09/07/2012 Newsnight


09/07/2012

Stories behind the headlines with Gavin Esler. Why are the Olympics sponsored by junk food sellers? Plus, the Bank of England and Libor, Lords reform and New Conservative thinking.


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 09/07/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Tonight, the Olympic symbol has always been five intersecting rings,

:00:14.:00:21.

might a more appropriate thing be five fattening doughnuts. As the

:00:21.:00:26.

athletes prepare to gather in London. An angry cardiologist asks

:00:26.:00:31.

why some key sponsors are linked to obesity and unhealthy eating.

:00:31.:00:35.

find is fascinating that the Olympics chooses to be associated

:00:35.:00:40.

with sugary drinks, fast food, and alcohol. We speak to an olympian

:00:40.:00:46.

and marketing man. Cuts in benefits and making work

:00:46.:00:51.

pay, an ally of David Cameron wants to means test pensions and cut Sure

:00:51.:00:55.

Start for children. What is the difference between a

:00:55.:01:00.

cess pit and our banking system? Paul Mason knows.

:01:00.:01:03.

A key official at the Bank of England testifies, somebody's

:01:03.:01:06.

reputation is going to get flushed away.

:01:06.:01:10.

And having failed with electoral reform, Nick Clegg is on the eve of

:01:10.:01:13.

the first major Government defeat over House of Lords reform, at the

:01:13.:01:23.
:01:23.:01:26.

hands of Tory MPs. Good evening, the Olympic Moto is

:01:26.:01:33.

Citius, Altius, Fortius, faster, higher, stronger. Why are some of

:01:33.:01:40.

the key sponsors of the greatest sporting events in the worlds,

:01:40.:01:46.

McDonalds, Coca-Cola and Heineken, likely to be associated with the

:01:46.:01:56.
:01:56.:01:58.

motto, fatter, et cetera. The logos of those associated with the

:01:58.:02:03.

Olympic Games are responsible for some heart disease.

:02:03.:02:09.

We turn to a cardiologist and see what he has to say.

:02:09.:02:13.

Over the last 30 years, processed food has taken over the British

:02:13.:02:17.

diet. And over the past 30 years, obesity

:02:17.:02:23.

has more than doubled. Now, as London prepares to host a

:02:23.:02:27.

global sporting celebration, processed food has taken over the

:02:27.:02:35.

Olympics. It is a scandal the food and drink industry, are high-

:02:35.:02:37.

profile sponsors of the Olympic Games. The Olympics are supposed to

:02:37.:02:42.

be about fitness, and health, and to associate them with products,

:02:42.:02:45.

which are damaging our health, particularly our children's health,

:02:45.:02:51.

is quite wrong. A human heart is a thing of

:02:51.:02:55.

simplicity and wonder. It is designed to pump blood around your

:02:55.:03:00.

body, at 60 beats per minute, for close on 80 years. Unless, you live

:03:00.:03:06.

on a diet of processed food. I work at the Heart Attack Centre

:03:06.:03:12.

in London's Royal Free Hospital, where we have witnessed an

:03:12.:03:22.
:03:22.:03:22.

explosion of diet-related diseases. By 2050, 90% of Britain --

:03:23.:03:26.

Britain's population will be overweight. And treating obesity

:03:26.:03:30.

will cost the NHS �45 billion a year. The UK is on the verge of a

:03:30.:03:34.

major public health disaster, the cost of which could dwarf that of

:03:34.:03:40.

alcohol and tobacco, and even cripple the NHS. What is the most

:03:40.:03:44.

important factor? Sugar and carbohydrates added to processed

:03:44.:03:47.

food. I believe what we eat is killing us.

:03:47.:03:50.

This is not the same old warning about junk food. I'm much more

:03:50.:03:56.

concerned about all processed food. Processed foods contain few of the

:03:56.:04:00.

natural nutrients we need to survive, yet are loaded with added

:04:00.:04:04.

sugars and carbohydrates that the body does not need. So the body

:04:04.:04:10.

converts them to fat. If you look at when the obesity

:04:10.:04:19.

epidemic took off in the UK, late 1970 early 1980s, our consumption

:04:19.:04:24.

of processed food has increased in parallel. It is not an add on to

:04:24.:04:30.

real food, it is our entire diet. Zoe Harkumhas studied the rise of

:04:30.:04:35.

processed food in our diet, she says we have it all wrong. Bodies

:04:35.:04:40.

know how to process butter, meat and eggs, but it has no idea what

:04:40.:04:45.

to do with all the added sugars appearing in processed foods.

:04:45.:04:50.

is the only thing that humans digest that has no nutritional

:04:50.:04:55.

value, no protein, vitamins or minerals, it is unique in that

:04:55.:04:58.

respect. In terms of sugar, we eat it on top of what we should be

:04:58.:05:03.

eating, in which case it can make us fat, or we eat it instead of

:05:03.:05:07.

what we are eating, in which case it leaves us nutritionally

:05:07.:05:11.

deficient, so we end up sick, so we are getting fat and sick at the

:05:11.:05:14.

same time. Globally, diet-related diseases

:05:14.:05:20.

kill 35 million every year. That is five-times more than tobacco.

:05:20.:05:24.

Whilst big food companies continue to make huge profits, in Britain,

:05:24.:05:29.

the bill is borne by the NHS and the taxpayer.

:05:29.:05:34.

In the shadow of the Olympic stadium, doctors are facing an

:05:34.:05:38.

epidemic of diabetes. Within the borrowing of Newham, we

:05:38.:05:44.

are probably seeing -- borough of Newham, we are probably seeing

:05:44.:05:49.

doubling of patients with type two diabetes in the last ten years. 40-

:05:49.:05:55.

50% of the consultations in the practice are related to diabetes or

:05:55.:06:00.

the complication. I have come to a GP's surgery, just two miles from

:06:00.:06:04.

the Olympic Park. The doctor says the majority of his resources

:06:04.:06:11.

already go towards fighting diet- related illness.

:06:11.:06:16.

