:00:09. > :00:14.The chances of a double-dip recession are rising, as the world
:00:14. > :00:18.economy speaks with its numbers and shouts "big trouble ". The price of
:00:18. > :00:23.gold hits a record high for the second straight day. It is one of
:00:23. > :00:27.the few safe havens left. Six months ago analysts were saying
:00:27. > :00:30.it would be all right, the world economy was clawing its way out of
:00:30. > :00:35.the abyss. Now fatal uncertainty stalks the market.
:00:35. > :00:39.We asked the man credited with predicting the last crash, if we
:00:39. > :00:43.are about to see another. Suicide bombings in Kabul, target
:00:43. > :00:50.the British Council. What will the timetable for the draw yawn do to
:00:50. > :00:56.the security of our - drawdown do to the security of our troops.
:00:56. > :01:01.Political perils of going into the other house. Sally Bercow survives
:01:01. > :01:04.the night in Big Brother, what are the consequences for little husband.
:01:04. > :01:08.Does your husband actually know you are here this evening? He does now,
:01:08. > :01:13.he's not exactly chuffed about it. To discuss it, we are rejoined by
:01:13. > :01:22.political husband and wife team, Christine and Neil Hamilton, and
:01:22. > :01:24.the Conservative MP, Jacob Rees- Mogg.
:01:24. > :01:30.Good evening, when banks aren't safe and Governments are bankrupt,
:01:30. > :01:37.it is time to head to your log cabin, tweeted the economist who
:01:37. > :01:42.predicted the crash of 2007, not everyone has a log cabin to hand,
:01:42. > :01:46.everyone agrees with the sentiment. Bad economic data piles on top of
:01:46. > :01:52.bad economic data. High street figures are down, markets in
:01:52. > :01:57.continual motion sickness, and the European debt levels in crisis. We
:01:57. > :02:02.will hear from the author of Black Swan, Nicolas Nassim Talib, what he
:02:02. > :02:06.believes the long-term remedy is. First a week of turmoil.
:02:06. > :02:14.When banks and deposits aren't safe and Governments are bankrupt, time
:02:14. > :02:24.to buy canned food, Spam, guns, ammunition, gold bars and rush to
:02:24. > :02:25.
:02:25. > :02:29.the mountain cabin. Thus speaks Dr Doom, via Twitter. Investors are
:02:29. > :02:32.doing that, gold has hit an all- time high and the Swiss franc is
:02:32. > :02:36.soaring against the dollar. On the global stock markets, the direction
:02:36. > :02:39.of their graphs is down. The market is crashing, that is what is
:02:39. > :02:46.happening. The market has crashed in Germany, and France, it is on
:02:46. > :02:50.the edge of a 25% fall in the UK. Which is a crash, a good old
:02:50. > :02:55.fashioned crash. It is crashing because Governments of Europe are
:02:55. > :03:01.in very bad way financially. months ago analysts were saying
:03:01. > :03:07.everything would be already, the world economy was slowly clawing
:03:07. > :03:14.its way back to recovery, now the chances of a double-dip are high,
:03:14. > :03:19.so why? After Lehman Brothers, credit markets collapsed, trade
:03:19. > :03:24.collapsed, tkwroth and the stock markets collapsed. So Governments
:03:24. > :03:27.unleashed two kinds of stimulus, they cut taxes and boosted splik
:03:27. > :03:32.spending, the so-called fiscal stimlau, they cut interest rates to
:03:32. > :03:39.zero, and after a bit of hesitation - stimulus, they skut interest
:03:39. > :03:42.rates to zero and after a bit of hesitation, printed money.
:03:42. > :03:52.Some currencies and political systems were not strong enough to
:03:52. > :03:52.
