19/03/2012 Newsnight

The country's in a mess, the Prime Minister's solution to our creaking

infrastructure? Send for the shade of Isambard Kingdon Brunel.

There is now an urgent need to repair the decades-long degradation

of our national infrastructure, and to build for the future, with as

much ambition for the future as the Victorians once did. Does this make

sense? Who is the Prime Minister trying to kid. Will footing the bid

to bring back the old beast, the public-private partnership.

France mourns the killing of three children and a teacher at a Jewish

school. What effect are religious and racial prejudices having on the

elections there. He is one of the most colourful

politicians in America, leaving Congress, so he can marry his

boyfriend, and not be nice to people he disagrees with.

We talk to Congressman Barney Frank. Obey, obey.

The search is on for a new Director General of the BBC, which candidate

has the right stuff, who would want William Armstrong, Cherif Bassiouni,

Henry Bessemer and Isambard Kingdon Brunel, are now -- and now

apparently David Cameron, the achievements of the great Victorian

engineers, achievements that transformed Britain to the leading

power of the world, can be replicated in the 21st century.

They can, if we are to believe the Prime Minister. Today he was

talking about being part of a transforming generation himself. It

will be done by liberating the private sector, apparently. This

from our political editor. They shrank a journey time from

several days to hours, slicing through the country with new track,

laceing ravines with bridges, and building stations like palaces. In

more ways than one, those Victorians really knew how to make

an entrance. Can we ever climb such heady engineering heights again?

The truth is, we are falling behind. We are falling behind our

competitors and falling behind the great world-beating, pioneering

tradition, set by those who came before us. There is now an urgent

need to repair the decades-long degradation of our national

infrastruck tue, and to build for the future, with as - infrastruck

tue, and to build for the future with the same confidence as the

Victorians. The Prime Minister set out what he wanted to do about it,

use the power of the state to unleash the dynamism of the market.

Britain's infrastructure, such as roads, should enjoy the influx of

investment from private investment as those building this station Z

for some it was a speech for the charter of for privatisation, for

others it was what they had been waiting to hear. We will wait

forever for infrastructure we need, if we wait for finances to be in

the perfect conditions and finance it all out of public spending. That

will not happen in the short-term, in the short-term we have to build

up airport capacity, and improve train networks so they aren't so

expensive and congest, and we have to address congestion on the roads.

We need the Government to create the conditions in which private

investment can be leverageed to best effect, to compliment the

meagre resources available from the public purse.

The opening of a revamped King's Cross today is an example, the

Prime Minister said, of Britain getting it right. But victories

were few, and this failure, was in part, one of funding. Sovereign

welfare funds and pension funds could be levered in to improve

roads. If they make a road better they could make profit. To attract

serious investment, are the reforms enough? The reasons the Victorians

invested so much in infrastructure is they knew they could make money

out of it. For the Prime Minister the problem is with the planning

regulations it is harder for businesses. With the railways, it

is all very well saying the private sector can invest in them, but when

you have the Government saying you have to run commercially unviable

routes in rural areas, it makes it very hard for companies trying to

turn a profit. Some think the Prime Minister is

not going far enough, others think it will lead to road pricing, and

warn that is political no man's land? A lot of these things keep

coming round, road tolling does, if you want to raise more money, as

suggests, it is like a large PFI scheme, you pay slightly more over

a period. The political problem is if something is free today and it

will cost you tomorrow, if you fill your car up and it will cost �100,

there is a lot of resistance. That is why successive Governments

thought about it hard and it has fall bin the way side.

