:00:11. > :00:13.The richest continent on earth, Europe decides how to solve the
:00:13. > :00:17.Europe decides how to solve the debt crisis.
:00:17. > :00:23.And then hits China for a bailout. What will be the price of making
:00:23. > :00:28.Beijing Europe's lender of last resort. The Europeans are so weak
:00:28. > :00:31.that they have to beg China to ask for its contribution to the bailout
:00:31. > :00:36.fund, which I think is a bit humiliating. Is this a turning
:00:36. > :00:41.point in the rise of China, and perhaps the eclipse of Europe. Also
:00:41. > :00:46.tonight, top directors' pay source by almost 50%, the Prime Minister
:00:47. > :00:50.talk - soars by more than 50%, the Prime Minister talks about more
:00:50. > :00:53.transparency. Is that because the Government doesn't know what to do.
:00:53. > :00:58.Their first born would be first in line to the throne, boy or girl. If
:00:58. > :01:08.it is good enough for a Queen, why not good enough for Dukes, Duchess
:01:08. > :01:11.
:01:11. > :01:16.and Lords and Laidies. We will hear from our gates.
:01:16. > :01:21.Anyone travelling in China in the past few years struck by something
:01:21. > :01:26.exorderry, the country managers to call itself a developing country
:01:26. > :01:32.and merge - manages to call itself a developing country and a
:01:32. > :01:36.superpower. The fate of Europe lies in the kapbdz of a communist
:01:36. > :01:40.capital. What will it demand in return, and how much are we
:01:40. > :01:49.witnessing a power shift in Europe towards Germany, while Europe risks
:01:49. > :01:54.being eclipsed by Asia. As China's economy powers ahead,
:01:54. > :01:59.old assumptions are being recast, and new relationships forged. Today
:01:59. > :02:04.the head of Europe's stability fund was in Beijing, looking for 70
:02:04. > :02:10.billion euros. That may be a lot, but it is less than a 30th of the
:02:10. > :02:14.foreign currency war chest that China has amassed through its trade
:02:14. > :02:19.surplus. The foreign exchange reserves of China go up every month,
:02:19. > :02:24.therefore there is a need for investment. And that is also my
:02:24. > :02:29.experience talking to the Chinese authorities, that they are
:02:29. > :02:34.interested in finding attractive, solid, safe investment
:02:34. > :02:38.opportunities. Across the EU there is a hunger for
:02:38. > :02:42.inward investment. This development on the whirr ral is being financed
:02:42. > :02:47.in part by Chinese money. If this is welcome in these times of
:02:47. > :02:52.recession, why should EU borrowing be any different. The Chinese are
:02:52. > :02:55.very careful about their public image. What they get in return for
:02:55. > :02:59.any assistance that they might give. Of course we don't know exactly
:02:59. > :03:02.what is being discussed in Beijing, but we do know, on past record,
:03:02. > :03:07.when the Chinese have made an investment, they will also raise
:03:07. > :03:11.other issues, like, we don't like that our currency gets criticised.
:03:11. > :03:15.We need market economy status recognition, they raise other
:03:15. > :03:19.issues that has been bothering them for some time, and this quid pro
:03:19. > :03:23.quo is very much in line with how they normally negotiate, I think,
:03:23. > :03:28.as they think about helping Europe, these other issues are likely to
:03:28. > :03:33.surface, so this is much broader than just the Chinese thinking,
:03:33. > :03:38.could I get the best return for my money. The Chinese leadership
:03:38. > :03:41.strings could mean ending an arms embargo, stopping criticisim of
:03:41. > :03:46.their trade practices and gaining greater access to European
:03:46. > :03:50.technology. For some Europeans that is too high a price. The most
:03:50. > :03:56.important trading partner of China is Europe, but I regret, in way,
:03:56. > :04:00.that the Europeans are so weak that they have to beg China to ask for
:04:00. > :04:06.its contribution to the bailout fund. Which I think is a bit
:04:06. > :04:09.humiliating. The perception of European weakness has already
:04:09. > :04:14.caused flack for Nicolas Sarkozy, as he returned home from this
:04:14. > :04:19.week's summit, he went on TV, insisting he had held his own with
:04:19. > :04:23.Germany and was not going begging to China. TRANSLATION: If the
:04:23. > :04:27.Chinese, who have 60% of the worldwide reserves decide to invest
:04:27. > :04:31.in the euro rather than the dollar, why refuse. Afterall, there is
:04:31. > :04:36.nothing to negotiate. Our independent will not be affected in
