29/06/2013 Dateline London

They are proving as deadly as ever. I will be back with the bulletin at

the top of the hour, but now it is time for Dateline London with Gavin

London. Prayers for Nelson Mandela. More cuts in British government

spending. And Euroscepticism in the EU. Plus, which women should be on

British currency? My guests today are Donald McIntyre of the

Independent, Eunice Goes, the Portuguese writer and broadcaster,

Stephanie Baker of Bloomberg Markets and Vincent Magombe of Africa Inform

International. Barack Obama, currently touring Africa, said

Nelson Mandela was his hero, and spoke for hundreds of millions of

people around the world. As prayers were said for the man who, more than

any other, brought South Africa out of apartheid, what is the Mandela

legacy? Can South Africa point the way for other countries? And what is

Barack Obama likely to achieve in Africa now? Just the way in which

Nelson Mandela is viewed where you come from, Uganda. There are three

ways people see him, the way people see him in Africa, then in South

Africa, and the world. In South Africa, you can see, in spite of the

big problems, economic and social conflict, many people in South

Africa just value the fact that perhaps without his approaches, his

individual touch, the way he managed the changes from apartheid to

present-day South Africa, perhaps we wouldn't be talking like this today.

South Africa would still be under apartheid, if not, there would have

been a revolution. I think that individual touch, the human being

who can reconcile with your enemy. In Africa, he should let you can be

a leader for the people, not for yourself. In other words, be a

leader, even just for a short period of time. Then go away. Going away is

very important. Unfortunately, the legacy he wanted to set has not been

captured by the rest of Africa. I come from Uganda, the Ugandan

President has stayed in power for 26 years. He wants to go again in the

next elections, preparing perhaps his son to take over, and it is

causing social crisis in the country. In that sense, Robert

Mugabe is more of a model than Mandela. Absolutely, though I would

say that many African leaders, like the president of Angola, who has

been in power for many decades, one of the wealthiest men in the world,

he does not need inspiration from Robert Mugabe, he is his own man. I

think it is an interesting point about Mandela. In South Africa,

presidents cannot linger on for ever, but the current president, he

is not exactly the example of selfless leaders. Their style of

government has been fairly divisive and there is huge disenchantment

with them. There is even disenchantment with the African

National Congress. It was a very broad church, but is now splitting

up. New party is emerging, so there is a sense that the ANC has betrayed

the legacy of Mandela. South Africa did not undergo a

violent revolution, but it has also remained a capitalist country, which

is not always the pattern in other places. South Africa has huge

problems, on employment up to 30%, depending on the way you look at it.

You also have the challenge of natural resource being a huge part

of the economy. We saw strikes last year that were very disruptive.

South Africa has that resource curse of the challenges that go with that.

How do you develop the economy in a way that is not just focused on

natural resources, which is a problem across Africa. How do use

yet? I cannot match Vincent's excellent

summary of the legacy in Africa. One of the things about Mandela is just

a reminder of the importance of the single individual in political

change. There is no question that the struggle against apartheid was

wider than just him, but it is also hard to think of someone else who

could have brought the independence and majority rule in South Africa so

peacefully. It is worth remembering. I can think of all sorts of parts of

the world, where people say, if only there was a Mandela here. It is true

in the Middle East and other places. Of course, he is an example of a

kind of politician, not just in Africa, that we seldom see.

Before Northern Ireland cracked it and signed the deal, they took Irish

politicians from all sides to South Africa. They took them there to

learn lessons about how you reconcile. What is important in the

issue of economic 's, some South Africans say that Mandela didn't

resolve the issues, it is true that that is now the biggest challenge. I

think that any presidents, if they want to build on the legacy of

Mandela, they need to make sure they deal with this impending catastrophe

that will hit the country if unresolved economic problems are

allowed to go on. Is it fair to say that the South African Constitution

is a great model, but the way it has been implemented, including the

economic problems, that all still exists. When EC countries like

Brazil, with people exploding, and we see in Europe, social conflict

coming because of unresolved economic oblongs, it rings to mind

the fact that we need revolutions. I am talking about economic

revolutions, but not the kind that Robert Mugabe had. He is a hero for

those people, he got them independence in Zimbabwe. And he is

right to try and get land back, but the way he did it is obviously

wrong. But Africans need to find the right approach. The way that makes

those people who still have economic power, that features their minds, to

share that power. We are seeing the wrong approach from Jacob Zuma.

a couple of minutes on resident or Obama. The first black American

president, onto in Africa and South Africa, where he talked of Mandela

as a great deal. Has he done anything in Africa? Not really. He

is trying to bring American business to Africa. He is trying to give a

message to countries that are trying to introduce multi-party politics.

