:00:14. > :00:18.Tonight, turning crisis into opportunity. Faced with the worst
:00:18. > :00:22.economic conditions in decades, is it time to think big, and downsize
:00:22. > :00:25.the state. If you were starting from scratch, what would the
:00:25. > :00:31.Government control. We ask our radical thinkers how big it should
:00:31. > :00:35.Also tonight, more trouble and strive, the Government wants
:00:35. > :00:41.churches -- strife, the Government want Channel Tunnels to hold gay
:00:41. > :00:48.marriage. What do the Clergy make of this, we ask a couple of members.
:00:48. > :00:57.The map of the Blitz where every red dot marks a bomb. When they
:00:58. > :01:02.walked back home the house had been bombed and they were nowhere to be
:01:02. > :01:06.found. Good evening, you never want a
:01:06. > :01:10.serious crisis to go to waste, Obama's former righthand man, Rahm
:01:10. > :01:14.Emanuel, memorably claimed. Tonight, faced with one of the bleakest
:01:14. > :01:20.outlooks the country has ever faced. We asked what it would take to make
:01:20. > :01:24.a clean start of the crisis. We enter territory we rarely touch,
:01:24. > :01:28.the realms of what if. What if you could start again, to take account
:01:28. > :01:35.of your straitened times, would you roll back Government to its core
:01:35. > :01:40.purpose, if so, what would that be? How would we define our welfare
:01:40. > :01:45.sector, and what would we leave to the private sector.
:01:45. > :01:49.Don't like the state we are in, perhaps we should...start again. Go
:01:49. > :01:55.back to something like a blank sheet of paper. Afterall, it is
:01:55. > :02:05.only 100 years or so Agatha the British state was far smaller.
:02:05. > :02:25.
:02:25. > :02:30.-- or so ago the British state was So how did we get from there to
:02:30. > :02:34.this? The short answer is war. Taylor says the state established a
:02:34. > :02:38.grip over citizens and never let go. That grip has got tighter, given
:02:38. > :02:44.our tight fiscal times, is there a case for deciding what we really
:02:44. > :02:47.need the state to do, and what we can perhaps do without. It is what
:02:47. > :02:52.management consultants call zero- based budgeting. Under the model
:02:52. > :02:56.that we have been pursuing, basically, since World War I, the
:02:56. > :03:01.way the state starts providing private goods increasingly to the
:03:01. > :03:05.population. You have an obvious problem, you will run into proob
:03:05. > :03:10.emblem one day that what has -- a problem one day, that what has been
:03:10. > :03:14.given can't be taken away. You must have free bus passs or TV licenses,
:03:14. > :03:18.or free access to university, then you try to take it away, there is a
:03:18. > :03:25.big kerfuffle, sometimes you can take it away a bit, and sometimes
:03:25. > :03:29.not. This whole system is crazy. There has been plenty written about
:03:29. > :03:35.reducing the state to its core. Economists like Milton Friedman,
:03:35. > :03:39.who won the Nobel Prize, argue that state bureaucracy has not only
:03:39. > :03:44.infant sized citizens, they have a powerful incentive to increase
:03:44. > :03:48.their size and scope. His ideas were so controversial, that even
:03:48. > :03:52.his Nobel ceremony was interrupted by protest. I believe that the
:03:52. > :03:57.essential element of putting Britain on a prosperous track, for
:03:57. > :04:02.a long period of time, is to get the Government reduced in size, and
:04:02. > :04:08.to get rid of Government control over large areas of your economy.
:04:08. > :04:11.Friedman thought you could reduce the role of the state to a few core
:04:11. > :04:14.functions, defence of the nation. We need a mill treatment
:04:14. > :04:17.arbitration of disputes and enforcements of contracts, we need
:04:17. > :04:23.a court service. And protecting the individual from crime against
:04:23. > :04:28.themselves and their property. So we need a police force. And that,,
:04:28. > :04:31.pretty much is it. Of course, that would mean the
:04:31. > :04:35.state withdrawing from areas like health and education. Which, for
:04:35. > :04:42.many, perhaps the majority, is, well, unthinkable.