Diabetes is a multiorgan, multisystem disease, leading to

:06:16.:06:19.

heart attacks, strokes and amputation, treating it early is

:06:19.:06:23.

vital. We are seeing patients present with other conditions, like

:06:23.:06:28.

high blood pressure-related to the diabetes, high levels of

:06:28.:06:32.

cholesterol, some long-term complication of diabetes, which is

:06:32.:06:39.

affect the eyes, the kidneys, with chronic kidney disease. Every day

:06:39.:06:45.

the NHS has to battle the effects of sugary foods, and the marketing

:06:45.:06:53.

campaigns used to push them. Surely the Olympics should be sorting this

:06:53.:06:57.

out. I find is obscene that the Olympics

:06:57.:07:03.

is associated itself with sugary drinks, fast food and alcohol, and

:07:03.:07:06.

fast food. The sponsors can't be held accountable for Britain's

:07:06.:07:11.

health, but they send a dreadful message being associated with the

:07:11.:07:15.

games. I'm not the only one who thinks so? I think it is shocking

:07:15.:07:21.

that companies like McDonalds's, Coca-Cola, Cadbury's and Heineken

:07:21.:07:26.

are the main food sponsors. These are products which are all very

:07:26.:07:32.

well as a treat. But what Olympic sponsorship allows them to do is

:07:32.:07:38.

promote their brand, and insinuate their way into people's Dail yiey

:07:38.:07:43.

day yet. Whether you are looking at obesity -- daily diet. Whether you

:07:43.:07:47.

are looking at obesity, or people's dental problems, whether you are

:07:47.:07:54.

even looking at the rising youth alcohol issue, these companies are

:07:54.:07:58.

the culprits. They shouldn't be such prominent sponsors of the

:07:58.:08:03.

Olympics. Diane Abbott is not only shadow

:08:03.:08:06.

public Health Minister, she's also an East End MP.

:08:06.:08:12.

In the 19th century, the poor faced illnesses like cholera, and typhoid,

:08:12.:08:16.

today, with inner city areas, effectively fresh food deserts, and

:08:16.:08:19.

childhood obesity levels rocketing, the health of Britain's poor is

:08:19.:08:26.

still determined by class. Obesity is now a disease of poverty.

:08:26.:08:31.

When you look at the statistics, as I have done, what you find is

:08:31.:08:36.

obesity is a bigger problem for people on lower incomes. For

:08:36.:08:41.

instance, just recently we found out that the largest number, and

:08:41.:08:45.

the rising number, of gastric band operations, for people who are

:08:45.:08:50.

heavily obese, are amongst the people with the lowest income. Once

:08:50.:08:54.

upon a time, poor people couldn't get enough to eat, nowadays poor

:08:54.:08:57.

people's health is threatened by obesity.

:08:57.:09:03.

In Newham, the largest McDonald's in the world has been built, in the

:09:03.:09:09.

Olympic Park. It is 30,000-square feet inside, and will seat over

:09:09.:09:12.

1500 people. That the London Olympics allows this kind of food

:09:12.:09:19.

such prominence, is, in my opinion, disastrous for public health.

:09:19.:09:24.

I avoided excess sugars and sugary products, I try to keep to fairly

:09:24.:09:29.

normal, mother would tell you, fresh vegtables rules that kind of

:09:29.:09:37.

thing. Athletes don't base their diet on processed food. One of the

:09:37.:09:41.

Olympic greats tells me even 30 years ago he was avoiding it.

:09:41.:09:47.

the Olympic Games people would take a lot of sugary products and it was

:09:47.:09:51.

free, and you see athletes pump on the weight in the games. I noticed

:09:51.:09:55.

that and avoided it. Weaning ourselves off fast food and sugary

:09:55.:09:58.

drifrpbgs, appears to be a problem for the International Olympic

:09:58.:10:04.

Committee too. We know the negative health impact, obesity, of

:10:04.:10:09.

processed foods and sugars, I suppose the IOC, now, have a really

:10:09.:10:13.

challenging situation. Yes, they need the money from the sponsors,

:10:13.:10:18.

and that money has come in, and really helped. But more than that,

:10:18.:10:25.

they have benefited for many years of the reach these sponsors had

:10:25.:10:31.

into new market places. To children, and others. It isth has really

:10:31.:10:34.

helped. Now their challenge -- and it has really helped. Now their

:10:34.:10:40.

challenge is how to deal with the health impact of that. But there

:10:40.:10:44.

seems little sign that the Olympic movement will move away from its

:10:44.:10:48.

current sponsors. Indeed, when challenged, the London organisers

:10:48.:10:55.

talk of the financial black hole their absence would cai. -- create.

:10:55.:10:59.

But obesity will open up a much bigger black hole in the NHS's

:10:59.:11:03.

budget. It may not be a priority for the London Olympics, but the

:11:03.:11:06.

costs of obesity are foremost in the mind of all of us who work to

:11:06.:11:15.

improve public health. Obviously we asked to speak to

:11:15.:11:19.

someone from the London organising committee, and the IOC, as well as

:11:19.:11:22.

the sponsors mentioned in that report, but no-one was made

:11:22.:11:24.

available. There is plenty of statements from all of them on our

:11:24.:11:27.

website, broadly saying that all is well, and the Olympics would not

:11:27.:11:32.

happen without their support. We can speak to the cardiologist you

:11:32.:11:36.

saw in that report, Michael Payne, former director of marketing for

:11:36.:11:41.

the international Olympic Committee, and CRACKING, the rower, who twice

:11:41.:11:50.

won Olympic -- James Cracknell, who won gold twice for Britain.

:11:50.:11:55.

Surely there is other manufacturers? It is a broader

:11:55.:12:03.

lifestyle agenda of people getting active, to do with obesity.

:12:03.:12:06.

Associating the epitomy of health with foods that make people obese,

:12:06.:12:12.

there is a mixed message there? McDonald's from when they started

:12:12.:12:17.

to become a sponsor of the Olympics sake how do you broaden the agenda.

:12:17.:12:22.

They introduced salads, and the testing of salads and the

:12:22.:12:27.

broodening of the menu started at the Olympics. Same with Coca-Cola,

:12:27.:12:30.

sports drinks, and sugar-free drinks, started with the Olympics.

:12:30.:12:34.

It is not just kies of the revenue and funding these companies bring,

:12:34.:12:38.

not just to the games but the TV and sport. But the programmes, in

:12:38.:12:43.

Germans of Go-active that they run. You wouldn't accept cigarette money,

:12:43.:12:47.

would you? The IOC was the first to drop that. Or weapons manufacturers.

:12:47.:12:51.