MPs from the new -- Fallen by the way side. MPs from the new intake

are more zealous than the Prime Minister. Private investment would

be part of a detailed blueprint to redesign the economy, not to

mention lower taxes and business. If we look at our European partners,

only three out of the 27 countries have a fully state-funded network,

they are Bulgaria, and Slovenia, this is the right way forward. We

could do more, I would cut corporation tax to 15%, send ago

clear signal that Britain is open for business. We need more tax cuts,

and deregulation, small companies need to employ younger workers, we

have a problem with youth unemployment. We can't rely on the

old infrastructure, built 100 years ago by the Victorians. Today it

will take at least 14 years for the first section of high-speed 2 to

open. Compared with the five years it took the Victorians to get the

first Inter City rail link from drawing board to track. The Prime

Minister has not got 14 years, nor five, but before the next election

he has just three years to engineer growth.

We are lucky enough to have with us the Conservative, Jesse Norman, the

economist and director of Prime Economic, Ann Pettifor, and the

entrepeneur and former Dragon, Doug Richard.

Don't you think motorists pay enough? Absolutely, they pay a

fortune. Why do you want them to pay more? The Prime Minister's

speech was not about that, if you read it. It was about not so much

charging, but within Government. Deciding whether you will put money

aside so that instead of paying for these things with an enormous

amount of PFI debt and overhang, you pay as you go. It is a new

system of financing infrastructure. Where will all the toll roads go?

If there are toll roads, which we don't know yet, they will go

wherever demand takes them. You are not suggesting me there isn't a

need for road infrastructure up and down the country. I was asking

where they would go? Where they are needed. They will, will they?

is the pleasure of having a new system of infrastructure that will

be financed by demand. We will come to how serious the Prime Minister

is about all of this in a moment or two. First of all, Doug Richard, is

this an idea that will work? think there is some uncertainty in

that, isn't there. The fact of the matter is, it really depends on the

competency of the Government to cut a deal that is effective. Do you

think that the Government is competent to strike a deal that is

effective? I think the Government has every opportunity to strike a

deal that is effective. The real question is, do they ask of private

industry to take risk that comes with reward, to the degree that

they ask, if they underpin the risk, the private industry gets a free

ride. What does experience tell but that? That is a rather leading

question. Government has not historically done terribly well.

is a rather sensible idea, if we can't afford out of the public

finance, then to get the private sector to make the investment, it

is a God thing, isn't it? First of all -- it is It is a good thing,

isn't it? First of all, I agree with the Prime Minister that we

need to improve infrastructure. We are trapped in this flawed notion

that we can't afford to investment in our infrastructure, and yet

today we are going to give the private banks and subsidy of �5

billion of tax-payers' money. Clearly we can afford some kind of

supsidies. But why not supsidies for those public services that are

vital to keep the private sector going?

This is an ideolgical commitment, then, isn't it? I don't think it is,

actually particularly ideolgical. It is really about trying to think

of more intelligent ways to finance infrastructure. We had PFI, that

turned out to be too expensive, too inflexible, and not very

transparent. This is trying a new method that doesn't create a huge

overhang of debt and allows things to be paid for as you use them.

are they so underwhelmed by your ability to deal with it, they are

hardly on the same side of the fence? I don't think Government is

a particularly good client, that is the lesson of PFI, you have to

improve the quality of clients sitting on the other end of it.

is crazy, right now there is a real big problem in the economy, that is

the lack of demand. And the Government is trying all these

wheezes to some how improve supply, but without addressing the big hole,

the big slump. You know, we may do all of these things, but if

customers are not going to use those roads, if drivers aren't

going to use the roads, because of oil price rises, and the cost, as

you say, will be daunting for drivers. That is why the Automobile

Association is against this idea already.