:04:42. > :04:45.But remember, not that long ago, the majority thought the state was
:04:45. > :04:49.best-placed to build cars and run airlines. Although health and
:04:49. > :04:53.education are vital, are they more vital thaned food. We don't have a
:04:53. > :04:58.national food service. Where state agencies do get involved with food,
:04:58. > :05:02.we get the common agricultural policy, and the result is often
:05:02. > :05:06.criminal waste and more expensive food for the public. The classical
:05:06. > :05:10.liberal views, that the irreducable core of what the state should spent
:05:10. > :05:14.on is public -- spend on is public goods. The classic is street
:05:14. > :05:18.lighting. Once the street lights up everybody can use them, they are
:05:18. > :05:21.non-excludable, as it is put. If people had to buy them privately,
:05:21. > :05:24.there would be an undersupply of them. I won't buy them becausely
:05:24. > :05:29.think you will buy them and I will free ride on you, and you will do
:05:29. > :05:33.the same you force people to buy them through taxation. Public goods,
:05:33. > :05:36.the famous public goods are things like street lighting and maybe
:05:36. > :05:41.rubbish collection, national defence, the rule of law, which
:05:41. > :05:45.comprises of the police and the courts. Some think that modern
:05:45. > :05:49.politics is hastening the day when we have a reduced core state, that
:05:49. > :05:53.so many voters currently benefit from state spending, either as
:05:53. > :05:58.employees or recipients, that any reductions become impossible.
:05:58. > :06:01.Witness the rows this week over the measures contained in the Autumn
:06:01. > :06:07.Statement. That means we will simply carry on borrowing until the
:06:07. > :06:12.markets say enough, and we find ourselves with no alternative, than
:06:12. > :06:20.to contemplate that blank page. With me now is Nassim Nicholas
:06:20. > :06:27.Taleb, author of Black Swan, and the former economic advise Tory
:06:27. > :06:33.George W Bush, and Matthew Taylor. If we were starting from scratch
:06:33. > :06:37.now, you looking in on this country, what would be core purpose and what
:06:37. > :06:42.would be auxiliary? There is a social contract between citizens
:06:42. > :06:48.and their state, the citizens agree to pay taxes in exchange for the
:06:48. > :06:52.state to do certain things. The voice of what the state ought to do
:06:52. > :06:57.will vary from country to country. The French answer to where you draw
:06:57. > :07:01.the line between public and private sector is different from the
:07:01. > :07:05.English answer. Is it to do the economic state the country is in?
:07:05. > :07:11.No it isn't. The Soviet Union discovered is the state can run out
:07:11. > :07:13.of money and cease to exist. We are at a critical moment in the United
:07:14. > :07:18.Kingdom and the United States, and all the indebted countries, where
:07:18. > :07:21.we have to address the question that what is the purpose and role
:07:21. > :07:25.of the function of the state. You can't have a system where the
:07:25. > :07:33.amount of money coming in is less than the amount of money going out,
:07:33. > :07:39.in payments, in benefits, to the public. So we have to be balanced.