:04:36. > :04:42.any way. Why shouldn't we accept that the Chinese have confidence in
:04:42. > :04:46.the eurozone and deposit part of their excess funds in our funds or
:04:46. > :04:53.banks. Inevitably, China's leaders see in Europe's current crisis, an
:04:53. > :05:01.opportunity. They want to move from the shadow of history, when the EU
:05:01. > :05:07.took a sort of very aspirational, idealistic attitude, used to some
:05:07. > :05:10.time lecture and hector China about internal issues, it now says we are
:05:10. > :05:14.equal, we are partners, we don't want that kind of relationship any
:05:14. > :05:19.more. We have had enough of it. The conversation between China's
:05:19. > :05:25.leadership and the western powers will continue at next week's G20
:05:25. > :05:29.Summit in France. This week's developments will put China in a
:05:29. > :05:33.strong position. Europe's begging bowl approach to China provides the
:05:33. > :05:36.leadership there with a great opportunity, to further their own
:05:36. > :05:41.long-term goal of a more equal relationship, with the developed
:05:41. > :05:46.economies of the west. Now that's part of a long historical trend, of
:05:46. > :05:51.course, of power moving eastwards. But that won't stop opposition
:05:51. > :05:55.forces in many European countries from blaming today's leaders for
:05:55. > :05:59.going to Beijing in such a craven manner.
:06:00. > :06:09.Have you seen really, that when the President of China went to the UK,
:06:09. > :06:13.or to France, or to Italy, he was told something bad about the
:06:13. > :06:19.Chinese attitudes, in relation to freedom of speech, have you seen
:06:19. > :06:26.recently any leader in the EU saying that China has some change
:06:26. > :06:30.to accept in its social policy, with regard to its own workers? No.
:06:30. > :06:34.No it has already begun. For the moment, China's leaders haven't
:06:34. > :06:40.agreed to help out. Like many others, they want to know more
:06:40. > :06:44.about Europe's latest bailout man. But few believe they will re-
:06:44. > :06:48.bailout plan. But few believe they will refuse, since Europe has made
:06:48. > :06:52.a point for eloquently than China ever could.
:06:52. > :06:56.I'm joined by Georg Boomgaarden, Ha-Joon Chang an economist who
:06:56. > :07:02.specialises in China, Pippa Mlmgren, economics adviser to George Bush,
:07:02. > :07:07.and Timothy Garton Ash, Professor of European Studies at Oxford. How
:07:07. > :07:12.embarrassing is it for the richest continent on earth to go to chine
:07:12. > :07:16.that to help solve these economic prob - China, to solve these
:07:16. > :07:21.economic problems, why can't Europe or Germany solve it for themselves?
:07:22. > :07:26.We have a global world economy, in a global world economy, it is very
:07:26. > :07:31.positive and good if everyone in this global economy who can and
:07:31. > :07:35.wants to acts as positively where crises happens. It is a good thing,
:07:35. > :07:40.going to China saying, please, give us some money? It is not, please,
:07:40. > :07:44.give us some money, it is an offer to invest money. It is an offer to
:07:44. > :07:47.invest money, certainly into a region, which for China is also
:07:47. > :07:52.very important. We are the biggest client. This is certainly something
:07:52. > :07:55.very important. I think trade relations is not a game, it is
:07:55. > :07:58.normally putting both sides on a better level. Timothy Garton Ash,
:07:58. > :08:04.it is good for the world, it is good for China to be part of this?
:08:04. > :08:07.I think the ambassador has put magnificent spin on it. Look, the
:08:07. > :08:11.eurozone did, theoretically have another option, which is to say
:08:11. > :08:15.they will do it ourselves, save it ourselves, make the European
:08:15. > :08:19.Central Bank the lender of last resort, issue Euro-bonds,
:08:19. > :08:24.guaranteed by Germany, and have Germany fiscal discipline, but the
:08:24. > :08:28.fact is, across the eurozone, but the fact is, the German people
:08:28. > :08:37.didn't want that, they wouldn't let Chancellor Mercury do that, nor did
:08:37. > :08:41.the Greek or Italian people. That is - glp ska Chancellor Merkel do
:08:41. > :08:47.that, nor did the Greek or Italian people, that is why we are going
:08:47. > :08:52.with the begging bowl to China. It is a small milestone on the longer
:08:52. > :08:56.term with the shift from west to east. If he's right, it is easier
:08:56. > :09:01.for Angela Merkel to go to Beijing than the Bundestag, is that true?