They are against anything that makes driving more difficult for

people in cars. Why are you shaking your head when Ann Pettifor says

that? Because she's working from a lovely, but very old fashioned view

of the world. The fact of the matter, to my mind the question is

not so much whether there is a demand for infrastructure, we agree

on that, the question comes down to what form of infrastructure do we

need. We don't live in a Victorian age. What we need is 21st century

rail board, and that is called Broadband, you need infrastructure

proved to create it. He is looking at the wrong kind of

infrastructure? We need infrastruck tue, we do need broad --

infrastructure, we do need board band. We have �3-�5 billion worth

of need over the next 20 years, it spans everything from broadband,

energy, transport, railways. You don't have to go far in Europe to

see, look at French roads, they are enormously much better that the

motorways than we are, other things we can do, smarter ways of doing

things. That is what the speech is about. They have space and land,

they have wide open spaces. roads, he has already told us the

toll roads will go where they are needed in this country, we will

have to wait and see. That is what you said? No I said the decision as

to where they went would be dependant on public demand, that is

a different things. We as drivers won't have a choice. We have a

Prime Minister who talked about the need for expanded airport xasty.

You read the speech, you have it there. He capacity, you read the

speech, you have it there, yet he exposed the expansion of Heathrow.

How can you believe in airport expansion and go against that?

Heathrow is not the only airport in the country. He talk about Gatwick.

Let's talk about other aspects of bona fides, the commitment to

Victorian values? Victorian values, in infrastructure were magnificent.

These were hard-headed, thoroughly practical, engineering vision rees.

Built with sweated Labour? That aspect is something that will never

be replicated, so is trampling over property rights. He's focusing on

the energy, the vision, the entrepeneurship, and the sense of

possibility. We should welcome that. The point is this, the Victorians

were wonderfully entrepreneurals, they had big ideas and built this

big infrastructure, ultimately it proved unviable. The railways were

nationalised in the 1920s? That doesn't mean unviable. Look at our

infrastructure in sewage, we are relying on that in most of London.

That was mainly built bli the public sector and the London --

built by the public sector, the London County Council.

castrated local Government. Successive administrations have

taken away power from local Government n way this Government is

correcting. What this Government is trying to do is create even more

private monoplies than we already have, we have a private monopoly in

energy. We the consumers, we the tax-payers are taking the risk, and

underwriting the private sector risk. That is completely confused.