You accept beer money, but not whiskey money? Not spirits, you can

:12:51.:12:56.

go after every industry. Before you know it you will say not cars

:12:56.:12:59.

because they impact the environment, not airlines, and sports clothing

:12:59.:13:04.

made in India. Do you think athletes care about this, the IOC

:13:04.:13:08.

President said in the FT today, that there is a question mark over

:13:08.:13:12.

whether to continue with McDonald's? As within athlete there

:13:12.:13:17.

is people in society, and they will always fall down the gap. I don't

:13:17.:13:21.

think people who watch the Olympics will assume that as a fast food

:13:21.:13:29.

chain and a drinks chain sponsoring them, that those are the products

:13:29.:13:32.

the athletes live on. When you are training, you wouldn't have much of

:13:32.:13:41.

that in your diet? Athletes need to have self-discipline, but also, in

:13:41.:13:46.

the 20 years I was an athlete, I consumed a lifetime of food. I had

:13:46.:13:52.

6,000 calories a, as opposed to 2,000. I had 60 years of food in 20

:13:52.:13:56.

years. Not processed food? No, but you also have to live. Everything

:13:56.:13:59.

in moderation is good. The most important thing an athlete can do

:13:59.:14:06.

is when they stop competing, is that they don't change shape, they

:14:06.:14:12.

don't balloon in weight. So they don't eat this stuff? They keep

:14:12.:14:16.

moving, you know, as long as you burn off more calories than you put

:14:16.:14:20.

in, and you do eat the sensible things. You don't want to show you

:14:20.:14:24.

are just healthy and fit because that's what you needed to do in

:14:24.:14:28.

order to win. You need to have that as a guiding principle in life to

:14:28.:14:34.

make the most of it. Would you accept that if you don't companies

:14:34.:14:38.

to sponsor the Olympics, there might not be an Olympics, and it

:14:38.:14:41.

helps people and encourages people to take part in sport, which is

:14:41.:14:46.

part of a healthy lifestyle, it is good, in other words? Firstly, I

:14:46.:14:51.

would like to say that I don't believe we need to rely purely on

:14:51.:14:54.

food companies that promote unhealthy foods for the Olympics.

:14:54.:14:58.

Secondly, I want to pick up this point about physical activity, it

:14:58.:15:01.

is an interesting one. From my perspective, I think it is

:15:01.:15:07.

something that is used quite well by the food industry, almost to

:15:07.:15:10.

deflect from their own culpability and marketing to children, if you

:15:10.:15:14.

look at the data and evidence, over the last 30 years the physical

:15:14.:15:17.

activity levels have increased slightly. That may sound odd, but

:15:17.:15:21.

all the data, when we have looked at this, suggests that our

:15:21.:15:26.

overconsumption of cheap sugary and cheap junk foods is the main thing

:15:26.:15:31.

to contribute to obesity. To put it in context for you vooers, if I was

:15:31.:15:36.

to have a barf chocolate, a pact of crisps and a burger and chips

:15:36.:15:39.

washed down with a fizzy drink, I would have to run for five hours to

:15:39.:15:46.

run off the calories. To talk about physical activity isn't there.

:15:46.:15:50.

Clearly there is a benefit to these companies in associating themselves

:15:50.:15:54.

with the healthy living of athletes, that is why they do it. But it is

:15:54.:15:58.

phoney, isn't it? In a way the Olympics is saying this is OK, you

:15:58.:16:02.

are endorsing it? It is not phoney at all. I think the whole issue is

:16:02.:16:07.

whether you take any of these products in some moderation. The

:16:07.:16:10.

programmes that these sponsors are running, without it, in terms of

:16:10.:16:13.

not just from the funding of the game, but the programmes around the

:16:13.:16:18.

world, in getting kids active. The Government's are cutting back, they

:16:18.:16:22.

are not putting the funding in. just heard the doctor saying, the

:16:22.:16:25.

question of exercise, you would have to exercise and run for five

:16:25.:16:31.

hours to burn off those calories? Would we be better off saying let's

:16:31.:16:36.

not have the Olympics. That is not what we are saying, it is we would

:16:36.:16:43.

be better off if the sponsors were other people? Where is the queue of

:16:43.:16:47.

people to sponsor the games, they don't exist. Each company, every

:16:47.:16:50.

time the Olympics come along, you get a call saying you can't have

:16:50.:16:54.

this company and that company. If the IOC took that position and

:16:54.:16:58.

walked away from all the companies, game over, no Olympics, no support

:16:58.:17:04.

for support. The challenge -- sport. The challenge is to make sure these

:17:04.:17:07.

companies understand their responsibility and the way the IOC

:17:07.:17:12.

has told them. Are you literally a spoil sport, if you had your way

:17:12.:17:21.

there might be no Olympics? I don't agree with that. Let's look at the

:17:21.:17:25.

statistics, in 204, the World Health Organisation announced that

:17:25.:17:29.

obesity was a global epidemic, yet eight years later we have the

:17:29.:17:33.

Olympics, on our own turf, and the statistics tell us that we have now

:17:33.:17:36.

one in three children, by the age of nine, who are overweight or

:17:36.:17:40.

obese. So, these called intervention about physical

:17:40.:17:44.

activity, as far as I'm concerned, the most effective intervention

:17:44.:17:46.

needs to be a public health strategy that targets the

:17:46.:17:50.

population as a whole. You have to remember, the Olympic Games is the

:17:50.:17:53.

most effective international marketing platform in the world.

:17:53.:17:57.

This will go out to over 200 countries, reaching billions of

:17:57.:18:02.

people. We have the main sponsors associated with unhealthy foods. In

:18:02.:18:07.

particular, I'm most concerned about the children.

:18:07.:18:12.

James, there is comments from the head of the IOC, suggesting there

:18:12.:18:15.

may be some reconsidering here. Most people have not heard of him,

:18:15.:18:19.

they have heard of you and other athletes, don't you think you have

:18:19.:18:22.

a responsibility, not just not to get fat in your old age because you

:18:22.:18:25.

are not training so much, but to set some example while you are

:18:25.:18:28.

training, because you are a role model? There is a responsibility.

:18:28.:18:34.

And there is also a responsibility that we have as a society. Because

:18:34.:18:40.

the hugely complex issues here, just to say it is the sporting

:18:40.:18:44.

event every four years and the sponsors cause the obesity children.

:18:44.:18:50.