:07:39. > :07:45.I'm saying Government has to take in more than it spends or it seass
:07:45. > :07:50.to be able to survive. Give me specific -- Saezs to be able to
:07:50. > :07:54.survive. Give me specifics? Given that everything has to be cut, we
:07:54. > :07:57.don't have enough cash, not here or in the United States to pay for
:07:57. > :08:02.everything promised to the citizens, so we have to put everything. There
:08:02. > :08:07.is no choice, it is not a redistribution argument F you taxed,
:08:07. > :08:11.for example, 1 -- if you taxed, for example, 100% of American citizens'
:08:11. > :08:15.income, we would still have a multigenerational debt problem. It
:08:15. > :08:19.is not a question of redistribution. Everything has to be renegotiated
:08:19. > :08:24.between citizens and state as to who will deliver what. The state is
:08:24. > :08:29.defaulting on the citizen, that is what austerity is. Would you agree
:08:29. > :08:32.that redistribution is way beyond this? I hate to introduce concept
:08:32. > :08:35.actual clarity to the debate, you have to clarify the size of the
:08:35. > :08:38.state, what the state does and regulation by the state. You could
:08:38. > :08:42.have a state that spend as lot of money, but doesn't provide services,
:08:42. > :08:46.or you could have a state that doesn't spend much money or provide
:08:46. > :08:50.services but regulates a lot. There is lots of ways the state
:08:50. > :08:54.influences things. We shouldn't underestimate the way the state
:08:54. > :08:57.changes any way. In the last few years the state has gotten out of
:08:57. > :09:00.the financing of higher education but more money has gone into early
:09:00. > :09:04.years. The state has gone out of the funding of nationalised
:09:04. > :09:07.industries. So actually, over time, what the state does and doesn't do,
:09:07. > :09:10.does actually naturally change. you think we are on the right track,
:09:10. > :09:14.with the examples you have used, do you think this is the right
:09:14. > :09:17.direction of travel? Well, we clearly are going to face some
:09:17. > :09:20.extremely difficult choices, coming up, there is no question about that.
:09:20. > :09:23.Whatever you think the right economic strategy is, we have got a
:09:23. > :09:27.big hole, and we will have to address that hole. That will take
:09:27. > :09:30.some difficult decisions. I think probably, the problem for the
:09:30. > :09:34.coalition at the moment, is it has ring-fenced certain areas, and if
:09:35. > :09:40.it is to be believed, the consequences that large swathes of
:09:40. > :09:44.Government will virtually disappear, in order to defend certain sacred
:09:44. > :09:48.cows, I don't think that is a terribly rational strategy. We are
:09:48. > :09:53.on hypothetical ground, starting with a blank sheet, and saying what
:09:53. > :09:57.should happen? I'm looking, smiling at this debate. The whole entire
:09:57. > :10:03.debate was Milton Friedman's archaic. The point is not the state,
:10:03. > :10:08.it is the private sector, the problem is to do with size. The
:10:08. > :10:14.most successful model in modern history, it is not the nation state.
:10:14. > :10:20.It was created recently, it failed twice in Ancient Egypt and China T
:10:20. > :10:27.started again, a century-and-a-half ago in Europe as an epidemic. The
:10:27. > :10:31.model that has worked is the bottom-up semi-state model. The
:10:31. > :10:35.governance is much better at the local level, city states. When you
:10:36. > :10:40.say city states, I think of Singapore, that can't work across
:10:40. > :10:45.the world? New York is a city state. Switzerland is a bottom-up
:10:45. > :10:49.municiple. These are smaller places? The idea
:10:50. > :10:52.that size matters a lot for more governance than the nature of the
:10:52. > :10:56.political system. That is what people fail to understand. Let me
:10:56. > :11:01.explain, you are top-down, sitting in Whitehall or Washington, and you
:11:01. > :11:05.make a mistake, you have no skin in the game, nobody will know a spread
:11:05. > :11:08.sheet will know about your mistake. It is theoretical. You are a local
:11:08. > :11:13.mayor, you make a mistake, and you are penalised by people around you.
:11:13. > :11:18.Let me add one thing. Let me bring you in at this exact point, the
:11:18. > :11:25.idea of localism and being accountable? I think it is exactly
:11:25. > :11:30.bright, Benjamin Barber is bringing out a book about If Mayors Ruled
:11:30. > :11:35.the World, mayors are more popular than prime ministers and presidents,
:11:35. > :11:38.nation state is too far away. 50 years ago a sociologist famously
:11:38. > :11:48.said in the modern world the state is too big for the small things in
:11:48. > :11:49.
:11:49. > :11:52.life and too big small for the big things in life. It is about how the
:11:52. > :11:57.state operates. My profession is on risk business, you want to know the
:11:57. > :12:02.risk of projects failing, or not being delivered on time and cost
:12:02. > :12:07.overrun and failure to predict, simple. A �100 million project has
:12:08. > :12:13.up to 30% more cost overruns than a �5 billion project. The reason we
:12:13. > :12:17.have size is to save money, you agree, and to make things easier.