That will be very, very unpopular. Stop glaring daggers at her, tell

us why you disagree with this analysis? We are bend ago great

deal of very important discussion to a very narrow, and some what be

a secure element of the larger discussion. Tell that to the

taxpayer? I am a taxpayer, I pay mine to two Government. I think we

need infrastruck tue, but I profoundly disagree we need to

focus on roads. I have an issue with the notion that we have a

certain amount of money needed that is gospel, in truth, we have

choices to make. If we increase, for example, I don't want to go on,

if we increase broadband, we decrease the need for the road

increase, decease transport needs. The experiments in Cornwall, for

increased broadband, for both Governments have shown an increased

economic benefit for those areas. come from Herefordshire, if you

could live there you would, the only problem is lack of

communication, we need broadband communications and decent roads,

that is part of the system. Of course it is not about some magic

number, you have a variety of different estimates, Government

taking advice on all different fronts. You need a system, inpex

pensive, sensitive -- inexpensive, and sensitive to demands. In South

Korea today they have a level of broadband to the average apartment

that we do not aspire until 2015. They have way in advance of that,

it is a precise point of this speech to try to get on track to

achieve some of that level of penetration. That is absolutely

right. These are basic needs for the economy, and the public sector

should be providing these. Precisely to stimulate all the

businesses that depend on broadband. That is purely an ideolgical point

too? It is not. Why not say it is up to the public sector? These are

natural monoplies, if you give them to the private sector they become

monoplies. In your world BT would not be privatised, no mobile

industry, we would be sit anything mud huts, that is crazy,

competition drives change. That is what will happen here, twof

restrain it in place, but we have to I -- we have to restrain it in

places, but we have to expand. are looking for private sector

investment in nuclear power in Japan, we are looking at Fukushima,

a private sector company that pretended it was regulated. We are

looking at regulators that pretended to regulate, and we have

a disaster. What happens, the Japanese taxpayer comes and bails

out this company. Never behind the destruction caused by the failure

of that private company. I don't think there was anything in David

Cameron's speech about building nuclear reactors? Let alone whether

or not it was the difference between private or public. It was

built on a faunt line, when it broke, Fukushima -- fault line,

when it broke, Fukushima was enormously compromised. That was

not a decision for private or public. There is expertise in the

private sector for this area, none in the public sec to you have to

deal with it, there is no money -- public sector, you have to deal

with it, and there is no money in the public sector. There is loads

of money. Three children and a rabbi were

murdered today, three soldiers were shot dead last week, and another

left seriously wounded. The same gun was used in all attacks,

according to the police. The absence of many facts, specktation

abounds, notably that France has some crazed racial extremist on the

loose, it has won -- the France administration has condemned the

events and sympathises with the families of the victims.

Is anything more known about the perpetrator of this attack? The

frenzied work undergoing at the moment is focusing on building a

profile of this killer, obviously they have quite a good picture of

how he operates, from one scene on Thursday they traced him on 40

different cameras, before he disappeared on the motorway outside

Toulouse. They know he's a local man, from the roads he uses, they

also know he's someone with considerable military training, in

the way he handles his weapon. They believe there could be a former

soldier. One line of inquiry tonight is focusing on three former

paratroopers at a local base, who were dismissed for links to far

right extremism. On Thursday, at the second shooting, an eyewitness

said she saw a tattoo on the face of the gunman. It just so happens

that one of these paratroopers they are looking for also has an

identifying tattoo on his face. This takes place in the middle of

an election campaign, doesn't it. An election campaign in which race

and immigration has been an issue? Yes, very much so. I think

everything that happens in France at the moment has to be seen

through the prisism of the election campaign. The President was here in

Toulouse today, as well he should be, given the shocking nature of

the attack we are talking about. I think this could go one of two ways

for him, if he or his men catch the killer in the next few days, well

and good, he's the man tough on law and order. The President who has

talked tough on law and order in the past. That will improve his

standing on the right, you would presume. There has been criticism

in recent days that he has veered to the right, in a cynical attempt,

say the opposition, to attract those votes from the far right.

Votes that have strayed from his party to the resurgent party. He

has said tonight in a speech from the he will Elysee Palace that he

will suspend -- -- from the Elysee Palace that he will suspend his

campaign. Now, in Paris, Jacques Myard, an MP

from President Sarkis's Union for a Popular Movement. In London is the

President of the Conference of the European -- Conference of European

Rabbis, Pinchas Goldschmidt. I suppose it is a rather obvious

question to ask, what has been the impact in France of the tragedy?

The nation is shocked. There is no doubt, you know. Everyone really is

amazed by this hate, this violence. I think this is, thought the

country, just -- throughout the country, just unique condemnation

of what has been having there. We don't know who he is, what is his

motivation. We know that we refuse such an act.

What do you make of it? A person doesn't get up in the morning, and

takes a gun and just kills three children. And a rabbi. This always

happens in a certain context. A person influenced either by the

media, or by the political climate, in his or her country.

Unfortunately what has happened over the last few weeks, in France,

has been a catalyst for what has happened today.

You think that this is taking place within a specific political context

and there is a degree, almost, of political instigation? It is no

secret that the extreme right in France, Jean-Marie Le Pen, has

brought up the issue of Parisians eating meat slaughtered by Muslims.

This issue has been furthered almost by mainstream candidates. So

I believe this kind of loss, which has been propagateed, not only in

France, but the laws against minute rites in Switzerland, the attempt

to ban halal and Kosher meat in Holland, creates an atmosphere of

intolerance. What do you make of this analysis? I'm shocked. I can't

accept it. Nobody knows what his motivation is. Nobody knows who he

is, is he a racist or a terrorist. I don't appreciate these speeches,

which is not the truth in this case. You are quite right, we don't know.

Just a second, what we do know, is that it takes place in the context

of an election campaign, in which your President has been making

specific allegations about immigration, about possibly

withdrawing from the Schengen agreement, and so on? The point of

immigration in France is a permanent topic, and not only in

this campaign. We ask the immigrants to really integrate and

respect the French law, and especially security and tolerance.