He is trying to send a message that this is the way to go in Africa. But

I don't think he had a very ambitious agenda for this visit to

Africa. It was mostly symbolic. The British Government cut a few

more chunks off itself this week as Government departments were forced

into more austerity. Then we were told there is to be 100 billion

spent on infrastructure projects. Oh, wait a minute, we have been told

about that money already. It all comes as the EU has decided to make

more money available to create jobs. Is this Keynesianism for slow

learners? What you make of what we have heard, Donald? More cuts to

government departments and this infrastructure spending, which is

not new money. I do not think you could accuse

George Osborne and David Cameron of Keynesianism. It is a very savage

programme of cuts, and I cannot remember a political statement so

partisan, which was done in a way to show that you do not cut benefits

for the elderly, because that would affect Tory boaters. You do cut

welfare, because you know that Labour will feel uncomfortable in

attacking you for it, because their labour would be seen as the welfare

party. It is a very political programme of cuts. The

infrastructure projects have either been announced, in some cases

several times before, or if there is quite a lot of scepticism about

whether and how fast or is that all people actually be implemented.

You cannot build a bridge over the Mersey tomorrow, so it does take

some time. I think in many ways the programme

is excellent. I think if these things all happened in the way the

government says they will, that would be great. But just to take one

example, the high-speed train, which is a huge programme, and as the

finance minister says, would match some of the other things going on on

the railways in judo and would bring a huge number of jobs, but at the

same time, it is Italy controversial among Labour and Tory MPs. And it is

not due to start until 2017. That is the problem with a lot of the

initiatives. They're not you, it is a change of communication strategy,

because actually capital investment is going to fall next year, so they

have just repackaged these measures. But a lot of them won't start until

2015, so the feeling is there needs to be investment in infrastructure

right now. Broadly speaking, the cuts are relatively small, when you

think about it. The infrastructure investment is also relatively small

in terms of having an impact on the economy and getting economic growth

of the ground again. I do not think it will have the impact there

hoping. A lot of bets is towards the next election, when we can expect

tax rises to fund the budget gap. That leaves Labour with a dilemma.

What do they say about welfare? They are not saying they can reverse any

of this. And it will be even worse after the election, because the

likelihood of interest rates rising and the servicing of government debt

will go up muscle even the �11 billion they have cut of government

departments, that could be eaten up by interest costs on servicing

government debt. Twitter using the bigger picture in Europe,

particularly in southern Europeans states, where there is growing

Euroscepticism. For example, in Spain. How about Portugal?