If the children under nine are obese, they will have had maximum

:18:50.:18:53.

two Olympic Games in that period. It is something as a society we

:18:53.:18:57.

need to make sure that there aren't people falling through the gaps,

:18:57.:19:01.

the same we support them in every other way. But it is absolutely

:19:01.:19:10.

crucial to change the way that we lead sedintary lives. There are

:19:10.:19:14.

other sponsors. The Olympics plays a part in that by encouraging you

:19:14.:19:17.

to get involved in sport? There are other sponsors other than the food

:19:17.:19:23.

and drink products. Whether it is the technology, whether it is the

:19:23.:19:26.

television company. There is so many other sponsors, but they are

:19:26.:19:31.

the ones with the money to fund it. Our Olympic warm-up continues

:19:31.:19:35.

tomorrow night with the first black power olympian, Tommy Smith, and to

:19:35.:19:38.

great fanfare, we will unveil our plans on how Newsnight will cover

:19:38.:19:42.

the games this summer. Throughout the year Newsnight is

:19:42.:19:46.

looking at the increasing cost of living in hard times, tonight we

:19:46.:19:49.

have a radical piece of thinking about what might be done. It comes

:19:49.:19:52.

from the Conservative thinker, Nick Boles, a close ally of David

:19:52.:19:55.

Cameron. He's suggesting something that many of his Conservative

:19:55.:19:58.

colleagues will regard as politically pose sonous, the

:19:58.:20:03.

scrapping of universal benefits, to better off pensioners, a deeper

:20:03.:20:06.

overhaul of housing benefits, and possible cuts to the Sure Start

:20:06.:20:10.

programme for young children. All with the aim, he says, of making

:20:10.:20:13.

Britain more productive and competitive, and in the end,

:20:13.:20:23.
:20:23.:20:25.

increasing wages. We will debate it in a moment, first Allegra Stratton.

:20:25.:20:29.

It has been called the great stagnation, but you could call it

:20:29.:20:35.

the incredibly shrinking family budget. We just keep getting poorer.

:20:35.:20:40.

Disposable income for low-to-middle income homes will fall 8% by 2015

:20:40.:20:45.

then where do we go from there. For optimists it will take to the end

:20:45.:20:51.

of this decade to get back to where we were before the 2008 crash. For

:20:51.:20:55.

the gloomy among us, we go into 2020 earning what we earned in 2001.

:20:55.:20:59.

It is a mark of the size of the problem, that the Resolution

:20:59.:21:02.

Foundation, an independent think- tank, is kept busy by its scale,

:21:02.:21:07.

and what can be done about it. are saying a deterioration in some

:21:07.:21:10.

countries, a breakdown, in the relationship between overall

:21:11.:21:14.

economic growth, even in the good years, and the benefits flowing

:21:14.:21:18.

through to ordinary workers on middle or below middle pay. That is

:21:18.:21:21.

happening not just here in the UK, that is happening in a number of

:21:21.:21:24.

countries, particularly Anglo-Saxon countries, not just them, where in

:21:24.:21:28.

the past you would have seen quite a tight relationship where GDP went

:21:28.:21:33.

up, ordinary wages tended to go up with it, that has dissipated

:21:33.:21:36.

significantly, wherein some countries you see almost no

:21:36.:21:39.

relationship over the last 10-20 years, between economic growth on

:21:39.:21:45.

the one hand, and the benefits felt by someone on an ordinary pay pact.

:21:45.:21:47.

That is a massive change in an ordinary economy.

:21:47.:21:51.

The way to deal with it in the past is you would try to get a pay rise

:21:51.:21:54.

or work longer hours. A pay rise is difficult to imagine when you have

:21:54.:22:00.

real wage increases not due on the horizon until 2013, 14, working

:22:00.:22:04.

long hours is a diminished possibility. The people who want to

:22:04.:22:08.

work longer hours is running at its highest level since 1992. Then

:22:08.:22:11.

there are historical trends. The reason we have rising living

:22:11.:22:14.

standards over the last 40 years in large part due to women entering

:22:14.:22:18.

the work force. In the last ten years rising living standards have

:22:18.:22:22.

also been affected by tax credits. Neither of those things are due to

:22:22.:22:26.

be replicated. Now, a close ally of the Prime Minister, Nick Boles,

:22:26.:22:30.

also a parliamentary aide, has been doing some work on this, and in a

:22:30.:22:34.

speech tomorrow, but given to Newsnight, he issues this morning.

:22:34.:22:44.
:22:44.:22:52.

Of the historic roots to increased earning, either a partner entering

:22:52.:22:56.

work, or one or other of a couple working more hours, Nick Boles says

:22:56.:22:59.

neither of the trends are sustainable, and if they were, we

:22:59.:23:02.

shouldn't want them to be. What will it do for our health and

:23:02.:23:04.

happiness if the only way to achieve a growing income is to work

:23:04.:23:09.

longer hours. His prescription could be described

:23:09.:23:14.

as an intense workout. Nick Boles wants to improve people's chances

:23:14.:23:18.

of earning a better wage through improving their skills. He wants to

:23:18.:23:20.

make us more competitive and productive.

:23:20.:23:24.

What does it mean? Nick Boles is saying that any policies that don't

:23:24.:23:29.

have a discernable impact on our productivity or competitiveness,

:23:29.:23:32.

they should go. For him it means that pensioner benefits for the

:23:32.:23:36.

very well off should go they next election, and Sure Start, and

:23:36.:23:39.

policies he doesn't think have a proven ability to keep us in work

:23:39.:23:45.

or better us at work, they should go through. You may just be

:23:45.:23:49.

digesting the last round of cuts, this is the taste of the next round

:23:49.:23:52.

to come. Nick Boles believes there should be

:23:52.:23:55.

growth in public spending, only where the productivity and

:23:55.:23:58.

competitiveness of the British people is improved. He believes

:23:58.:24:03.

there should be further cuts elsewhere, to ensure as a total,

:24:04.:24:10.

spending falls. He suggests the Chancellor should come up with

:24:10.:24:14.

policies that augment this thinking, and bin those that don't. It leads

:24:15.:24:24.
:24:25.:24:36.