This is what we ask from immigrants, who want to live in France,

peaceful low. I tell you one thing, that 99%, do want to live in peace

in France. So there is always, in a society, unfortunately, a tuney

society, a tiny minority, which really acts this way. What do you

say when a British person from main origin just explodes bombs in

London. This is the same thing, you are not mitigating with the general

speech of a campaign. So the general speech of the campaign

today is also the question of immigrants, this is a question of

security. This is a question of unemployment, and so on. So I

cannot accept what has been just said before by the rabbi. Jumping

to conclusions. You could also have mentioned the lunatic in Norway

that started shooting people, that wasn't the consequences of

political issues? Had I disagree. His big hero was Wilders in Holland.

It doesn't take place in the context, you can't attribute blame

to the whole of Norwegian society, or the whole Norwegian political

class? No, what I'm saying is that extremists are inspired by

political movements. Political movements which are more mainstream,

which makes statements. Which then legitimises certain

minorities or certain groups of immigrants. In every every society

you have extremists and unbalanced people. They take this

delepblgsisation, a step further. -- lepblgs lays a step further. --

legislation a step further. This national French citizen who killed

a few days ago a French soldier, who fought under the French flag,

whose only sin was that he was a Muslim. And Today he killed

children. D today he killed children. --

today he killed children, what unites both these communities is

they are Jewish, what unites these communities is the issue, the way

they behave towards animals, was raised in the national campaign, so

I believe there has to be introspection by the body of

loadership in France. President Sarkis did the right thing to go to

Toulouse. Do you accept there is a need for

introspection here? I always say it is the far extreme right guy. He

can be also someone coming from the, let's say, Al-Qaeda movement, the

ones who target to the French army and especially Muslim soldiers, who

are fighting in Afghanistan. And we have unfortunately imported also in

Europe. The nearest conflict, so we know there are a lot of

explanations which can match with what has happened. We don't know

what is really in his head. I will be very prudent, and I cannot

accept this kind of negative speeches by our dear rabbi. Because

I think that he jumped to the conclusion, we don't know yet. All

I know is the entire political classes contem, very clearly this

act. -- condemn very clearly this act. This is the only thing I can

say tonight, we are waiting for the judicial inquiry. The next fence in

the White Housele chase happens, as Illinois decides who it will take

on President Obama. Mitt Romney has a string in his step, but there are

months to go to the party conventions and the elections.

One of the great characters of American politics, Congressman

Barney Frank, will be bowing out in those elections, in a moment I will

get his reflections on US politics. There are some pretty famous

American Barneys, the department store, George Bush's dog, the

children's TV character, and then there's Barney Frank, who, in his

way, is every bit as remarkable as a talking pink dinosaur.

The cartoons are over, we're getting into the double feature.

Discussions of the rights of gay men and lesbians to equal treatment

rarely made the press. They were considered to be marginal issues.

As the first Congressman to voluntarily come out as gay, Barney

Frank was always going to get noticed. He has been at the

forefront of the struggle for gay rights. The repeal of the US

military's "don't ask, don't tell" legislation, left him visibly moved.

He plans to marry his long-term partner, his state, Massachusetts,

one of only six in the US, that permits gay marriage. The issue is

likely to be at the forefront of this year's presidential election.

The Congressman, though, is best known for his smart, sometimes

blistering rhetoric, never perhaps has a politician been so aptly

named. Been trying to have a conversation

with you, would be like trying to argue with a dining room table, I

I'm still waiting for a simple answer. I'm waiting for you to tell

me what I think. You are a public representative, I am a student.

Which allows you to say things that you don't back up?

It is, though, in seeking to limit the power of the banks, that most

people will know Barney Frank. Though some Republicans claim it

was he, and others like him, who helped inflate the housing bubble.