:12:17. > :12:21.Size comes with more and more errors errors that can be
:12:22. > :12:28.devastating. If it is that simple, if small things are safer and work
:12:28. > :12:32.better, why do we think so big, why do we talk in big Government?
:12:32. > :12:37.I do think there is an element of once, I think Milton Friedman said,
:12:37. > :12:41.there is nothing so permanent than a temporary Government programme.
:12:41. > :12:47.Once you create something, it is difficult to deconstruct it and
:12:47. > :12:53.take it away. Again, I think the critical issue isn't about the size
:12:53. > :12:57.of Government, it is about balancing how much you bring in, in
:12:57. > :13:01.terms of cash, and how much you are spending. The problem we face in
:13:01. > :13:05.all the industrialised countries is that, since the Second World War,
:13:05. > :13:09.we have been very lucky with demographics, we had baby-boom. The
:13:09. > :13:13.amount of money coming into the system was larger than the amount
:13:13. > :13:18.that needed to be paid out. This demographic has begun to change,
:13:18. > :13:22.and we built all our expectations that we could continue funding with
:13:22. > :13:26.debt permanently, that isn't true. Hang on, we also allowed, over the
:13:26. > :13:31.last 20 or 30 years, a massive increase in inequality, that
:13:31. > :13:35.increase in the level of inequality, is one of the things that fuelled
:13:35. > :13:40.the risks that led to the credit crunch. What leads to the growth of
:13:40. > :13:46.the state is want to go enhance entitlement, there is nothing wrong
:13:46. > :13:51.with that, want ago decent education for every child, and
:13:51. > :13:55.basic healthcare. We have to move to a place where we have basic
:13:55. > :13:58.entitledment but change how they are delivered. Your experience with
:13:58. > :14:02.Tony Blair, you must have had these conversations about what power you
:14:02. > :14:06.let go of, he brought in devolution. But it is very hard for politicians
:14:06. > :14:11.in power to let go? It is hard. And one of the reasons it is hard is
:14:11. > :14:15.because we have, it is not just the state that centralises, the
:14:15. > :14:19.corporate centre is centralised, the media is centralised. Ministers
:14:19. > :14:22.face the problem of going on radio and TV and defending the actions of
:14:23. > :14:25.someone who is operating anywhere in England, because we expect
:14:25. > :14:30.Whitehall to take responsibility for. That one of the things
:14:30. > :14:32.politicians have to get used to, is saying that is not my job any more.
:14:32. > :14:38.I have genuinely devolved responsibility for that. What
:14:38. > :14:43.happens in your model, where every tiny state operates in its own
:14:43. > :14:46.autonomy, what happens when there is failure? The beauty of the
:14:47. > :14:51.bottom-up. Cities go bankrupt, 20 years ago we were talking about
:14:51. > :14:54.cities going bankrupt left, right and centre. The difference is some
:14:54. > :14:59.cities will be successful and some will fail. There will be pressure
:14:59. > :15:03.and competition between them. can't literally have a city where
:15:03. > :15:07.people are living, failing, right? You can manage. New York had to
:15:07. > :15:12.pull out of and and compete. The state can step in for emergencies.
:15:12. > :15:18.We are not arguing that we should let them. You have the safety net
:15:18. > :15:21.of the state. You have to define an emergency? The point is, people
:15:21. > :15:25.mistake interventionism, in regular affairs, micromanaging things,
:15:25. > :15:29.which the state does, and invariably ends up doing, with the
:15:29. > :15:33.being there for emergency room. We need the state for emergencies. We
:15:33. > :15:36.need the state for things that cannot be done locally, for big
:15:37. > :15:41.failures, but we don't need the state to come and tell us how to
:15:41. > :15:46.increase happiness, we need the state to decrease unhappiness.