He also proposes re-examining Sure Start children's centres. He says

:24:36.:24:41.

they have no measurable impact. Improving competitiveness is

:24:41.:24:44.

clearly desirable, but analysts point out, that wages may not have

:24:44.:24:48.

gone up as GDP has, because companies have chosen to make

:24:48.:24:53.

larger profits. There are a number of different factors behind it, one

:24:53.:24:59.

of these is we have seen a large scale increase for wage

:24:59.:25:02.

inequalities. The top half of earners, are seeing an ever-larger

:25:02.:25:06.

slice of the cake going to them. That is part of T we have also seen,

:25:06.:25:09.

particularly over recent years, a growth in the share of GDP going to

:25:09.:25:15.

business, in the form of profits. That happened in the UK in the 200

:25:15.:25:21.

0s, there is another squeeze on the pay pact bit of GDP. What of Boles'

:25:21.:25:25.

view that tax credits haven't work to get us into work. When it comes

:25:25.:25:28.

to social security, the tax credit system, I think two things are

:25:29.:25:33.

rather important here, first of all, the tax credit system for people in

:25:33.:25:37.

work, of course it is redistribute today poor families, but it is also

:25:38.:25:42.

helping to move them into work. It is good for productivity, it is

:25:42.:25:45.

worth being clear that whilst this Government has taken some money out

:25:45.:25:48.

of those budgets, they are still more generous than they were back

:25:48.:25:52.

in 1997, before the last Labour Government really started putting

:25:52.:25:56.

significant amounts of extra money into the tax credit system.

:25:56.:26:00.

Families running up the down escalator to build living standards

:26:01.:26:05.

back up. Leading politicians are now lending a hand, it sounds a

:26:05.:26:09.

simple task, but it is actually as ideolgical as it gets.

:26:09.:26:15.

Nick Boles is with us, as is the former Labour minister, Lord Adonis,

:26:15.:26:25.
:26:25.:26:27.

and the editor of a sister organisation for mums net.

:26:27.:26:32.

How much of this will feature in the next Conservative manifesto?

:26:32.:26:38.

don't know, I'm thinking out loud. We live in an age where we face

:26:38.:26:40.

uncomfortable choices. Politicians have to be straight with people.

:26:40.:26:44.

None of us want to do any of the stuff I talked about, we would all

:26:44.:26:48.

love the ship to go rolling on as it has, people get better off and

:26:48.:26:51.

the state providing lots of stuff. It is not possible, it is not

:26:51.:26:55.

honest, and I'm hoping others will pitch in with their ideas. David

:26:55.:27:00.

Cameron, and Iain Duncan Smith and George Osborne and others are not

:27:00.:27:04.

being honest with us? We have done a lot, nobody has accused the

:27:04.:27:10.

coalition of not having taken radical and difficult steps with

:27:10.:27:14.

educational maintenance allowance. Are they listening when you are

:27:14.:27:17.

transmitting? I don't know, I haven't given the speech yet.

:27:17.:27:20.

you see some merit in this, the stagnation of living standards, or

:27:20.:27:25.

wages not keeping up with prices, is causing real problems to just

:27:25.:27:28.

about everybody. This may be, in the long-term, a way of tackling

:27:28.:27:33.

it? I'm not exactly sure what Nick is proposing. But the general theme

:27:33.:27:36.

of improving the productivity of the economy is vital. The root

:27:36.:27:39.

problem is high levels of unemployment. The I can't remember

:27:39.:27:43.

I have been paying close attention to recently youth unemployment,

:27:43.:27:48.

youth unemployment of a million, 24% of under-24-year-olds

:27:48.:27:58.

unemployed. We have to give a kick start to the youth market. So not

:27:58.:28:02.

giving benefits to very well off pensioners, Mick Jagger doesn't

:28:02.:28:07.

need it, does he? We should be providing subsidised jobs for the

:28:07.:28:11.

long-term youth unemployment. It is quality of spending, education

:28:11.:28:16.

standards aren't high enough and not a proper apprenticeship route.

:28:16.:28:19.

He's pointing out that politicians are great at spending money, but

:28:19.:28:23.

finding money, he has found some money, and it is a hard choice?

:28:23.:28:26.

is the old politics that Nick is talking about, the hard bit is

:28:26.:28:29.

simply about finding money. The hard bit is producing programmes

:28:29.:28:35.

that work. Where are the apprenticeship programmes for those

:28:35.:28:38.

not going to university. Where are the subsidises jobs, which the

:28:38.:28:42.

Government says it is providing, it won't provide figures forks the

:28:42.:28:45.

long-term youth unemployment. You have to have a Government machine

:28:45.:28:52.

that works and it doesn't work well enough. What do you think people

:28:52.:29:01.

joining Mumsnet and Gransnet, what will they think, that the better

:29:01.:29:07.

off pensioners et cetera? I think it is hard to argue that Mick

:29:07.:29:11.

Jagger needs pensions, people on the websites would accept that

:29:11.:29:16.

those on pensions of �60,000 plus shouldn't get universal benefits.

:29:16.:29:20.

The problem then comes where the cut-off comes. Only 10% of

:29:20.:29:24.

pensioners have an become of over �30,000. So you are talking about

:29:24.:29:30.

people probably with incomes of between �11,000-�30,000, you have

:29:30.:29:33.

to decide where you you are going to make that cut. We know that

:29:33.:29:36.

whenever you have means testing, you get a cliff edge, and very

:29:36.:29:40.

often the wrong people fall off the cliff. Do you think there is some

:29:40.:29:44.

merit in universal benefits because they are for everybody, there is no

:29:44.:29:48.

stigma and that is the traditional argument? We know the take-up is

:29:48.:29:54.

better, they are cheaper to run and they are efficient. The politics

:29:54.:29:59.

are pretty poisonous. The Tory plans here are to axe pensioners

:29:59.:30:03.

benefits on the front page, it is the granny tax all over again.

:30:03.:30:07.

Whenever you argue this you are the nasty party? This is what has got

:30:07.:30:11.

us into this mess, where we have the biggest budget deficit of any

:30:11.:30:14.

OECD country, and yet we have all the social problems that Andrew has

:30:14.:30:18.

been referring to and everything else. The fact is, it is because we

:30:18.:30:21.

have had a series of Governments, and I am afraid the last Labour

:30:21.:30:25.

Government was good at making choices about spending money and

:30:25.:30:29.

badly about getting the money. Maybe it is true of your Government,

:30:29.:30:32.

it is not practical politics? Government has been more radical

:30:32.:30:35.

and been willing to court unpopularity, through a series of

:30:35.:30:39.

decisions to begin to get the deficit under control.