Those who argue that housing prices are now at the point of a bubble,

seem to me to be missing a very important point. Homes that are

occupied, may seen an ebb and flow in the prois at a certain

percentage level, you will not see the -- price at a certain

percentage level, you will not see a collapse like when people talk

about a bubble. As this ad shows, Barney Frank,

drew a lot of criticism from his political opponents, none managed

to unseat him. For his decision to stand down, means that American

politics is losing one of its more entertaining characters.

Earlier I spoke to the Congressman from Washington.

Barney Frank, what do you think is going to determine the outcome of

this election? The economy, if you economy continues on the upward

path it is now on, then I think it is very likely President Obama will

win. I think the right ward movement of the Republican Party in

such a disorderly fashion edged to that. But I believe unless

something drastically negative happens, that is not foreseen now,

that derails this recovery we have begun, thaen President Obama will

win. You have seen -- Then President Obama will win. You have

seen Mitt Romney up close, why is he being driven to the right?

of all, he's man of no conviction. He doesn't appear to have any

particular issue to which he is deeply attached. What has happened

is the Republican Party as a whole has moved to the right. Exactly why

I'm not sure. But the Republican Party in America today is the most

right-wing, ideolgically, unified entity, pretty far from the centre,

that we have ever seen in America. It is extraordinary. You see in the

house of representatives where a mainstream Conservative is being

frequently repudiated by a right- wing caucus that won't co-operate

with him. You see this extraordinary movement to the right,

unlike anything we have seen in America politics. Romney moves

easily with no convictions to weight him down. What is baffling

for us, is why is this happening? Part of it may be the media, we

have this issue in America, I don't know if it is true elsewhere, where

the most active people in our political element live in parallel

media universes. The white and left-wing are getting very

different sources of information, and they very reinforcing. Let me

ask you about a liberal matter, David Cameron, a Conservative Prime

Minister in this country, has endorsed the idea of gay marriage.

He wants to see it happen in this country, can you ever see President

Obama endorsing such a thing? it is nice to see Mr Cameron giving

the Lib Dems something, certainly they haven't got a lot out of that

alliance. I ges this is one of the things they get a wedding present,

as it were. President Obama is moving in that direction. Earlier

this year he took a very important step on behalf of gay marriage. In

America marriage is not delayeded by law, state by state, we have had

this terrible law on the books saying even if state allows

marriage the federal Government won't recognise it. That is the

major obstacleing in terms of denying benefits. The President

repudiated that law, and went to the same things saying it is so

constitutional he won't defend it in court. He is clearly moving in

the right direction. Electoral considerations are a factor. I

expect before he's through being President, he will have endorsed

the idea of siem-sex marriage. are planning to get married and

leave politics. How is life going to change? I do plan to leave

Congress, I plan to do a lot of reaching out. I won't do any

fundraising, won't have to march in any more parades. A highly-

overrated activity, I must tell you, if you are a politician. I will

have more time, I expect to spend a lot of my time talking and writing

about issues. To some extent doing the fun politics not the stressful

parts. Will it be a relief not trying to persuade people to vote

for you? Absolutely. I am not by nature Mr Congeniality. And the

need to be nice to people, of whom I really do not think very much,

goes away and I will not miss it. Barney Frank, thank you.

The most powerful, certainly the most visibly powerful job in

British broadcasting is up for grabs. Mark Thompson, one time

Newsnight producer, before it all went wrong, has finally named the

rough date of his departure from the Director General office. The

headship of the organisation will be filled by someone chosen by the

BBC Trust after the Olympic Games. There is plenty to do.