:15:46. > :15:50.is so easy to get into the hypothetical realm, let's go back
:15:50. > :15:54.to practical issues. I think you will always create a problem, this
:15:54. > :15:58.will be a controversial, if you pay people more to not work than to
:15:58. > :16:02.work. For example, you will always have a problem if you have an
:16:02. > :16:08.environment in which a fireman and a police officer cannot live within
:16:08. > :16:12.an hour of where they work, because prices have gone so far out of
:16:12. > :16:15.control. So there are some basic rules of the game. Whether you are
:16:15. > :16:18.a Conservative or a liberal, it doesn't matter. Again, it just
:16:18. > :16:24.comes down to balance sheet management, and one of the problems
:16:24. > :16:27.we have had, is the Governments are not subject to the same accounting
:16:27. > :16:31.rules as corporations and therefore, they borrow more than they should.
:16:31. > :16:34.It is also true that when the market fails, as it has,
:16:34. > :16:38.disastrously in the last few years, thank God for the state, if it
:16:38. > :16:42.wasn't for the state we would be in the real state of collapse.
:16:42. > :16:47.state causeded it to collapse. You have the state bailing out and
:16:47. > :16:49.allowing something too big to fail. We have run out of time. Should gay
:16:49. > :16:53.marriages be allowed to take place within a church. The Prime Minister
:16:53. > :16:56.has confirmed he wants MPs to vote on legislation, which would allow
:16:56. > :16:59.the ceremonies to be conducted in places of religious worship, no
:16:59. > :17:04.wonder the plans to be set out this week, religious organisations,
:17:04. > :17:12.which do not want to hold these services, will be given legal
:17:12. > :17:16.protection. Guaranteed exemption. It is something that has brought
:17:16. > :17:19.the three main party leaders together. A vow to support the
:17:19. > :17:22.right for gay couples to get married. But there is significant
:17:22. > :17:28.opposition from the Tory backbenches. Perhaps suspecting
:17:28. > :17:31.they are not all likely to honour and obey, David Cameron has
:17:32. > :17:35.promised a free vote on the issue. I'm in favour of gay marriage,
:17:35. > :17:38.because I'm a massive supporter of marriage, and I don't want gay
:17:38. > :17:42.people to be excluded from great institution.
:17:42. > :17:45.Key to the Government's response to the consultation, will be its
:17:45. > :17:48.proposal that churches and other religious institutions can marry
:17:49. > :17:53.gay couples if they wish, but legal protection given to those who
:17:53. > :17:57.prefer to remain exempt. This is unlikely to end the trouble
:17:57. > :18:01.and strife, the consultation period has exposed very public divisions.
:18:01. > :18:05.The Church of England, itself reeling after its synod voted
:18:06. > :18:09.against women bishops, remains firmly opposed to gay weddings,
:18:09. > :18:14.arguing they would lead to the deillusion of marriage.
:18:14. > :18:20.The Government -- deluegs of marriage. The Government hopes to
:18:20. > :18:24.have a vote before Easter, and applying to the statutes before
:18:24. > :18:31.2014, that is assuming the Lords doesn't block it. In which case,
:18:31. > :18:39.the honeymoon may have to just wait. Does the proposed legislation go
:18:39. > :18:44.far enough or too far. We have my guest, one in favour of marriage,
:18:44. > :18:48.and a group committed to the biblical teaching on marriage.
:18:48. > :18:53.Would you be happy to see gay marriages conducted in your church?
:18:53. > :18:57.No, because for two reasons, one, the concept of gay marriage is a
:18:57. > :19:01.contradiction in temples, it is not marriage. It would change -- in
:19:01. > :19:04.terms, it is not marriage, it would change everybody's marriage. We are
:19:04. > :19:08.not interested in protected churches on this. The fact of the
:19:08. > :19:10.matter is marriage is not just something for believers, it is for
:19:10. > :19:14.everybody. We are interested in the issue for the whole of the state.