:03:52. > :03:56.take the strain. The Greek crisis ignited chaos in
:03:56. > :04:01.the eurozone, right now only lending by the European Central
:04:01. > :04:06.Bank is keeping Italy and Spain afloat. The future of the euro is
:04:06. > :04:10.at stake, now growth here is faltering. The outcome is grim as
:04:10. > :04:13.we go forward. The reasons are, first of all, a lot of the recovery
:04:13. > :04:18.we had been seeing in Europe has come about because of exports, but
:04:18. > :04:22.there is no doubt that exports are starting to slow down quite
:04:22. > :04:25.appreciably. Particularly exports to Asia, which had really been the
:04:25. > :04:30.key catalyst driving European industrial growth in recent
:04:30. > :04:34.quarters. In America, large parts of the
:04:34. > :04:39.population see state spending as against their core religious and
:04:39. > :04:43.constitutional beliefs, and now that's filtered through to politics,
:04:43. > :04:50.stymieing President Obama on the budget. This week's market mayhem
:04:50. > :04:54.is driven by fear, that America's recovery has run out, that Europe's
:04:54. > :05:03.banking system could explode, and politicians, the world over, have
:05:03. > :05:06.little idea about what to do next. The danger we have right now is
:05:06. > :05:12.that although we're not at the moment in a recession, that the
:05:12. > :05:16.sharp falls we are seeing in equity markets could actually drive down
:05:16. > :05:19.confidence, and drive down wealth, and in turn, precipitate a
:05:19. > :05:23.recession, which would then make the markets want to fall further
:05:23. > :05:28.from here. There is a real danger of a downward spiral, unless we get
:05:28. > :05:31.some force that comes in to intervene and arrest that. Another
:05:31. > :05:36.fear driving the markets is that the cure could be worse than the
:05:36. > :05:41.disease. The way out economically is a tried
:05:41. > :05:46.and tested method, which is inflation. A level of inflation, 5-
:05:46. > :05:50.6%, exactly what we have in the UK. A devaluation of the currency,
:05:50. > :05:53.which is what we have in the UK. Austerity to cut back the costs in
:05:53. > :05:59.the state, we have that in the UK. In Europe you haven't got that, in
:05:59. > :06:03.America you haven't got that. The same will have to happen in America,
:06:04. > :06:07.5-6% inflation per year, for five or six years a devalued currency
:06:07. > :06:13.and austerity, that reality is frightening the markets.
:06:14. > :06:18.Britain, riots apart, is not se centre of this global stress. But -
:06:18. > :06:20.at the centre of this global stress, but any trouble is bad for us, we
:06:20. > :06:25.are one of the most globalised economies in the world.
:06:25. > :06:30.A few moments ago I spoke to Nicolas Nassim Talib, author of the
:06:30. > :06:33.influential Black Swan theory of unpredictable events A few months
:06:33. > :06:39.back on Newsnight he used this theory to warn of civil unrest on
:06:40. > :06:43.the streets of London, which came to pass. I came to ask would world
:06:43. > :06:49.recession be his next prediction? don't think the bad news will be a
:06:49. > :06:53.recession. The bad news is that not figuring out what got us here, and
:06:53. > :06:59.continuing to commit the same mistake. Too much debt and too much
:06:59. > :07:03.of what we call the "agency" problem. On the part of the
:07:03. > :07:06.financial system. Let me tell you what that problem is, the tumour at
:07:06. > :07:10.the centre of the system not removed. It is when someone makes
:07:10. > :07:16.money and gets a bow New York and when they lose money we pay the
:07:16. > :07:23.price, the taxpayers, the future generations in this case. The core
:07:23. > :07:27.of the problem is that asymmetry in pay-off, socialising losses and
:07:27. > :07:31.privatising the gain, and the generator of that iniquity is still
:07:31. > :07:35.there. You are basically saying the banks got away with it, are you?
:07:35. > :07:38.What has happened, since the crisis these people got us here and they
:07:38. > :07:44.are reaping the benefits. As an industry they have not suffered.
:07:44. > :07:48.You have people in the streets, unemployed people, we have the
:07:48. > :07:52.Federal Reserve doing everything to finance these bonuses. This is, I
:07:52. > :07:58.mean, I'm outraged. What do you think actually needs to happen then
:07:58. > :08:04.to the banks that you think have gone unchartered? The first time we
:08:04. > :08:09.bailed out the banks was in 1982, 1983, during the Reagan years, they
:08:09. > :08:15.said OK, this should never happen again. But the fact that they
:08:15. > :08:22.bailed out the banks again in 1987 and repeated it, gave the banks the
:08:22. > :08:26.feeling they could hijack society, to extract the bonus system, it is
:08:26. > :08:31.extremely sneaky, in a sense they know if they make a mistake someone
:08:31. > :08:39.else pays for it, and when they benefit they get it. In 2008 when
:08:39. > :08:44.they bailed out the banks once again, They should have set the
:08:44. > :08:48.ground to remove the problem, they did not. The banks today have
:08:48. > :08:52.hijacked the Government, it is the inverse of what the French did,
:08:52. > :08:55.they socialised the bank in 1981, in the US the banks took over the
:08:55. > :08:58.Government. What would you make of the Bank of England here, the
:08:58. > :09:02.stability chief arguing that actually banks need to be taking
:09:02. > :09:06.more risk, not less to get us out of recession, that is what he
:09:06. > :09:13.advocates? I mean, it is not whether the banks should be taking
:09:13. > :09:17.more or less risk, the banks should be something other than machines to
:09:17. > :09:21.generate themselves bonuses. The banks should be something more like
:09:21. > :09:25.a utility, we are bailing them out because they are a utility,
:09:25. > :09:28.otherwise we will let them die like other business, like the car
:09:28. > :09:32.industry, like other businesses. We should remove that problem. It has
:09:32. > :09:38.not been addressed. Today the banks are vastly more centralised than
:09:38. > :09:43.they were before the crisis. They are much more powerful than they
:09:43. > :09:46.were before. They have incredibly sneaky lobbies in Washington, it
:09:46. > :09:50.looks like every monetary policy we have had in the United States for
:09:50. > :09:53.the last ten years was there to accommodate them, and today more
:09:53. > :09:57.than ever. We have not solved the problem that got us here. Surely
:09:57. > :10:01.you are not just saying that the world economic woes we are looking
:10:01. > :10:05.at at the moment are all down to bank bonus, are you? No, it is
:10:05. > :10:09.because the monetary policy that we are engaging in, in the United
:10:09. > :10:12.States, putting interest rates at zero, seems to just do nothing but
:10:13. > :10:16.supply banks with cheap money, that's it, nothing else. What
:10:16. > :10:22.should change in terms of the policy now? The first thing we
:10:22. > :10:25.should have done is try to remove the cancer by working on lowering
:10:25. > :10:29.indebtedness in society, particularly the United States, we
:10:29. > :10:33.lost three-and-a-half years, we should have started the process
:10:33. > :10:38.very early, tried to turn that to equity. It is like a country cannot
:10:38. > :10:43.survive on air, money is air, you print money it is air. You need to
:10:43. > :10:47.do something other than just print money and create public liability.
:10:47. > :10:56.We have not done it. The aim is to get growth back into the economy?
:10:56. > :11:01.The word "growth" to me, by itself is meaningless. It is like saying
:11:01. > :11:06."speed", you need safety before growth. A uponcy scheme generates
:11:06. > :11:11.growth, that is not the growth we want. People who talk about growth
:11:11. > :11:14.without robustness are not acting responsibly. Growth that is going
:11:14. > :11:19.to make the system collapse in two or three years not the growth we
:11:20. > :11:29.want. We want to clean up the system, we wasted three years doing
:11:30. > :11:30.
:11:30. > :11:35.nothing but transferring money into the pockets of bankers. The take on
:11:35. > :11:39.the British Council offices in Kabul which left 12 people dead is
:11:39. > :11:42.a reminder that the fight against the Taliban is far from won. The
:11:42. > :11:46.British Council is a non-political organisation that works on soft
:11:46. > :11:49.diplomacy, a kind of cultural openness, which occasionally makes
:11:49. > :11:53.it vulnerable. If this is hoi a non-military target is viewed, what
:11:53. > :11:57.about the troops, as their numbers in the country diminish. The
:11:57. > :12:02.drawdown timetable is intended to leave no British troops left by the
:12:02. > :12:10.spring of 2015. How will that be managed, and how easily targeted
:12:10. > :12:15.with the last ones. This was a carefully planned three-
:12:15. > :12:20.phase asalt. It began in the early - assault. It began in the early
:12:20. > :12:24.hours of the morning in a dusty middle-class area of Kabul. Taliban
:12:24. > :12:31.fighters moved into the side streets that lead from the
:12:31. > :12:35.mountains, armed with rocket- propelled grenades and machine guns.
:12:35. > :12:39.They fired on a checkpoint, killing the police on duty. A vehicle
:12:39. > :12:42.packed with explosives was detonated outside the main gate of
:12:42. > :12:46.the British Council nearby, bringing down a wall and killing
:12:46. > :12:50.guards. The blast shook half the city. What followed was an eight-
:12:50. > :12:54.hour gun battle with Taliban suicide bombers fighting Afghan
:12:54. > :12:59.security forces and New Zealand SAS soldiers, helped by British, French
:12:59. > :13:03.and US troops. At least 12 people died, including a New Zealand
:13:03. > :13:08.soldier. Why does the Afghan Government
:13:08. > :13:13.think that the British Council was targeted? We are still
:13:13. > :13:19.investigating why this was under attack. But, as you know, the
:13:19. > :13:24.terrorists they are attacking international organisations in
:13:24. > :13:27.Kabul city, also the Government entities. So we do not have any
:13:27. > :13:35.conclusion at the moment, since the investigation is on, and we will
:13:35. > :13:39.have to wait for the results. This is a vicious and cowardly attack,
:13:39. > :13:42.but one that didn't succeed. I spoke to the ambassador in Kabul
:13:42. > :13:46.this morning, and he assured me that all of the British Council
:13:46. > :13:50.staff are safe and back at the British Embassy, and the embassy is
:13:50. > :13:54.safe, obviously there has been a tragic loss of life of Afghan
:13:54. > :13:59.police and others. The British Council is partly
:13:59. > :14:07.funded by the Government. And in Afghanistan it concentrates on
:14:07. > :14:11.English language schools. Clearly the work we are doing,
:14:11. > :14:14.working with the schools and universities to modernise the
:14:14. > :14:18.education system. To provide access to education for young women, to
:14:18. > :14:21.give opportunities for young Afghans to have contact with the
:14:21. > :14:26.outside world, is something which those who want to close the
:14:26. > :14:31.community off, do not want to see happen. And in some senses, it is
:14:31. > :14:36.precisely to stop the sorts of things we are doing that perhaps
:14:36. > :14:41.cause the attack on the compound. So why should this happen now. Well,
:14:41. > :14:45.today is the 92nd anniversary of Afghanistan's independence from
:14:45. > :14:48.Britain, but perhaps more importantly the Alban are well
:14:48. > :14:52.aware that there is growing pressure in - the Taliban are well
:14:52. > :14:56.aware there is growing pressure in the west for the troops to lead.
:14:56. > :15:02.The date for total withdrawal is little more than three years away,
:15:02. > :15:04.and peaceful transfer of control is supposed to be under way.
:15:04. > :15:09.Afghan forces have had responsibility for security in
:15:09. > :15:15.Kabul since 2008, though NATO troops also operate in the city, of
:15:15. > :15:18.course, as today's events showed. The aim is that NATO combat troops,
:15:18. > :15:21.including around 10,000 British soldiers, should leave Afghanistan
:15:21. > :15:29.by the end of 2014, or soon there after, depending on conditions on
:15:29. > :15:35.the ground, and the rate to which Afghan forces are trained.
:15:35. > :15:39.And there's pressure on the US and Britain to hurry that process along.
:15:39. > :15:44.Sow does today's take show the tragedy - so does today's attack
:15:44. > :15:49.show the strategy needs re-thinking. One former member of the Defence
:15:49. > :15:54.Select Committee, argues there must be talks with elements of the
:15:54. > :16:00.Taliban. The Taliban are many, many different groups of people. Of
:16:01. > :16:04.course they find common cause with Mullah Omar and others, but if
:16:04. > :16:10.Mullah Omar is not playing ball, and it sound as if that is the case,
:16:10. > :16:13.then what we have to do is work on spliting the Taliban movement, so
:16:13. > :16:18.that you bring the insurgency to a level that can be managed in the
:16:18. > :16:24.long-term. I mean, you know, there are pragmatic Taliban who actually
:16:25. > :16:29.care about their country, and don't want war forever.
:16:29. > :16:34.The British Council plan to continue their work in Afghanistan,
:16:34. > :16:37.and remain there when the troops have left. Today's attack puts the
:16:37. > :16:41.timetable for that and the current strategy for dealing with the
:16:41. > :16:45.Taliban under question. Joining me now is Lord Hutton, the
:16:45. > :16:50.former Labour Defence Secretary, and from Washington, Kurt Volker,
:16:50. > :16:56.the former US Ambassador to NATO. Very kind of you both to join us.