:09:01. > :09:07.It is not about going to the Bundestag or Beijing, it is about
:09:08. > :09:12.how far Europeans are able to be united, and strong Europe in a
:09:12. > :09:18.globalised world. We are on the way, this is not something which is
:09:18. > :09:27.already finished. I know we discussed it earlier, when you want
:09:27. > :09:32.to have a common policy on that, then you should never, never touch
:09:32. > :09:36.the incompetence of the ECB, this is an - independence of the ECB, it
:09:36. > :09:40.is an ECB decision, and if you don't do not do that you have an
:09:40. > :09:44.inflationary machine, this is tax on the poor. How is this going to
:09:44. > :09:51.be seen in China, what do you think they will l they want out of this
:09:51. > :09:58.relationship? At one level, this is not a big deal, because China has
:09:58. > :10:03.already bought quite a lot of European bonds. But it is a
:10:03. > :10:08.watershed in a sense that it is being turned into some kind of
:10:08. > :10:13.formal arrangement. I do not know exact whree what will change hands.
:10:13. > :10:17.- exactly what will change hands, but China does take on the attitude
:10:17. > :10:21.that they want a more equal relationship. Exactly what that
:10:21. > :10:26.would involve, would it involve discussions about exchange rate
:10:26. > :10:29.policy, or human rights, I don't know. There is one way of looking
:10:29. > :10:33.at it, they have already propped up the American economy, thank you
:10:33. > :10:36.very much, it has not changed what the Obama administration does or
:10:36. > :10:40.doesn't do, why should we worry about it? Absolutely, that isn't
:10:40. > :10:44.what is on the table here. What is on the table is an investment that
:10:44. > :10:47.is effectively guaranteed. It is not buying the bonds, if it were
:10:47. > :10:51.that simple they would just go out and buy them, they are available on
:10:51. > :11:00.the open market. This is a totally different deal. I think it is
:11:00. > :11:03.precisely Asim thee Ash says, it is - Asim thee Ash says, it is because
:11:03. > :11:07.the Bundestag doesn't approve and they can't inflate the Governments
:11:07. > :11:11.can't accept that, they have to reach to outside parties. Of course
:11:11. > :11:14.the Chinese were not wanting this deal, now it is on the table they
:11:14. > :11:20.are going to say we have some other requests, we would like to buy a
:11:20. > :11:25.lot of hard assets in western Europe, infrastructure, agriculture,
:11:25. > :11:29.all sorts of things, with a privileged price. It brings an
:11:29. > :11:34.income with implications. Also I think foreign policy does get sold
:11:34. > :11:39.in a Chinese direction. Meaning what, western medias will shut up
:11:39. > :11:43.about Tibet? Correct, and a number of issues. That shifts the dialogue.
:11:43. > :11:47.Does it permanently change it? No, but it shifts the dialogue. Do you
:11:47. > :11:53.think it will have that effect, perhaps not a revolutionary effect,
:11:53. > :11:58.but slowly the mood will change? have no doubt about that. That it
:11:58. > :12:03.will be slowly, slowly chipping away, market economy status, the
:12:03. > :12:07.issue of the arms embargo. Please don't invite the Dalai Lama, go a
:12:07. > :12:14.bit softer on human rights. And let me add one very important thing,
:12:14. > :12:19.which is there is one United States, but 27 states in the European Union.
:12:19. > :12:23.40% of Chinese direct investment is in southern and Eastern Europe.
:12:23. > :12:30.These are relatively weak, small economies. If it goes on like that,
:12:30. > :12:33.and it is likely to in the crisis, you get almost like something of a
:12:34. > :12:36.China lobby inside the European Union. One should not underestimate
:12:37. > :12:39.the potential for the power shift. That is a big problem for the
:12:39. > :12:44.European Union? I don't think at all, if you look at the decisions
:12:44. > :12:52.of Brussels, this is a very small part. You are absolutely right, the
:12:52. > :12:59.first element in it is the very big package giving leverage to the EFSF,
:12:59. > :13:02.this is the real big shot. Some spoke of Baz zook ka, I don't like
:13:02. > :13:05.- bazooka, I don't like the military comparisons. These are the
:13:05. > :13:10.so-called special vehicles, they are a very small part of it. There
:13:10. > :13:16.it is not between the Bundestag and China, it is between something else.