:19:14. > :19:19.It is interesting, following your recent piece on the size of the
:19:19. > :19:21.state, here we have a Conservative Prime Minister, interfering in the
:19:21. > :19:25.religious beliefs, in fact the religious institutions of a society.
:19:25. > :19:33.This is extraordinary. Let me ask, would you be happy to see any
:19:33. > :19:36.service take place in any church? No, because...This Isn't about a
:19:36. > :19:41.personal church, you think it shouldn't be any church? It is
:19:41. > :19:46.saying, this will be saying that God blesses something, which he
:19:46. > :19:49.clearly teaches, both in creation and in the Bible Bible, he does not
:19:49. > :19:54.bless, it is not -- in the Bible, he does not bless, it is not right.
:19:54. > :19:59.This would come from the synod, you would say the Bible is the top, but
:19:59. > :20:02.in legislative terms, this would be something the synod would oppose,
:20:02. > :20:05.right? The House of Bishops of the Church of England, in response to
:20:05. > :20:13.the Government's consultation, said that they could not support the
:20:13. > :20:18.concept of gay marriage. This won't happen, then? Will it?
:20:18. > :20:22.think marriage will be opened as far as we can see to gay people, as
:20:22. > :20:26.well as straight people in Britain, at some time, in the next few years,
:20:26. > :20:30.maybe as early as 2015. But not in churches? Some churches, because
:20:30. > :20:33.there are churches who believe quite as strongly that they should
:20:33. > :20:36.marry gay people, as there are church that is believe they
:20:36. > :20:43.shouldn't. What would happen to those churches, then, would they be
:20:43. > :20:48.outside the thinking of the rest of the Church of England, what
:20:48. > :20:52.position would these churches who went against that be? You can say
:20:52. > :20:57.people have a right to object to marrying particular people, that is
:20:57. > :21:01.well enshrined in English law, for example, Clergy can object to
:21:01. > :21:09.marrying divorcees, that is the case since the 1920s, there have
:21:09. > :21:13.been provisions for Clergy's consciences since 1907, deceased
:21:13. > :21:18.wives' sisters. You don't need anything in law that protects you,
:21:18. > :21:23.you have always had the right to protect yourself from certain kinds
:21:23. > :21:28.of marriages? On-air I was discussing with maybe of the gay
:21:28. > :21:32.and lesbian transgender movement, who said they would bring cases
:21:32. > :21:36.against churches who wouldn't. This is a red herring, the issue is not
:21:36. > :21:39.whether or not it is in churches, the Government is trying to buy off
:21:39. > :21:43.religious opposition. We will send to every parliamentarian, is there
:21:43. > :21:48.a case for same-sex marriages, and issues of eligibility and
:21:48. > :21:51.consequences next week. It sets out hard social scientific evidence
:21:52. > :21:58.that same-sex marriage, same-sex relationships, formallising them in
:21:58. > :22:03.society is not a good thing for human flourishing. Scientific is a
:22:03. > :22:06.powerful word to use in an argument like this? Extraordinary, there are
:22:06. > :22:12.several jurisdictions in the world where there is marriage equality,
:22:12. > :22:15.the sky hasn't fallen in, in any many of them marriage is stronger,
:22:15. > :22:18.divorce rates have come down in some of them. We don't know what
:22:18. > :22:22.the relationship is, quite honestly there is absolutely no evidence
:22:22. > :22:24.that the sky falls in when you do it. Why not do it tomorrow, if they
:22:24. > :22:28.are always going to oppose it on that side of the church, why would
:22:28. > :22:33.you even wait for the Prime Minister, or the MPs to introduce
:22:33. > :22:36.it? I think, very sadly, the Church of England has a long debate about
:22:37. > :22:42.this, 20, 30, years ago we were thinking seriously about the
:22:42. > :22:47.position of gay people in society, in the 1990, it became politicised,
:22:47. > :22:51.I put my head over the parapet on gay marriage earlier thisy, I have
:22:51. > :22:54.had 500 responses from people, including many Clergy in the Church
:22:54. > :22:57.of England, the overwhelming majority of them are in favour of
:22:57. > :23:00.marriage equality, it is about one in ten weren't, of the responses I
:23:00. > :23:04.got. The interesting ones were people who said we can't talk about
:23:04. > :23:07.it, what we need to do is talk about it. By not having gay
:23:07. > :23:17.marriages in the Church of England for a while, that will give us
:23:17. > :23:22.space to work this one out properly, and look find the rather infatanile
:23:22. > :23:25.terms it has been talked about. you worried about getting left
:23:25. > :23:28.behind and making yourself irrelevant, if the vast majority of
:23:28. > :23:32.people have moved on, on this issue? The Church of England has
:23:32. > :23:36.never set its doctrine by public opinion poll or popularity. It has
:23:37. > :23:40.changed it? What has changed it? has changed, for example, whether
:23:40. > :23:44.it will marry people who have had sex before marriage, whether it
:23:44. > :23:48.will, as the examples were given, brothers of the dead brothers and
:23:48. > :23:53.all the rest of it, these things do move on? That is all within the
:23:53. > :23:57.concept of woman and man as the fundamental components of marriage.