:30:39.:30:42.

reversing, not implementing the 3p extra on fuel. This is not a

:30:42.:30:47.

Government that immediately you say this is going to take courageous

:30:47.:30:51.

decisions of the type you said? completely overhauled tuition fees

:30:52.:30:58.

so students now have to pay �9,000 a year, and scrapped educational

:30:58.:31:02.

maintenance allowances. These were all things people valued and mostly

:31:02.:31:06.

young people who were paid those. It is not fair to say we weren't

:31:06.:31:11.

brave. And more bravery is needed. Hopefully people will come up with

:31:11.:31:15.

an idea more palatable. More bravery is needed, and perhaps the

:31:15.:31:18.

headlines fail to understand the sophistication of the argument?

:31:18.:31:23.

is the absence of growth causing the pressure on the welfare date,

:31:23.:31:27.

the absence of growth since the 2008 crisis. I agree we have to

:31:27.:31:30.

make the economy more productive, we have to get more people into

:31:30.:31:35.

jobs, and get them sustainably into jobs, earning higher wages. So, of

:31:35.:31:39.

course, the economy is in a much healthier state. Could you defend

:31:39.:31:42.

all the universal benefits for some that don't need them, could you

:31:43.:31:48.

defend them, all of them? Obviously there needs to be continuing debate.

:31:48.:31:53.

This shouldn't be cast in aspic. These aren't easy decisions to be

:31:53.:31:57.

made, nor are they simplistic. of the things people like to see

:31:57.:32:01.

the occasions where politicians might agree and form consensus on

:32:01.:32:06.

things, is that at all possible? there is going to be a consensus,

:32:06.:32:09.

it requires a Government that is prepared to seek to promote

:32:09.:32:13.

consensus. We have been debating long-term care over the last two

:32:13.:32:19.

years now there still hasn't been a consensus generated by that. A lot

:32:19.:32:24.

further to go. People are now more resistant to any cuts in living

:32:24.:32:28.

standards, if you are told in a few years time younger people will have

:32:28.:32:31.

higher wages, and you have to pay the electricity bill this week, it

:32:32.:32:34.

is difficult? One of the things worrying about this, and worries a

:32:34.:32:39.

lot of our members. Is there seems to be an underlying resentment of

:32:39.:32:42.

older people. And a sense that older people are some how selfish

:32:42.:32:46.

or greedy and not productive. One in three working families relies on

:32:46.:32:52.

grandparents for childcare. We know that grandparents and older people,

:32:52.:32:55.

contribute, net, more than �4 billion a year to the economy. It

:32:55.:33:03.

is ridiculous to say that older people are not a productive part of

:33:03.:33:11.

the economy. I agree we need big thinking. A huge issue about older

:33:11.:33:14.

people's contribution to society, we know social care is a big issue,

:33:14.:33:18.

and the Government is not addressing the problem. The debate

:33:18.:33:23.

is what does it mean to age well in the 21st century, there is no

:33:23.:33:27.

answer to that. There is a debate about where older people among us

:33:27.:33:32.

fit in and what it means to be old in 291st century? Agree with that,

:33:32.:33:38.

-- I agree with that, there are no debates about a lot of important

:33:38.:33:41.

questions in this country. Most people at work have been stagnant

:33:41.:33:45.

for over ten years, through the period of growth. And unless we

:33:45.:33:49.

make Government spending focus on those things that actually supports

:33:49.:33:52.

people to gain skills, supports people to make investments in

:33:52.:33:56.

infrastructure and in research. Unless we do that, we are going to

:33:56.:34:00.

fail the next 100 years, not just the next two or three. The trouble

:34:00.:34:03.

with that it is jam tomorrow? their kids and grand kids, they

:34:03.:34:08.

want their lives to be better than the lives they had. It is jam

:34:08.:34:13.

tomorrow and cuts today. That is the world we are in.

:34:13.:34:16.

The deputy Governor of the Bank of England, Paul Tucker, effectively

:34:16.:34:19.

exonerated the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, and other former Labour

:34:19.:34:23.

ministers, from charges that they had asked him to lean on Barclays

:34:23.:34:28.

Bank in the rate-fixing skam scandal. He shot holes in the

:34:28.:34:31.

allegations made by George Osborne last week in a heated Commons

:34:31.:34:35.

debate. We have been dipping a toe into what Mr Tucker described as a

:34:35.:34:39.

cesspit. This is Barclays.

:34:39.:34:45.

This is a cesspit. Today the second in command at the Bank of England

:34:45.:34:51.

poured a bit dollop of approbium on to Barclays and the entire LIBOR

:34:51.:34:54.

market. You can't be confident of anything about learning about this

:34:54.:34:58.

cesspit. For those not used to Central Bank terminology, the word

:34:58.:35:03.

"cesspit", is not normally used to describe a major bank, or financial

:35:03.:35:07.

market. This was Mr Tucker fighting back furiously against a PR

:35:07.:35:12.

offensive, by Barclays, that it sought to put him, and senior

:35:12.:35:17.

Labour politicians, in the frame. When Barclays boss, Bob Diamond,

:35:18.:35:21.

resigned last week, the bank released a note of his conversation

:35:21.:35:26.

with Paul Tucker. At issue, why did this man, Jerry Del Missier, end up

:35:26.:35:30.

thinking, he had been instructed to manipulate LIBOR by Paul Tucker.

:35:30.:35:38.

Does that file note of 29th of October, 2008, accurately reflect

:35:38.:35:48.
:35:48.:35:48.

the conversation with him that you had? Not completely. It would help

:35:49.:35:54.

to explain...Why Don't we do it in stages. Is there anything in that,

:35:54.:36:00.

that is wrong? The last sentence gives the wrong impression, yes.

:36:00.:36:05.

He has impuned my insteingity. there was more, last week the

:36:05.:36:08.

Chancellor, George Osborne, provoked fury in the Commons, with

:36:08.:36:14.

an interview in the Spectator, in which he said Ed Balls was clearly

:36:14.:36:20.

involved in pressuring the bank to manipulate LIBOR, with other

:36:20.:36:27.

accusations at aides of Gordon Brown. These assertions seemed to

:36:27.:36:35.

be swept away. Did anyone urge you to. Absolutely not. Did Shriti

:36:35.:36:43.