:13:16. > :13:19.It is between responsible investor, who is asked, and we have excellent
:13:19. > :13:25.experience with sovereign wealth funds, from the gulf states, China
:13:25. > :13:31.and others, it is not looking for money in circles which get into
:13:31. > :13:35.panic when just a pundit comes up and tells something panicky again.
:13:35. > :13:40.They go to IRA liable lender. go to a reliable lender, trying to
:13:40. > :13:43.get the Chinese perspective on this, am I right in thinking the average
:13:43. > :13:47.employed worker in Beijing earns less than the average unemployed
:13:47. > :13:52.person in the European Union. Et competitive question on the long-
:13:52. > :13:56.term - the competitive question on the long-term is going in China's
:13:56. > :14:01.direction? For one thing I'm not Chinese, I don't speak for the
:14:02. > :14:08.country. But I'm not as optimistic as other people about China's
:14:08. > :14:14.future. You know it has its own internal problems. There is a huge
:14:14. > :14:19.realistic bubble, many of the projects they launched with the
:14:19. > :14:23.2008 fiscal stimulus package are going sour, and there is a huge
:14:23. > :14:28.inequality growing. At the moment the economy is moving at a very
:14:28. > :14:31.high-speed, 9-10%, everyone is happy, when that stops, we don't
:14:31. > :14:36.know if China can continue on that. Doesn't that bear out the
:14:36. > :14:40.ambassador's big point, which is we are all in this together, like the
:14:40. > :14:44.world, China has a part to play and we shouldn't be frightened of it?
:14:44. > :14:49.Forget for a moment that it is China, every investor has to be
:14:49. > :14:53.scared about putting more capital into Europe. Why should the Spanish,
:14:53. > :14:57.Italians and Irish pay 100% of their debt, if the Greeks only pay
:14:57. > :15:02.half. We just did a haircut on the Greek debt. The pressure on the
:15:02. > :15:06.rest of the Europeans to implement a level of austerity that I don't
:15:06. > :15:11.think human beings can bear. We are going to see a lot of pushback. The
:15:11. > :15:16.politicians may say we agree to the austerity, the public won't agrow.
:15:16. > :15:20.They will say why should we pay if those guys didn't. The risk to the
:15:20. > :15:23.bondholders is immense. Forget their Chinese. Consider if it is so
:15:23. > :15:27.risky that you have to beg an investor, this is telling you
:15:27. > :15:30.something about the situation. is fair point, is it not? No it is
:15:31. > :15:34.not. I really beg to disagree. It is not a fair point, because it is
:15:34. > :15:39.very unfair to the different countries in Europe. Maybe over the
:15:39. > :15:43.Atlantic Europe looks like one, it is not. And Greece is a real
:15:43. > :15:48.special case and what is part of these decisions is isolating Greece
:15:48. > :15:57.from the others, because this was a very long-term, you had an increase
:15:57. > :16:00.in salaries, for example, 135% in the last 12 years, nobody had this,
:16:00. > :16:06.in Spain you had real estate crisis and in Ireland, Portugal is still
:16:06. > :16:13.developing, but all of them, Spain, Portugal, Greece and now also Italy,
:16:13. > :16:18.they are all on the good pass. One final area, how will Germans
:16:18. > :16:22.feel about this, we know the burden of history on everybody in Europe.
:16:22. > :16:25.What we are seeing this week is Germany is not just the economic
:16:25. > :16:29.motor but has to be the political motor of the EU, because nobody
:16:29. > :16:33.else can do it. Does that change the mine set within Europe and
:16:33. > :16:36.Germany in particular which you know - mind set within Europe and
:16:36. > :16:40.Germany in particular which you know well? Germany is Europe's
:16:40. > :16:44.central power, that is a reality for many years. At least since
:16:44. > :16:49.unification again, and particularly when it comes to economics. We in
:16:49. > :16:56.Britain or France can hardly object to the Germans pursuing their own
:16:56. > :17:01.national interest. But I think that we do ourselves no service by
:17:01. > :17:04.suggesting that it is all perfectly normal and actually it is just
:17:04. > :17:10.normal globalisation and indeed that the problem is solved. The
:17:10. > :17:17.eurozone has not been saved, we are not out of the woods yet, and
:17:17. > :17:21.Germany itself will be the first and, in many ways the biggest,
:17:21. > :17:26.victim of a failure of the eurozone. I think the crisis is still very
:17:26. > :17:31.much in action. The Chinese aspect is just a small part of it. Very
:17:31. > :17:35.briefly, ambassador, he is right, we're not out of the woods yet?