:23:57. > :24:01.Why should that be a stronger definition than any of other
:24:01. > :24:04.examples? The evidence is, the evidence is that for human
:24:04. > :24:10.flourishing, for providing children with the rights to have a mother
:24:10. > :24:13.and a father, for the best context for both children being reared, and
:24:14. > :24:18.also for long-term. Real marriage ensures the future. The evidence is
:24:18. > :24:24.that if you want to have a life- long committed same-sex
:24:24. > :24:29.relationship, hold on, hold on. don't mind marrying older people
:24:29. > :24:32.who might not pro-create? If you have that, then non-monogamous
:24:33. > :24:37.same-sex relationships are much more continuous than if you are
:24:37. > :24:41.monogamous, it is different for marriage. You asked me then,
:24:41. > :24:44.another question, which was? If it is about procreation, why don't you
:24:44. > :24:49.mind marrying older people who aren't having children? Because,
:24:49. > :24:58.two reasons, it is pro-creative in principle, and secondly, they can
:24:58. > :25:02.still be a mother and father to children. The using phrase "equal"
:25:02. > :25:07.it changes marriage for everyone. have discovered there are gay
:25:07. > :25:12.couples in Britain, living together in fruitful, joyful relationships,
:25:12. > :25:15.sometimes for 20, 30 years, which entirelyly mirror the Christian
:25:15. > :25:19.virtues of marriage. As far as marriage being gendered, that is a
:25:19. > :25:22.strand of Christian teaching on marriage, not exclusively so. In
:25:22. > :25:25.the Bible the church is described as the bride of Christ, that
:25:25. > :25:31.doesn't mean all Christians are female, it doesn't mean they have
:25:31. > :25:36.to have sex, and who are the kids? It reduces it to be absurdity to
:25:36. > :25:38.say it is engendered in that way, it shouldn't be now. I disagree.
:25:38. > :25:46.Thank you for coming in if and talking about it.
:25:47. > :25:51.It is called, compellingly, bomb site.org, an interactive --
:25:51. > :25:58.bombsite.org, an interactive map that illustrates where each bomb
:25:58. > :26:02.fell in the blits and how the city was affected. The bliplts, which
:26:02. > :26:06.killed thousands and destroyed more than a million homes. This map
:26:06. > :26:16.pieces together the targeting, with photos and the history that arose
:26:16. > :26:22.from it. They accumulate and cluster, as
:26:22. > :26:27.though in an unwanted finding on a medical chart. In fact, this is the
:26:27. > :26:32.pathology of London during the Blitz. Each red dot represents a
:26:32. > :26:38.bomb site. Take a suburban street like Pember Road in Kensal Rise, in
:26:38. > :26:41.the North West of theAl. The new website records that -- of the
:26:41. > :26:46.capital. The new website records that Nazi bombers struck here. The
:26:46. > :26:51.houses all looked like this, except here, where number 24 used to be.