Everybody loves to catch up on the iPlayer. So here's another chance

to see the career of the BBC DJ. The BBC rank and file have been

following Mark Thompson, more or less willingly, since 2004. He

arrived as the corporation was reeling over the Hutton Report,

which criticised the BBC's coverage of the intelligence background to

the Iraq war. Relations with the Tory-led

Government appear cordial now, the Murdoch empire is the new media

bogeyman. Some analysts believe the BBC was bounced into a poor deal on

the license fee. What would Thompson and his critics

consign to room 101. Probably threats to niche radio stations,

including six music, which sue the now reprieved channel's surge in

popularity. Some critics might say a lot of political and other

capital was expended over relocating staff and programmes

around the country. Then there were prank phone calls by hugely well

paid stars. As well as a crocodile of BBC managers paid more than the

Prime Minister. On the down side Mark Thompson seemed to have been a

bit slow to realise there was going to be public reaction to the level

of pay, once the credit crunch had happened. They seemed to be a bit

slow to react to that. The levels of pay of top executives.

Those who had hymn-marked Thompson - - like Mark Thompson say he has

overseen well watched programmes. In addition, polls show the BBC is

popular and trusted. So what does the new DG have to do?

The next director-general needs to understand three very, very

important things, that the BBC of enormous, cultural, economic and

democratic significance. And that its three greatest responsibilities,

is the origin nation of British programmes, investing in original

British programmes, secondly, original British talent. Bringing

forward the next creative talent from the next generation. But most

important of all, to be a trusted and reliable source of news and

information. The Voice is one of Mark Thompson's

parting gifts to the BBC audience. Sometimes it feels like TV is just

one big talent show. Now one of the biggest gigs of all is up for grabs.

With us now is my guests. You have actually written your own job

apgaigs of your manifesto for the job -- application for your

manifesto for the job, what would you do? Have nothing to d with Sir

Peter basiljet, the man behind Big Brother and a highly discredible

person. I would hope the BBC would have fewer people and fewer

stations and go upmarket a bit. The reason for that is I think it has

drifted from the raison d'etre, from the BBC, which is to do things

that other broadcasters don't do, and take it back to the ideals.

that ever going to be rauner? It is not an uncommon view? -- a runner?

It is not an uncommon view? That is going to happen, if you go too far,

you lose the raison d'etre for the license fee, it depends on the fact

that the BBC is popular with broad appeal. The new director-general

needs three things, to articulate a clear strategic vision for the

organisation, he needs to restore the self-confidence of the BBC, and

fight its corner. This is a world brand. This is a popular much-loved

British institution. And most lefson, it should be much ease --

Leveson, it should be much easier to do that. What is your sense of

the job? It is not a job I want, unlike qent tin. I don't know if he

does want it? I'm serious about it. You would have done it very well in

1920, it is a much harder job to do now. It is a tricky thing to defend

the license fee. However it is still very goodle value, �2.80,

less than a pint a week. I wonder if we are making aic about

assumption here, Mark Thompson will have -- a big assumption here, Mark

Thompson has been there eight years. The next one will serve to 2020,

will the BBC still be around. will be more discussions at the end

of the year about the charter review, there is a strong argument

for the license fee, incredible value. The best broadcasting

organisation in the world. Lock at the other countries and value for

money. That case needs to be remade, and he have generation. The BBC

should be making it. It needs a change in governance in order to do

it proper low. It makes it harder to justify itself. I'm a right-wing

supporter of the BBC. It shoots itself in the foot by being so

fatastically politically correct. By this inbred, liberalism, that

Andrew Marr has identified, and being well off the public opinion

on things like Europe. That is what drives right-wingers like me mad. I

fear that the BBC has lost the Conservative Party on that. On the

other hand, a lot of people are enjoying BBC programmes, I'm not

here to talk about political bias. Some of which you may have made?

make programmes for all broadcasters. What I'm grateful to

the BBC for, you can make the programmes you can't make elsewhere

with them. You get the option to make the best kind of programmes.

The BBC raises the standard for the industry generally. The other

broadcasters would say thank God for the BBC

There are big in their offering. The coverage of the law courts is

lamentable. This is something the press no longer does, the printed

press has given up on reporting of the law courts. That is an ar why

where the BBC could -- that is an area where the BBC could jump in.