Vadera ever ask you to lean on Barclays or any bank to lure the

:36:43.:36:47.

LIBOR submissions? No. What's more, I don't think I spoke to Shriti

:36:47.:36:51.

Vadera throughout this whole period at all. Did Ed Balls ever ask you

:36:51.:36:55.

to lean on Barclays or any other bank? No. Or any other Government

:36:55.:36:59.

minister? No. Labour tonight demanded an apology and restrax

:36:59.:37:04.

from George Osborne. It is just a shame that -- Retraction from

:37:04.:37:09.

George Osborne. It is a shame the Chancellor doesn't have the biggest

:37:09.:37:13.

of character to come forward and admit he was misleading in those

:37:13.:37:16.

allegations. Sources close to the Chancellor said they were

:37:16.:37:18.

dismissing Labour's call, there would be no apology, and those

:37:18.:37:21.

close to Gordon Brown still had questions to answer. And Paul

:37:21.:37:25.

Tucker too came in for a hard time, confronted with minutes, that

:37:25.:37:28.

showed a committee he had chaired had seemed to recognise that

:37:28.:37:31.

somebody was doing something wrong with LIBOR, he said it didn't

:37:31.:37:36.

really mean that? This doesn't look good, Mr Tucker. I have to tell you.

:37:36.:37:41.

It doesn't look good. We have in the minutes, and in the

:37:41.:37:47.

15th of November 2007, what appears, to any reasonable person, to be a

:37:47.:37:52.

clear indication of low-balling, about what nothing was done.

:37:52.:37:57.

thought was a malfunking market, not a dishonest market. Today was

:37:57.:38:01.

just another step on the road to finding out the truth about LIBOR.

:38:01.:38:04.

At the end of it, we still don't know whose representation is going

:38:04.:38:07.

down the pan. When you wake up in the morning and

:38:07.:38:14.

contemplate the day ahead, in the middle of a horrible wet come here,

:38:14.:38:17.

an economic crisis and the defeat of Andy Murray, it is unlikely the

:38:18.:38:23.

future of the House of Lords will come to mind, except if you are a

:38:23.:38:29.

parliamentarian. The other place debated the issue among stress in

:38:29.:38:32.

the coalition. 70 Tories threatening to vote against t and

:38:32.:38:35.

tomorrow, this plan so dear to the Liberal Democrats, could turn into

:38:35.:38:39.

the first major defeat for the coalition. Is it doomed? I don't

:38:39.:38:43.

think the Government expect to win the vote. I don't think that the

:38:43.:38:46.

Liberal Democrats even expect to win it now, it is the scale of the

:38:46.:38:53.

extent to which they lose it. Political journalism, hyperbole, I

:38:53.:38:59.

think we would be in a new phase for the coalition. So far you had

:38:59.:39:03.

have things -- have had things in the coalition put through, they

:39:03.:39:06.

have gone through with it and tried to enact it. This is now, many

:39:06.:39:10.

Liberal Democrats are saying, the first instance of things not going

:39:10.:39:14.

into action. That means game on for them, in terms of, in future, they

:39:14.:39:18.

don't know quite over what, but in future they will say, you didn't

:39:18.:39:23.

support us on this, we won't support you on. That we haven't had

:39:23.:39:31.

it that clearly so far. With us is the Conservative MP, Nadine Dorries,

:39:31.:39:37.

and the Lib Dem minister, Jeremy brown, who supports it. This is a

:39:37.:39:46.

Conservative bill, piloted by a Conservative minister. Why are you

:39:46.:39:50.

not supporting it? It was not in the manifesto, a commitment to look

:39:50.:39:54.

not go ahead of the bill was in there. It wasn't in the bol

:39:54.:39:58.

coalition agreement to come forward with a bill to reform the House of

:39:58.:40:02.

Lords. Ultimately it is damaging to the constitution, and damaging

:40:02.:40:05.

long-term to the Conservative Party. Which is why many Conservatives are

:40:05.:40:08.

opposed to this. It is almost inconceivable we would have a House

:40:08.:40:14.

of Lords that would become a Senate, elected by PR, with a greater

:40:14.:40:17.

political mandate than any MP in the House of Commons, and the

:40:17.:40:21.

Commons would remain "first past the post". It is a way of getting

:40:21.:40:24.

PR in through the back door. What would be the sanctions or

:40:24.:40:28.

consequences for the coalition, and for the Government, if this fails

:40:28.:40:33.

tomorrow, because of a major rebellion, which David Cameron

:40:33.:40:37.

can't control? There are consequences. The worst types of

:40:37.:40:40.

coalitions nobody agreeing on anything, so you agree to do

:40:40.:40:44.

nothing. The best type of coalitions, and this one has

:40:44.:40:48.

achieved this, is when you are more than the sum of your parts, and you

:40:48.:40:53.

have a mutual trust and faith in each other. There is a reciprocol

:40:53.:41:00.

nature to that relationship. There is a contract, if you like. The

:41:00.:41:03.

coalition agreement is be a agreement between the parties -- is

:41:03.:41:06.

an agreement between the two parties. What will be the

:41:07.:41:11.

consequences? You have to act in good faith to your partner. We know

:41:11.:41:16.

the consequences. Let's see what happens tomorrow. Because, what has

:41:16.:41:19.

been striking, I think, in the two years of the coalition so far, is

:41:19.:41:23.

the Liberal Democrats have behaved with, if you like, let me, a

:41:23.:41:27.

maturity. What would you actually do? I think parties in Government

:41:27.:41:31.

have to have maturity and discipline, and act with good faith

:41:31.:41:35.

to their coalition parties. Richard Reeves has said what they would do.

:41:35.:41:39.

Richard Reeves has said. Richard Reeves, head of strategy for the

:41:39.:41:42.

Liberal Democrats, until days a has said, quite clearly, that if this

:41:42.:41:46.

does not go through, the Liberal Democrats will not support the

:41:46.:41:49.

boundary changes. That is almost blackmail. The Liberal Democrats

:41:49.:41:52.

were given, it is political blackmail, Jeremy, they were told

:41:52.:41:54.

there was a deal, there was a coalition agreement. And the

:41:55.:41:59.

agreement was this, that in replacement, in exchange for AV

:42:00.:42:02.

referendum, for the Liberal Democrats, they would support

:42:02.:42:08.

boundary changes. The public said no the AV referendum. Is that

:42:08.:42:13.

blackmail? Of course it is not. And I have read this in newspaper, I

:42:13.:42:18.

think it is ridiculous. Richard Reeves said it, he was Nick Clegg's

:42:18.:42:24.

righthandman. If I had a contract with you, and I discharge my

:42:24.:42:30.

contractural obligations to me and I to you, I can't be accused of

:42:30.:42:35.

blackmailing, the person who has acted in bad faith is you not me in

:42:35.:42:39.

that situation. We did not have an agreement that in exchange for

:42:39.:42:44.