:17:35. > :17:38.Chancellor has said it will take some time until the house is in
:17:38. > :17:44.order, that is correct about Germany. I don't share your view
:17:44. > :17:48.that this is still a very risky way, the point is to complete the
:17:48. > :17:51.incomplete monetary union. This is a democratic process, this takes
:17:51. > :17:57.longer than the market thinks. If democratic leaders have to decide
:17:57. > :18:02.it takes more time. That requires a fiscal and political union which
:18:02. > :18:06.the architects of monetary union thought should follow, but now the
:18:06. > :18:09.Germans and others don't want. will save that for another night.
:18:09. > :18:13.Thank you very much. Now, we are all in this together,
:18:13. > :18:17.apparently, but some people are more in it than others. While the
:18:17. > :18:21.talk in Britain is of austerity and inflation bringing real wage cuts
:18:21. > :18:29.that seem to apply everywhere, that is, except the top boardrooms,
:18:29. > :18:33.where directors are trousers much more than ever before. When salary,
:18:33. > :18:38.benefits incentive and bonuses are added together, FTSE 100 directors
:18:38. > :18:44.have seen their incomes jump by 49% in the last financial year. Chief
:18:44. > :18:50.executives aren't far behind. Their awards increasing by 4%.
:18:50. > :18:53.A study has found. The average salary for a top CEO stands at �3.8
:18:53. > :18:57.million. Compare all that, and you might just be tempted to do so with
:18:57. > :19:02.the average pay rise across the whole economy, and there is quite a
:19:02. > :19:12.contrast. It currently stands at a modest 2.5%. Eaten away by
:19:12. > :19:13.
:19:13. > :19:17.inflation, which is more than 5%. I'm joined by Luke Johnson a serial
:19:17. > :19:21.entree pen your, and my other guest. You can see that people sitting at
:19:21. > :19:27.home think it is unjust, everybody knows their wages are going back
:19:27. > :19:31.wards in real terms, and directors getting paid more it seems wrong?
:19:31. > :19:34.find it very difficult that as Brits he always have to look at the
:19:34. > :19:38.negative side of things. Over the last two or three years every
:19:38. > :19:44.pillar of our society has been challenged, whether it be
:19:44. > :19:50.journalists, whether it be politicians, whether it be bankers,
:19:50. > :19:57.and the one pillar that has remained very much intact it is
:19:57. > :20:03.corporate UK, it has held us in good stead. It is quite inic when
:20:03. > :20:08.listening to the previous conversation - ironic is listening
:20:08. > :20:12.to the previous conversations is that taxes aren't high enough.
:20:12. > :20:18.bankers have behaved badly and others have behaved badly,
:20:18. > :20:23.directors have haid badly and are not showing why they deserve it?
:20:23. > :20:28.you look at corporate tax receipts, excluding the banking sector, I
:20:28. > :20:33.would say they are higher in October 2011 than envisaged at the
:20:33. > :20:39.beginning of the year. We live in a global economy. I reckon Luke would
:20:39. > :20:43.probably right now, 21% of FTSE chief executives don't have British
:20:43. > :20:46.passports. The last thing I want, as an investor in these companies,
:20:46. > :20:52.is to hear on Monday morning that the chief executive of one of our
:20:52. > :20:56.investors who is foreign, like Burberry, or Marks & Spencers, has
:20:56. > :21:01.decided to move to a culture that is less blame orientated. Is that
:21:01. > :21:05.fair, people at the top end will go where the money is? I'm not sure I
:21:05. > :21:10.agree. I think there is a bit of a myth that management talent is
:21:10. > :21:14.incredibly rare, and therefore has to be extraordinarily well rewarded.