I'm giving you an area that the BBC could pick up some of the public

service stuff. Let's talk more about the license fee mechanism,

you say there will be an argument about whether it survives or not.

Can you possibly survive when people are watching television in

so many different ways on so many different device, much of it among

young people? This is why it has to be doing things that other

broadcasters don't do. You have support this tax as a right-winger?

I support the idea of the BBC. You have to wrench it back, pair it

down -- pear it down. On BBC 3 there was a great show called Our

War, about soldiers in Afghanistan, made from their own footage, it was

a fantastic programme. I think one of the very important reasons that

BBC is there, is because it introduces a whole new audience to

public service broadcasting. Will you defend Snog, Mario Avoid, Sun

Sea and Suspicious parents. I'm not here to defend the BBC. BBC Three

I'm talking about. There is fantastic comedy on BBC Three, it

is the place where new comedy talent gets an airing in this

country. To take Ben Bradshaw's argument, if I understood it

correctly. Unless the BBC is clearly serving vast numbers of

people you can't justify the license fee. That is a reasonable

argument, I'm a bit of a captain blyth here, I don't care about the

-- Captain Blyth here, I don't care about ratings. My argument is

really good programmes and a return to elite imism will bring it in.

agree with qintism and -- with you. Although Mark Thompson said there

would be no salami slicing, we need a clearer strategic vision of how

big. Asking the big questions, what should the BBC be doing. It is much

easier to make the justification from there about the license fee.

It is easy to say all of this, and when you look at the mere

suggestion that the Asian network be cut and other channels and it

runs. It needs an outsider, none of your telemates, and someone who

comes from the liberal London outsiders, but it is someone who

comes in and says you have to change. The new chairman of the

trust gets this, he's not a member of my party but he gets it. They

will ensure it. The job needs to be broken up, so

there is an editor in chief, to do the other stuff. I'm bad at the

business stuff. Jo it is important to make

programmes people actually want to watch. You seem to be defining

quality as shows that you approve of. My personal definition of

quality is shares that a wide range of people enjoy and think areed

good. That is what the BBC delivers. You are a ratings waller. It is not

just that, ratings are important, you are in newspapers, if people

don't buy your paper they are not enjoying it? The BBC not a

newspaper. That is the great danger. I think the BBC is in the business

of making the best possible programmes it can make. If it makes

the best possible programmes people will watch them? We haven't talked

about the salaries, and the BBC salaries. I'm not going to mention

you Paxman. You don't know. They are well out of kilter.

person you are so critical about it, Peter did raise it in the

interviews. Saying they were slow in coming to that. The VG can't be

paid the same as Mark Thompson? That man over there gets �56,000

for a backbench member of parliament, that is what they

should be looking at. You are running a global organisation with

60,000 people. You have to pay them a proper wage. It is highly

imbowlic you need to bring it down. It really needs a bloke from

Hereford? It hope help. To leave you on an elevated note as

witnessed from the International Space Station, NASA has just let us

see what the astronauts saw. A much cloudier night tonight means

it is nothing like as cold as last night. First thing there won't be

the chill in the air, no unshine either. Skies will brighten after a

damp start, turning destroy and fine across Cumbria. In the north-

east temperatures hitting the teens. We always keep a bit more cloud

across southern most counties, even here temperatures are above average

at 10-14. Sunshine here and there, particularly to the east of the

hills. To the east of the moors and the mountains, in Wales they could

see sunshine, temperatures really jumping up in the sunshine. Where

it is cloudy on the west coast, temperatures will stick at 10-11.

Eastern parts of Northern Ireland will be having some fun, dry and

breezy. A strong wind persists across northern Scotland. The

outbreaks of rain should fizzle out. In the far north-east temperatures

could jump up, up to 189 in Aberdeenshire. Wednesday sees more

of the same, most places dry, one change on Wednesday, perhaps a bit

more sunshine returning to southern most counties of England. North-

east Scotland will see the lion's share of sunshine on Wednesday.