Lords reform there would be boundary reforms. It is a package

:42:44.:42:49.

as a whole. You lost AV, now you want Lords reform. I will give you

:42:49.:42:53.

an example. Will you support them on bound radio changes? Will you,

:42:53.:42:56.

will you support bound wry changes if you lose Lords reform in the

:42:56.:42:59.

Commons tomorrow? I'm answering the question, there is a package of

:42:59.:43:04.

measures, on the NHS, on health, on police, that constitutes the

:43:04.:43:09.

coalition agreement. You can't go along, and an a la carte menu

:43:09.:43:16.

taking the ones you like. Is this an answer? Just stick to boundary

:43:16.:43:20.

issues? This is crucial. You don't know what I'm going to say. Will

:43:20.:43:23.

you or will you not support them on boundary changes? I support the

:43:23.:43:29.

Government proposals as a whole. that a no then? Is that a yes or a

:43:29.:43:33.

no? Let me finish the sentence, I support, I'm a Government minister,

:43:33.:43:38.

I support the package, which is the coalition agreement. If one of the

:43:38.:43:42.

parties, within that agreement, reneges on their commitment to the

:43:42.:43:48.

package, that, of course. Lords reform is not in the package.

:43:48.:43:53.

have to look afresh. I'm committed to the coalition, I think it is

:43:53.:43:56.

essential to tackle the sorts of issues you have been discussing

:43:56.:43:59.

with Nick Boles, and the deficit this country faces. All the parties

:43:59.:44:06.

and people in the coalition have to act in good faith. This is not

:44:06.:44:09.

happy Government relationship, is it? That was an answer constructed

:44:09.:44:13.

out of nonsense. Lords reform is not in the coalition agreement.

:44:13.:44:16.

Everything you said was based on the substance of nothing. You were

:44:16.:44:20.

asked a very simple question, if tomorrow, the Lords reform bill is

:44:20.:44:23.

voted down, in the House of Commons, will you still support the

:44:23.:44:30.

Conservative Party on boundary changes. That is a yes or no. It is

:44:30.:44:33.

a ficticious? I have answered that. You support the package, one bit of

:44:33.:44:37.

it goes, you can't support the other? Give me a chance to explain.

:44:37.:44:41.

I will give you an example, directly elected police

:44:41.:44:46.

commissioners, constitutional change, not in the Lib Dem

:44:46.:44:49.

manifesto, but in the Conservative manifesto, it went into the

:44:49.:44:51.

coalition agreement, the Liberal Democrats supported it because we

:44:51.:44:54.

were honourable and disciplined about the coalition agreement and

:44:54.:44:57.

the Government as a whole. We hope that the Conservatives will be

:44:57.:45:01.

honourable and disciplined tomorrow as well. We will have to see. I'm

:45:01.:45:04.

not responsible for discipline in the Conservative Party. I want the

:45:04.:45:08.

coalition to be a success. Do you vote for some things that you

:45:08.:45:15.

weren't entirely for. There is something simple here, the police

:45:15.:45:19.

commissioners agreement was in the agreement for Lords reform. I don't

:45:19.:45:21.

know how long you can continue to say Lords reform is in the

:45:21.:45:24.

coalition agreement, it was not. I will be rebelling tomorrow, as will

:45:24.:45:27.

many of my colleagues, because we think it is bad for the

:45:27.:45:30.

Conservative Party, bad for the country. And David Cameron doesn't

:45:30.:45:38.

get that? It is bad for the parties interested. I have no idea, but I

:45:38.:45:44.

don't know why we are spending time discussing this when we have so

:45:44.:45:48.

many other problems. Would you like the coalition Government to end?

:45:48.:45:52.

won't end t will stay until 2015 there is nowhere to go. It will put

:45:52.:45:54.

it under extreme stress over the next few months.

:45:54.:46:04.
:46:04.:46:20.

That's all tonight. We wanted to leave but news that NASA has

:46:20.:46:24.

released pictures of the Martian landscape taken by their Mars

:46:25.:46:27.

exploration Rover, which they described as the next best thing to

:46:27.:46:37.
:46:37.:46:49.

being there, or, by the look of it, # The chances of anything coming

:46:49.:46:54.

from Mars # Are a million to one

:46:54.:47:04.
:47:04.:47:10.

Simply put, there is more rain to come this week overnight, outbreaks

:47:10.:47:14.

of rain across many parts of the UK, heavy rain developing and targeting

:47:14.:47:17.

parts of the Midlands going into the morning. The north and East

:47:17.:47:21.

Midlands in particular becoming heavy and thundery downsupport r

:47:21.:47:27.

pours into the afternoon. -- downpours The afternoon. An amber

:47:27.:47:32.

warning for the Midlands. Further south, scattered heavy

:47:32.:47:35.

showers, maybe with rumbles of thunder. To end the afternoon

:47:35.:47:38.

across much of south-west England and Wales, although there is a lot

:47:38.:47:42.

of cloud around. Maybe with hints of brightness, it is mainly dry.

:47:42.:47:47.

There will be outbreaks of mainly light rain affecting North West

:47:47.:47:51.

England and for Northern Ireland showers here. Not a complete

:47:51.:47:54.

washout, there will be dry spells inbetween the showers. Dry weather

:47:54.:47:59.

for western fringes of Scotland. A lot of rain to come down the

:47:59.:48:02.

eastern side, persistent rain here that continues into Wednesday. The

:48:02.:48:06.

rain falling in Edinburgh, disappointingly cool for the time

:48:06.:48:11.

of year. The persistence of the rain may cause problems. Rainfall

:48:11.:48:15.

totals adding up. South on Wednesday in England and Wales,

:48:15.:48:21.

Why are the Olympics sponsored by junk food sellers? Plus, the Bank of England on Libor, Lords reform and New Conservative thinking on cuts. With Gavin Esler.


Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS