachers had honours degrees in the areas they were
:53:34. > :53:36.teaching. Is it your arguments they also need a postgraduate certificate
:53:37. > :53:42.of education that they need to be qualified not just in their subject,
:53:43. > :53:45.but also as teachers? I think this is where can I do assure making to
:53:46. > :53:52.speak about this more expertly, the section defines the real because you
:53:53. > :53:55.can say I have a brilliant history teacher who never had qualified
:53:56. > :53:58.teacher status and they were the most inspiring teacher ever. That
:53:59. > :54:02.might be true and I'm sure there are lots of cases like that, but the
:54:03. > :54:06.general principle appears and the evidence is pretty overwhelming for
:54:07. > :54:09.it, that having a qualified teacher status does raise the standard and
:54:10. > :54:14.quality of teaching in the classroom. Let me put that point
:54:15. > :54:17.Anthony. Teaching is a profession, you characters page up and thing you
:54:18. > :54:21.can do it because you are well taught. I think Nick and the
:54:22. > :54:29.commission right to put a spotlight on teaching in the most deprived
:54:30. > :54:32.areas where you do need to have the best possible teachers and that
:54:33. > :54:38.stability that Nix speaks about because continuity, known faces and
:54:39. > :54:42.contrast and families as well. What about this qualified teaching status
:54:43. > :54:45.was not differ on that because qualified matters but you can do it
:54:46. > :54:52.the job. I wouldn't want to leave so many gaps in the King as people
:54:53. > :54:55.think an entirely out from my life that makes entire year out from my
:54:56. > :55:02.life, learning on the job does work. He said teaching as a profession.
:55:03. > :55:05.Learning on the job is a trade. That is what journalists do. We are a
:55:06. > :55:11.trade not a profession, learn on the job. What you just described is what
:55:12. > :55:17.traders, a profession get a qualification that makes, a
:55:18. > :55:22.profession get a qualification. It is different but it's not planned
:55:23. > :55:26.internet. You learn best, I did that year out, learned best from being in
:55:27. > :55:34.schools where as part of that there was lots of training in the school.
:55:35. > :55:42.What really helped me to learn how to teach as far as I can was to see
:55:43. > :55:49.other people teach and there's no alternative to getting in front of
:55:50. > :55:54.people. It is not either or. Professional qualifications involve
:55:55. > :56:01.on-the-job training. You are quite right. And if you do ask new
:56:02. > :56:05.teachers, one wonderful thing is you have lots of newly qualified
:56:06. > :56:10.teachers who actively want to go to the schools with the highest number
:56:11. > :56:15.of challenges. What goes wrong, they do not stay for some reason. And one
:56:16. > :56:22.of the things they say is that what they want most is a more experienced
:56:23. > :56:26.teacher in that same subject. To help them plan classes and so on.
:56:27. > :56:31.That is something some schools and Academies trust stew but it needs to
:56:32. > :56:39.be done on a more widespread scale and we should consider whether we
:56:40. > :56:44.pay them. I think I could walk into Nick's old school and teach a class
:56:45. > :56:51.on political science or economic some. Without training. For a little
:56:52. > :56:54.bit, at least. It would be much more difficult to go into a difficult
:56:55. > :56:58.school and teach subjects without advice on how to handle these
:56:59. > :57:05.children who have got all sorts of problems. But it is seeing the
:57:06. > :57:10.really gritty experienced teachers doing it, seeing the real-life
:57:11. > :57:16.interactions and seemed you do it, Nick talking about men touring
:57:17. > :57:21.important things. There is something different about teaching, you have
:57:22. > :57:26.to do it on the job. Trainee doctors get medical tuition and they go into
:57:27. > :57:31.the water. The other key thing is leadership, if you get great
:57:32. > :57:34.leadership, so we are setting up a leadership college because nothing
:57:35. > :57:38.matters more than a headship. Then the teachers whilst an and they will
:57:39. > :57:45.attract the best quality and retain them. You both agree on that, and
:57:46. > :57:46.where can we see this report? On the Social Market Foundation website.
:57:47. > :57:55.Thank you. Nick Clegg has talked his way out of
:57:56. > :58:00.having his knowledge tested on the late Prince. Can you remember the
:58:01. > :58:07.question for our quiz of the day. There's just time before we go
:58:08. > :58:10.to find out the answer to our quiz. As we've been hearing,
:58:11. > :58:14.Nick Clegg is a big music fan. But which '80s popstar did
:58:15. > :58:16.he dress up as when he was Was it - a) Mick Jagger,
:58:17. > :58:26.b) David Bowie, c) Freddie Mercury, Ziggy Stardust. We have a picture.
:58:27. > :58:32.Thank you for the picture of David Bowie, I was going to say! It could
:58:33. > :58:34.be anybody. That is very embarrassing, thank you very much.
:58:35. > :58:40.Good job it is not late-night television.
:58:41. > :58:43.And I will be on BBC One for This Week with Shelagh Fogarty,
:58:44. > :58:45.Anne McElvoy, historian Susanah Lipsscomb, Michael Portillo,
:58:46. > :58:47.Alan Johnson, Miranda Green and John Nicolson, from 11:45
:58:48. > :58:56.And I'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the big