:21:14. > :21:18.I think people are entitled to object, when they see bosses of
:21:18. > :21:22.public companies, these are companies that individuals are not
:21:22. > :21:30.founded, they are simply employees, executives, who have worked their
:21:30. > :21:35.way up the hierarchy, and they are being paid 100-200-times what the
:21:35. > :21:39.bottom ranking employees are paid. There is an argument to say that is
:21:39. > :21:44.disproportionate. You know boards could do something about it and the
:21:45. > :21:48.shareholders, if they felt strongly about it? I agree, it is
:21:48. > :21:53.disappointing that pension funds and insurance investors, ultimately
:21:53. > :21:58.owned by small, individual shareholders, with pensions, aren't
:21:58. > :22:04.objecting more strongly. I accept that we have to compete on a world
:22:04. > :22:09.stage, but for principally UK businesses, to be paying huge
:22:09. > :22:16.increases such as these Stade tisics suggest have been, in a time
:22:16. > :22:23.when ordinary hard-working people are getting zero increases, it will
:22:23. > :22:26.clearly offend. Do you accept there is a problem? Do we get our money's
:22:26. > :22:28.worth? I think it is popular policing, I think this house is in
:22:28. > :22:36.order. And Luke knows the environment very well. The
:22:36. > :22:40.institutions of London, who did get a bad rap over encouraging balance
:22:40. > :22:47.sheets in banking, if somebody is not doing their job they will be
:22:48. > :22:56.hard as nails. GlaxoSmithKline make �8 billion a year, their board is
:22:56. > :23:05.paid a seventh of what Manchester City's squad will be paid. I don't
:23:05. > :23:10.think comparing footballers is not a good comparison? Man City is 12
:23:10. > :23:15.people, Glaxo has been built up over decade, quite a lot of people
:23:15. > :23:20.can do the job the board are doing. The trouble is you have inside,
:23:20. > :23:24.institutional capture by corporate executives, you have the agency
:23:24. > :23:27.problem whether it is too big a difference between investors and
:23:27. > :23:31.managers. They are not entrepeneurs who are risking their homes, and
:23:31. > :23:35.who are going to use their personal credit card to meet the monthly
:23:35. > :23:42.payroll if the business isn't succeeding. Their downside is they
:23:42. > :23:47.lose their job. Their upside is they get paid �10 million, up to
:23:47. > :23:51.that, a year. Is that right? There is a toughening up on institutions
:23:51. > :23:54.particularly with the criticism they got with the encouragement of
:23:54. > :24:01.banking culture going from advice to sales, and Scottish institutions,
:24:01. > :24:05.such as Standard Life, seen to be very supportive to what happened at
:24:05. > :24:08.Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS, came under a lot of criticism. That
:24:08. > :24:13.had merit. This is slightly more varied, people will go where the
:24:13. > :24:22.money is. Corporate UK, excluding the banking sector, is one of the
:24:23. > :24:26.things we can waive our flag on. There are changes to the way the
:24:26. > :24:32.monarchy works. Bringing changes to centuries of traditions. The
:24:32. > :24:36.principle change concerns the first born. Future Monarchs will be able
:24:36. > :24:46.to marry Roman Catholics, and the first born child can inherit the
:24:46. > :24:51.throne, whether a boy or girl. When list Beth II was crowned in -
:24:51. > :24:57.Elizabeth II was crowned, it was absence of a brother that secured
:24:57. > :25:04.her the role. As early as the 1960s, we are told, civil servants thould
:25:04. > :25:08.the rules inaxe crownistic. Whether or not it is the imminence
:25:08. > :25:13.of a new royal heir, following this year's wedding, that has prompted
:25:13. > :25:17.it, change t appears, really is happening.
:25:17. > :25:24.Presided over by the Queen herself, the 16 Commonwealth nations at
:25:24. > :25:34.their conference in Australia have agreed to ind the rule of male prim
:25:34. > :25:34.