:26:51. > :26:56.have a couple of pictures here of Ivy. My cousin was left in the
:26:56. > :27:03.house, at the age of 16, very responsible lady. And the parents,
:27:03. > :27:10.my uncle and aunt, went out, probably to the Kilburn Empire,
:27:10. > :27:17.which they used to frequent, had a lovely evening. When they walked
:27:18. > :27:25.back home, the house had been bombed. Ivy was nowhere to be found.
:27:25. > :27:27.But she was found some while later, she had been, the house had
:27:27. > :27:33.suffered pretty well a direct hit and she was blown to piece. This is
:27:33. > :27:38.the sad thing, she was just at the age where she had young men taking
:27:38. > :27:42.an interesting. It all just disappeared like that.
:27:42. > :27:47.Thick smoke hangs over the heart of Britain, as a choking dawn reveals
:27:47. > :27:57.the terrors of the night. London has been wounded during the hours
:27:57. > :27:58.
:27:58. > :28:03.of darkness, what colossal strength runs in her veins news reals of the
:28:03. > :28:08.blits shows the landmarks. There is a lot of misconceptions about the
:28:08. > :28:13.Blitz, that it was mainly aimed at the East End of London, it was
:28:13. > :28:17.terribly badly hit there, it was the dock, and the infrastructure in
:28:17. > :28:24.the place. It hit the west just as hard. There were 20,000 people
:28:24. > :28:30.killed, predominantly in the East End, but the leafy, outer suburbs
:28:30. > :28:34.were hit too. Causing devastation and terror, that was the motive of
:28:34. > :28:42.the Germans, to intell fear into that population.
:28:42. > :28:49.-- Instill fear into the population. Each red dot of the map, is a sign
:28:49. > :28:53.of something perishable,ry. We used to play in the bombed -- Memory.
:28:53. > :28:57.used to play in the bombed buildings, when I think we used to
:28:57. > :29:03.go up rafters with bits missing. I recall a house, we must have passed
:29:03. > :29:05.there the day after it had been bombed. It was a most extraordinary
:29:06. > :29:10.sight. There was a policeman standing outside, I recall, and
:29:10. > :29:20.debris in the road. And the whole of the front of the house had been
:29:20. > :29:20.
:29:20. > :29:24.blown off. And there was a bed hanging out into the road.
:29:24. > :29:30.website will excavate war time from the rubble of history for a new
:29:30. > :29:34.begin raise, or so some hope. -- Generation, or so some hope.
:29:34. > :29:37.lot of young people are interested in the world war, because they are
:29:37. > :29:41.part of the key stage programmes, anything that shows people a little
:29:42. > :29:44.bit more, uncovers the archaeology of London, or any other city, is
:29:44. > :29:48.very, very valuable. It is interesting, people always say, the
:29:48. > :29:54.Second World War, people are obsessed with that, you know, can't
:29:54. > :29:59.we have closure. If I said to you, I'm going to take you to a plague
:29:59. > :30:04.pit, you wouldn't say, for goodness sake can't we get over the 16th
:30:04. > :30:13.century, can't we move on. website, and a forth coming app to
:30:13. > :30:16.go with it, are new tools for joining the dots of history.
:30:16. > :30:22.Review is up next. Matter that is in Glasgow.
:30:22. > :30:27.In the last book special of the year, we will be marking the 50th
:30:27. > :30:30.anniversary of A Clockwork Orange, and also looking at a book about00
:30:30. > :30:34.years of film censorship, which includes Kubrick's controversial
:30:34. > :30:38.film. There is a new novel from the creator of Reginald Perrin, another
:30:38. > :30:42.posthumous publication from David Foster Wallace, and the latest
:30:42. > :30:48.collection from Oliver Sachs, the world's favourite neurologist,
:30:48. > :30:52.which he calls an anthology of hallucinations! That is all from
:30:52. > :30:56.Newsnight. We leave you with a view from the earth as seen by NASA's
:30:56. > :31:03.newest satellite, back down to earth on Monday.