:16:56. > :17:00.John Htuton, the presumption is that - John Hutton, the presumption
:17:01. > :17:05.is Afghanistan is getting safer, and Kabul safer, which allows us to
:17:05. > :17:09.plan specifically a drawdown timetable. Something like this must
:17:09. > :17:15.start changing your mind? This is a very security breach in Kabul,
:17:15. > :17:18.there is no point preend iting otherwise. Is it in itself -
:17:18. > :17:21.pretending otherwise. Is it in itself going to change the
:17:21. > :17:25.timetable that the British Government and President Obama have
:17:25. > :17:29.set down over the next few weeks, probably not. We have to look at
:17:29. > :17:32.Afghanistan as a whole, and look at what is happening in the country as
:17:32. > :17:35.a whole. There have been improvements in the security in
:17:35. > :17:38.Kandahar, east Afghanistan we should continue to be worried about,
:17:38. > :17:42.the security development there is. Kabul there will be incidents here
:17:42. > :17:45.from time to time. But the prime timetable for withdrawal is being
:17:45. > :17:48.driven by the importance of US politics, and President Obama's
:17:48. > :17:52.decision that he wants to go into the next presidential election
:17:52. > :17:55.being able to say there is a significant reduction in the
:17:55. > :17:58.American combat presence in Afghanistan. Her Majesty's
:17:58. > :18:04.Government here and other NATO countries have very little option
:18:04. > :18:10.but really to fall in with that imperative. Presumptionably you
:18:10. > :18:13.would agree with the political - presumably you would agree with the
:18:13. > :18:18.political imperative, but would you worry about the troops? Lord Hutton
:18:18. > :18:23.is right about one thing, the attack itself is not serious in the
:18:23. > :18:29.whole situation, it is unincident in Kabul, it is worrying but not
:18:29. > :18:33.significant. The bigger issue is the question of time table and
:18:33. > :18:36.strategy, it is impossible to bend our will on the strategy set. It is
:18:36. > :18:40.a long-term challenge. We need to be clear about what our objectives
:18:40. > :18:44.are, and we can achieve those objective, regardless of the time
:18:44. > :18:48.lime, as soon as you put a time line on, that you signal to the
:18:48. > :18:52.public that we don't have the will to be there, put in question your
:18:52. > :18:56.resolve to achieve your objective, you give a shot in the arm to the
:18:56. > :19:01.Taliban who think it is a matter of time, and they can use that time,
:19:01. > :19:07.with incidents like this, to create a climate of fear and doubt about
:19:07. > :19:11.the future, and put pressure on other Afghan s not to side with
:19:11. > :19:16.them but to sit it out. To put that point to Lord Hutton,
:19:16. > :19:21.could you do this with objectives. Basically the time line is a very
:19:21. > :19:25.visible signal to the Taliban? always decline to put a time line
:19:25. > :19:28.on when British troops would come home. For exactly the reasons
:19:28. > :19:34.outlined. You disagree with the position of the current Government,
:19:34. > :19:38.then? I wouldn't have been in favour of a time line as hard and
:19:38. > :19:41.definitive as was set. What we have to do now, I don't think that is
:19:41. > :19:45.going to change, we have to make sure it works in the best possible
:19:45. > :19:49.way we have. All the NATO allies and partners have is to try to
:19:49. > :19:52.focus on this now. I accept what was said, I think it is difficult,
:19:52. > :19:56.knowing all we know about Afghanistan, all the precedents to
:19:56. > :20:00.take into account, how hard it is to keep your foot on the pedal of
:20:00. > :20:03.reform to try to get increases in capability amongst the police and
:20:03. > :20:07.military in Afghanistan, it will be gamble. I don't think we should
:20:07. > :20:14.kill ourselves on anything other than that. I don't see the time
:20:14. > :20:17.line changing. I think the politics now are pretty well clear. I think
:20:18. > :20:21.the British and American forces must do the best they can now. I
:20:21. > :20:24.think we can do that now. Lord Hutton referred to it as gamble.
:20:25. > :20:29.Would you have to make the admission that by the time the
:20:29. > :20:33.troops need, the job, bluntly put, will not be finished? Absolutely. I
:20:33. > :20:37.want to come back to the point of a time line, though, there is an
:20:37. > :20:41.opportunity to pivot here. The time line that has been announced right
:20:41. > :20:45.now, is really the withdrawal of the surge forces. Unlike in Iraq,
:20:45. > :20:48.where we withdrew the surge forces after they had established some
:20:48. > :20:52.measure of greater stability, in Afghanistan we are withdrawing them
:20:52. > :20:59.at a time when violence is up. Nonetheless, I think that time line
:20:59. > :21:03.is right, that is fixed and before the upcoming presidential election.