:25:34. > :25:40.Mo beginure, meaning William and Kate's first born will take the
:25:40. > :25:43.throne. One further anomoly, the ending of this rule won't
:25:43. > :25:47.automatically apply to the aristocracy, some traditions remain
:25:47. > :25:54.very much in the era of Downton Abbey. So, if this is some kind of
:25:54. > :25:59.progressive move, why shouldn't it apply more widely to aristocratic
:25:59. > :26:05.titles. I'm joined by my guests, Tony Benn renouncing his title in
:26:05. > :26:10.1963, the first person to do so. On the male ascension, you think it is
:26:10. > :26:14.a good idea, removing it and making it open to girls? I think it is
:26:14. > :26:20.Monday sense, I don't think it was a bad idea in fuedal times, if the
:26:20. > :26:24.head of the family had to be a male, he also had to have a lance or a
:26:24. > :26:30.sword or a horse and ride. That was a sensible then. That is where it
:26:30. > :26:34.all came from. The need for protection. Now a female can
:26:34. > :26:39.protect the family with a computer et cetera, quite as well as anyone
:26:39. > :26:43.else. And female Monarchs have not done too badly, as you have written
:26:43. > :26:50.yourself in the past? Exactly. If people list the great Monarchs of
:26:50. > :26:56.our country, let's face it, no-one would leave out Queen Elizabeth I,
:26:56. > :26:59.it might well include Queen Vicoria. It is common sense. One should not
:26:59. > :27:02.get into a state of thinking it should always have been so. Now it
:27:02. > :27:07.should be so. Do you think it is a good move,
:27:07. > :27:13.this is progressive, is it? Well, it removes discrimination against
:27:13. > :27:16.women, which still exists, for example, Church of England won't
:27:16. > :27:20.appoint women bishops, there was a struggle to get women the vote and
:27:20. > :27:25.so on. If we are talking about the function of the head of state, and
:27:25. > :27:28.if you take the function of a Monarch, whether a man or a woman,
:27:28. > :27:33.they have enormous power, they appoint the bishops, the judges,
:27:33. > :27:37.they can dissolve parliament and so on. And I give you one example
:27:37. > :27:44.which occurred to me, in order to be a member of parliament you have
:27:44. > :27:48.to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. And I thought about it,
:27:48. > :27:52.and realised that I didn't owe my allegiance to the Queen, but to the
:27:52. > :27:56.people who elected me, to the people who selected me as a
:27:56. > :28:01.candidate and to my conscience. Therefore, in order to be an MP I
:28:01. > :28:06.had to tell 17 lies under oath and that is the question, why, if you
:28:06. > :28:10.are going to extend the right to women, why shouldn't you extend the
:28:10. > :28:14.right to everybody, by having an elected head of state. That's
:28:14. > :28:20.another point. But I wondered a slightly more limited change but
:28:20. > :28:25.still a big one, would be to extend it to the aristocracy in general.
:28:25. > :28:29.Am I right in thinking you would be the Earl of Longford, because your
:28:29. > :28:35.younger brother inherited the title? Yes, my one of four brothers
:28:35. > :28:39.inherited the title. He doesn't use it, as a matter of fact. Something
:28:39. > :28:42.that Tony Benn will understand. I have to say that I spoke to him
:28:43. > :28:47.this morning and said I was coming on the programme, and he said, oh
:28:47. > :28:52.God, are you going to say you want to be countess of Longford. I said,
:28:52. > :28:57.no, I'm not, because you don't use it, what I'm going to say, if I'm
:28:57. > :29:02.anything, and don't let's be sexist, don't you agree, I should be Earl
:29:02. > :29:06.of Longford. But as a matter of fact I don't want to be Earl of
:29:06. > :29:12.Longford either. Politicians haven't bitten this particular
:29:12. > :29:20.bullet, they are not going to extend it to the aristocracy.
:29:20. > :29:26.don't believe to the hereditary titles, if I went to the dentist -
:29:26. > :29:29.and he said he's not a real dentist but his father was I would move
:29:29. > :29:34.dentists. I think democracy is the most important thing. When you
:29:34. > :29:40.elect a member of parliament, you actually employ him. When I was an
:29:40. > :29:45.MP, in my constituency, every one of my constituents was my employer.
:29:45. > :29:50.And they could put me there, and get rid of me. So I was kept very
:29:50. > :29:56.much disciplined by the knowledge that I represented them. That is
:29:56. > :30:01.the basis on which I believe that society should be run. Isn't this a
:30:01. > :30:04.good move, isn't this move to say that the first born child of Prince
:30:05. > :30:10.William and Princess Catherine, should be the Monarch, this is a
:30:10. > :30:14.good move, isn't it? I personally amin favour of an elected head of
:30:14. > :30:19.state. I'm just discussing, isn't it a good move, a common sense move,
:30:19. > :30:22.a modern move, are you not in favour of it? I'm not in favour of
:30:22. > :30:31.discriminating against women at any purpose. But if you ask me whether
:30:31. > :30:36.I think the head of state should be by-election or by inheritance, I'm
:30:36. > :30:42.in favour of election. On that note of near agreement, thank you very