Portugal, it is the same depressing picture. There is huge unemployment,

negative growth, despair. Young people are leaving in droves to go

to African countries to find jobs. There is the feeling that the

country is condemned. Even if the debt will be reduced in five years,

which it wants, there are no hopes for economic growth for the next ten

years. I talk to friends of mine, we have children of ten, and they are

very concerned. What will be the life for their children? When they

finish university, there will be no jobs. Even at loggerheads, because

this austerity never worked in his study. In 100 years of steady

programmes, it never delivered the deficit-reduction and never

delivered economic growth. It is about ideology, it is about

destroying the welfare state. There was an interesting document from

Morgan Stanley circulating social media this weekend. The plan is to

reduce and eliminate and destroy the welfare state, which is supposed to

be the evil of European economists, which it is not, by the way. The

programme is about the destruction of the welfare state, but a steady

two is not delivering what it misses on the tin. The populations of

southern Europe are increasingly happy. There are increasing

demonstrations, they happen on a daily basis. There is rebellion

happening in very creative ways, and people are starting to talk about

leaving Europe, which was a taboo subject for over 20 years. I do not

believe it will happen, but the fact that people are talking about it,

means that something must change. think the catastrophe with politics

right across the world is when politicians forget they are dealing

with real people. Like Margaret Thatcher, they just cut jobs, miners

can go, whatever. You forget that those people are real people. And in

Europe they are voters. So you can see them perhaps is ready to kick

out some of these governments. They are making it difficult for some of

the European countries to put things through. They need to learn some

lessons here. Cameron and his party are in the best place. If you take

Margaret Thatcher, whilst she went ahead with the poll tax, cutting

jobs from the miners, that was her demise. I may not be somebody who

can see the future, but I can see a social crisis exploding in Europe,

including Britain. That is one of the reasons why the EU is putting

money in. Why are they coming so late? They should have thought from

the very beginning when they have been trying to deal with the

financial situation that there is a social crisis of young people with

no jobs. Angela Merkel is running for real action in September in

Germany, 7% up the world 's population are in Europe, 50% of the

welfare spending. She argues that that is unsustainable. Yes, and it

has been part of Cameron 's vocabulary. He has quoted Angela

Merkel several times and pictures, and it is a big theme of his. Nobody

thinks that the welfare state should not be developed and adapted to

changing times. I guess that politicians across the spectrum in

Britain recognise that there may be a problem about labour markets that

are too inflexible, and all the rest of it. But going back to what

Vincent was saying, one of the things that British Government did

this week was to say that if you lose your job, you can't get a

benefit for a week. You can't sign on or get jobseeker's allowance for

a week. Oddly, this will have a very perverse effect, potentially. It

will mean that people are frightened of getting off benefits in order to

get a temporary job or a job that does not look very permanent,

because they know that as soon as they get the job they will be off

benefits, so they are being punished for trying to get a job. I agree

with Vincent, I think it is not thinking about the people that will

be affected. The other part of this is the

question of social unrest. We have seen what is happening in Turkey,

Brazil and the Arab world. Greece has been a very unhappy place. Do

you see the prospect of more social unrest? There are many young people

who just don't have jobs and don't have hope, perhaps? In Spain, the

figure is 50% of young people unemployed. Spain and southern

Europe has its own youth bulge, so to speak, of educated, unemployed

youth. I think we see a risk. I think social media can make these

things snowball faster than previously, as we have seen in

Turkey and Brazil. I think governments need to be very careful.

It really depends on how the next two years go with the austerity

measures. Finance ministers have given governments and extra two

years to get their budget deficits down. The European Central Bank

chief has talked about making sure that the austerity programmes do not

kill growth. I think there is a growing idea that this cannot

continue, austerity by itself is not a solution. Moving on, the Queen is

the face of the British currency, but she is the only woman on our

banknotes, or she will be when Elizabeth Fry is replaced on �5

notes by Winston Churchill. Labour Leader Ed Miliband spoke of a

wider crisis in the underrepresentation of women in

British culture. Does he have a point? Yes. A very interesting study

has been done showing that representation in politics, the

media, business etc in Britain is around 22%. 22% of women in

Parliament, in the boards, the media, so one. There is a problem.

He speaks from a position where the Labour Party has done more for women

in politics. There have been all women shortlists and other measures

taken to increase the number of Labour MPs in their benches. But I

would say that perhaps if he would appoint a feud women for his

Cabinet, because on his long list their only two women advising Ed

Miliband. Perhaps a bit more gender issues would be very interesting.

People actually look at how they behave. Two women in his kitchen

cabinet. I think the discussion about the banknotes is a bit silly.

Does anybody ever really look at what is there? I bet most people

don't have a clue who Elizabeth Fry was. Bee I had to look her up. She

was a campaigner for prison reform. More importantly, look at the

monetary policy committee of the Bank of England. It is made up

entirely of white, middle-aged men. I find it extraordinary that they

could not find a qualified female economist in the UK willing to spend

three days a week for �130,000 to do that job. There are certainly some

available! That is not the only example. You look at the number of

female CEOs in the FTSE 100. Lords, the judiciary. There has been

a push to get more women on company boards, but that is stuck at around

17%. I think we should stop focusing on the symbolism of banknotes and

look at, concretely, who is running real businesses.

On the banknote point, when Mervyn King announced that Jane Austen was

waiting in the wings to go on the �10 note, one female MP made that

very point. On the monetary policy committee there are no women. Just

on the triviality of the banknote issue, I don't think anybody really

knows, and indeed, Kenyans, himself, Rob Lee said that Charles Dickens

was on the �10 note. Actually, it is Charles Darwin. But these points are

various serious about women. Some newspapers for which I have worked

have not been at the forefront of having women in the top jobs. It is

also true, the point that Younis makes about the kitchen cabinet. If

you have a lot of Etonians, they are unlikely to be female. In the

interest of full disclosure, the director-general of the BBC has

never been a woman. I really don't bother about this. But on the real

facts, they are kind of incontrovertible? When I look at

Europeans and Western people crying about women not being in high places

and so on, I don't know whether you want us Africans to criteria is or

cry blood. You just have to compare Africa. I look around and I see very

many women employed. We are only starting to have African women

presidents. Malawi. Even when you have one, you still find that they

are within a culture where the men don't allow them to do what they

need to do. We have very grave problems in terms of our women, in

trying to achieve in modern life. In traditional society they sort of

have places, they are very powerful mothers and so one, but when I look

at Britain, I have been here for about 20 years, I think there are

real problems, it is really true. you think the symbolism is

important? Yes, it is normal that women are an banknotes, that they

are managing bank, the chair of the Bank of England or the

director-general of the BBC. Symbolism is extremely important.

is not very often that we say this is the first woman to... If the

stories did not exist there would be more equality. But the difference

between British culture and Africa is that now, through the struggles

of people like Elizabeth Fry a long time ago up to now, some systems are

in place and infrastructures are place to get women educated, to get

them to take up positions and so on. In places like Africa, where I come

from, those things are not there. What could be done about getting

more women on boards? There has been a lot of debate about

whether or not we need quotas. That proposal was shot down by the EU. I

don't think voters will work. I think what needs to happen is there

needs to be more ways of promoting women within management structures

and companies so that they have the kind of experience that could then

qualify them to serve on a board. That is it, women with the right

experience to do the job. Yes, with the experience that would qualify

them. Then they are in the pool of candidates, and I think that has

been disingenuous. There are enough candidates but we need a bigger