:21:03. > :21:06.From that point forward there is an opportunity to pivot. We have
:21:06. > :21:12.ourselves out on a limb, where we have a huge military financial
:21:12. > :21:16.commitment that we can no longer sustain, the solution is to draw it
:21:16. > :21:20.down. If we look over a longer period of time, with a steader
:21:20. > :21:24.commitment more targeted, both hitting the tourist organisations,
:21:24. > :21:34.including the Taliban, and strengthening the security forces,
:21:34. > :21:36.
:21:36. > :21:42.for a much longer time, that may be a way to pivot.
:21:42. > :21:45.Could this thing move forward more quickly than we think? Not without
:21:46. > :21:50.threatening the success of the mission. I'm not sure entirely what
:21:50. > :21:55.this deaf vision of combat mission is. We hear it - definition of
:21:55. > :22:00.combat mission is. We hear it will be the end of combat mission by the
:22:00. > :22:05.end of 2014. No-one has explained that. If we go on training military
:22:05. > :22:09.and police, we embed our troops alongside them, that is how we do
:22:09. > :22:16.that, if we are under fire we defend ourselves. There is plenty
:22:16. > :22:20.of opportunity for to us see this mi mission through. We have
:22:20. > :22:24.tremendously capable spoke forces which I would imagine will be still
:22:24. > :22:30.in and around the vicinity, making a contribution. The important thing
:22:30. > :22:34.to do is win the conflict, which winning it means we leave in a
:22:34. > :22:37.position where the Afghan Government can handle its on
:22:37. > :22:41.security effectively and competently, without having to rely
:22:41. > :22:46.on a large number of NATO force, that will be success in the
:22:46. > :22:52.campaign. When Big Brother had the brain wave
:22:52. > :22:58.of inviting The Speaker's wife into the house, they must have realised
:22:58. > :23:03.they reached the parts of reality shows haven't reached yet. The
:23:03. > :23:09.political classes were chattering, and even here at Newsnight we asked
:23:09. > :23:12.a few questions. Does it demean the Office of the Speaker, or is it a
:23:13. > :23:16.sexist reaction to an independent women doing what she wants to do.
:23:16. > :23:22.We will hear from Christine Hamilton, who feels it is wrong for
:23:22. > :23:30.her to appear there. And from the Conservative MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg,
:23:30. > :23:40.who doesn't. Those who missed her debut appearance here it is. It is
:23:40. > :23:46.
:23:46. > :23:53.Sally, I have to ask, does your husband actually know you are here
:23:53. > :23:58.this evening? He does now. He's not exactly chuffed about it. I really
:23:58. > :24:03.genuinely didn't expect the media furore it caused. Because of who
:24:03. > :24:13.I'm married to, it is not acceptable. The dirl, Sally. She's
:24:13. > :24:16.an MP. An MP means, she's. We will ask Big
:24:16. > :24:19.Brother. Jedward. She owns the House of Commons, that's what I
:24:19. > :24:24.have heard, she owns it with her husband, that's who she is, really
:24:24. > :24:29.important. Let's turn to the Hamiltons, who
:24:29. > :24:35.join me from Edinburgh. You can't really be too pompus about this, it
:24:35. > :24:38.is a bit of harmless fun? It is for the TV channel, but it will demean
:24:38. > :24:42.the husband by the kind of programme we have just seen a clip
:24:42. > :24:45.of. She says she's doing this to give two fingers up to the
:24:46. > :24:49.establishment. In every other respect she's very happy to enjoy
:24:49. > :24:54.all the privileges which her husband's seniority in the
:24:54. > :24:58.establishment gives her. That means she's a parasite to fraud. She
:24:58. > :25:02.suffers from what we might call attention surplus disorder, she
:25:02. > :25:05.can't get enough of it. That is her problem, rather than our's. As far
:25:05. > :25:10.as the House of Commons is concerned, what she's doing is
:25:10. > :25:13.making the speaker's office, through her connection with the
:25:13. > :25:19.Speaker, into a figure of fun. Let's put it to a current
:25:19. > :25:23.Conservative MP, do you share that? No, it is nonsense. She's not The
:25:23. > :25:27.Speaker, she's not maybe of the Royal Family, or defined by her
:25:27. > :25:30.husband's job. She's doing this programme, which may not be
:25:30. > :25:34.considered high-class television by many people, but it's not The
:25:34. > :25:39.Speaker who is doing it. He's doing his job completely independently of
:25:39. > :25:45.that. A lot of people will say actually she is famous for being
:25:45. > :25:49.The Speaker's wife. She's not famous for being a Labour
:25:49. > :25:53.councillor, she is famous for the fact she's married to John Bercow?
:25:53. > :25:56.If you look at what people are famous for, it is all sorts of
:25:56. > :25:59.things. There is a celebrity culture in Britain that promotes
:25:59. > :26:02.people who haven't necessarily done anything in their own right, but
:26:02. > :26:05.have been touched by other people who are famous. That is a different
:26:05. > :26:08.matter all together. That is not particularly her fault, that is
:26:08. > :26:12.just the way the press is interested in people. Let me put
:26:12. > :26:17.this to Christine, would you have done this whilst your husband, Neil,
:26:17. > :26:22.was still an MP? Absolutely no way. You mentioned earlier that I have
:26:22. > :26:24.been on the very first I'm a Celbrity Get Me Out of Here. I'm a
:26:24. > :26:28.perfectly ordinary private individual, a private citizen, I
:26:28. > :26:32.don't owe anything from the state or receive anything from the state,
:26:32. > :26:37.I'm not married to the highest commoner in the land, which Sally
:26:37. > :26:42.is. My position is 100% different. What you might call the Sally
:26:42. > :26:45.Bercow Sir cushion when it started I fully supported her, I am in
:26:45. > :26:51.fully agreement that a woman should do what she wants and not be
:26:51. > :26:54.defined by her husband. I think Sally has taken it far too far. Big
:26:54. > :27:01.Brother, I think it is highly demeaning, I have turned it down
:27:01. > :27:07.twice. She's in awe autounique position. No wonder - she is in a
:27:07. > :27:13.unique position, no wonder her husband is staying in India.
:27:13. > :27:19.Let's talk about someone who didn't turn it down, George Galloway, he
:27:19. > :27:25.did it while he was in office, there he is, pretending to be a
:27:25. > :27:28.cat? George Galloway might a prize fool of himself on Big Brother, he
:27:28. > :27:31.decided to do that. I don't think there is anything fundamentally
:27:31. > :27:41.wrong with people appearing on bad television shows, that is their
:27:41. > :27:46.choice, and people have their views of television, mine is Newsnight,
:27:46. > :27:50.others want to watch Big Brother, good luck to them. I'm glad to say
:27:50. > :27:54.my wife has more sense. You have a lot of colleagues who would agree
:27:54. > :27:59.with what the Hamiltons are saying tonight, would it not help to
:27:59. > :28:03.campaign against him, is he not more vulnerable because of this?
:28:03. > :28:07.don't think so, people who oppose the Speaker because of what his
:28:07. > :28:12.wife is doing make them look ridiculous, that is up to her. It
:28:12. > :28:16.must be on what he does as Speaker, it happens what he is doing is
:28:16. > :28:19.supporting the legislature against the executive, I'm in favour of
:28:19. > :28:24.that. That is tremendously important, and shouldn't be lost in
:28:24. > :28:31.this fog of Big Brother. When people hear from you, they will
:28:31. > :28:35.have a moment of pot and kettle, they don't think of you two as
:28:35. > :28:39.turning down offers for finding publicity? I have turned down Big
:28:39. > :28:43.Brother twice, and a lot of things, people only know what you do and
:28:43. > :28:47.not what you turn down. We are both perfectly independent private
:28:47. > :28:51.citizens, we do not have any connection with any high offices of
:28:51. > :28:55.state like she does, we are a totally different category. I don't
:28:55. > :28:59.think you think there was a little bit of fundamentally good old
:28:59. > :29:05.fashioned sexism, if it was an MP, or a bloke, or even when George
:29:05. > :29:12.Galloway did t people are rather more accepting of it, she will get
:29:12. > :29:17.more flack because she's female? she were the Speaker and the spouse,
:29:17. > :29:23.John would be on there, it would be the same where does it go next,
:29:23. > :29:28.cage fighting, mud wrestling, where does the line draw itself? She will
:29:28. > :29:31.make herself look an idiot, I think, the same way as George Galloway.
:29:31. > :29:35.Throughout history there have been strong-minded women who caused
:29:35. > :29:38.their husbands embarrassment, you can go through it, that is all
:29:38. > :29:46.that's happening, it is not a big constitutional issue, I hope she