22/01/2013 Newsnight


Stories behind the headlines. Including army cuts, will the government seek a referendum on Europe, are women harder hit by recession? Should we eat mackerel? With Emily Maitlis.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/01/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



David Cameron will tomorrow promise a referendum on Europe, if the


Tories win the next election. He plans to renegotiate terms with


Europe, then ask the people if they want to be in or out. Our political


editor has been given a preview. I've got the details of the pledges


the Prime Minister will make tomorrow, and the stark language he


will use. Also tonight, Britain has a proud


military past, but does it have a feeble military future. Our


ambition has always been great, but as the biggest single round of job


losses to the Armed Forces is announced, are we now dangerously


overstreched. If the world looks in ten or 20 years time as insecure as


it does today, it may be a risk that comes home to bite you. Is it


time we stopped the soaring rhetoric on defence and helping the


world, and admit, we can't. And this: Well done. What women want,


in the midst of a recession, and why they are usually the hardest


hit. I would love to be able to give my


daughter everything her friends have. It just makes me feel a bad


parent, it makes me feel a failure in some ways.


And, the superchef, Raymond Blanc, on why we should dig our heels in,


and keep eating mackerel. In terms of nutrition, it has the best


nutrition that you can possibly have.


Hello, good evening. This programme has been told that first thing


tomorrow, in a heavily-anticipated speech, the Prime Minister will


offer a referendum on Europe, if the Conservatives win the 2015


election. The Tories will set out a manifesto pledge to ask the British


people for a mandate, to renegotiate a new settlement on


European powers. It could then be taken to an in or out referendum.


The details of the speech are being coming through to us -- have been


coming through to us in the last minutes. We will ask a former


European Prime Minister his thoughts on what we are about to


hear in a moment. First Allegra Stratton joins us now.


Tell us all, what are you hearing? First off, he kills the idea of a


referendum now, as "a false choice", you need to renegotiate a


referendum on the status quo out would be a false choice. The speech


has plenty of rhetoric for both sides. It is forcefully euro-


sceptic in place, but there is a lot of pro-European and flour rid


praise. What are the politics? opposition say that having this


referendum Britain sleepwalks towards the exit of Europe, because


if renegotiation is not successful and not enough is brought back,


people will say they will go out any way. David Cameron turns that


language back on its opponents and says, opinion in this country is


such that if you don't do something about it anger will rise, we need


to put this question to the public and deal with it. The sleepwalking


to the exit is the charge he lays at the door of opponents.


Presumably concessions now to backbenchers? The most striking


thing about the speech, besides rhetoric, is the quote here. What


the euro-sceptics wanted was some binding legislation, such as any


complexion of Government in 2015 would have to go in to the next few


years pledging a referendum. He hasn't gone for binding legislation,


but it is this idea that he would put through draft legislation


towards the end of parliament, and if Conservatives are in Government


they would act quickly and the referendum in the first half,


2017/18. It is more than we expected, but I'm not sure it is


far enough. On the home front, will they be happy with that? There is


language that we have seen tonight that will make happy, let's


remember there are euro-sceptics in his own cabinet, there is language


for them. But then it is clear that the Prime Minister feels, and the


next quote coming up, is that once he has got renegotiation, he will


want that argue for an "in" vote. The language he then uses is very


forcefully pro-European. Take us through that? The key things is,


"over the coming months and years, I will not rest until the debate is


won. For the future of my country. For the success of the European


Union, and the prosperity of the generations to come ". Some said it


was Churchillian in the words. will he say tomorrow? He will give


us five principles, which includes the European Union moving on


fairness, demonstration commitment to fairness and they are lofty and


vague. He has avoided giving, what some people hoped, a scorecard, a


check list of things he would bring back, if he can't bring them back,


whether he has been successful or not. Instead, he has given us


something, that could, in the fullness of time, end up being all


things to all men. Fascinating stuff. We will get reaction to all


that straight away. We can put that to the Tory MP George Eustace in a


moment. We speak now to the former Prime Minister of Belgium, and


currently an MEP. Good to have you on the programme, Mr Verhofstatt.


We understand tomorrow that a Conservative Government would set


an "in", "out "referendum on Europe after 2015, your response?


basic idea of Mr Cameron that he wants to renegotiate individually


the position of Britain inside the EU. I can tell you that it is


impossible to have an inhe have stable renegotiation of the British


position. Why? Because that would be the end of the European Union.


If you start to give an individual status to every member-state, to


the 27 member states of the union, that should be the end of the union,


and the end of the single market. Because then the French could say,


I want also something, and a status with no competition rules, because


I don't like the competition rules. The Germans could say, we want a


single market, but not for services. We like more a single market only


in goods. So you see, that an individual renegotiation in the


coming years of an individual country, for an individual status,


is quite impossible. What shall happen is that after the next


election in 2014, European elections, we shall see a


collective renegotiation, because we need a more integrated Europe,


and then Britain can choose, and the British population can choose,


if they want to stay in or they want to get out. What you are


saying, essentially, is everyone will be talking about renegotiation,


not that Cameron can't, but that everybody will? Well, everybody


knows that we need a more integrated Europe, certainly also


to have a sustainable monetary union, a sustainable single


currency. Everybody agrees to have after 2015 a debate on a more


integrated Europe. What Mr Cameron is looking for is something quite


different. My impression is that he is looking for what I call a


second-class membership of the European Union. And a second-class


membership is a bad thing for the interests of Great Britain. Because,


as you know, it is like a little bit the status of Norway, and


Switzerland. Countries who are paying for the European Union, but


have no say in the European Union. And I think that's bad, bad and


certainly not in the interests of the British industry and the


British economy. Does that worry you now, do you think it will lead


to a British exit? It is a very dangerous game that he is playing.


At an individual renegotiation that is not possible, everybody knows


that, because otherwise you have 27 member-states who are asking for


that. What we can see is that he is sleepwalking to the door of a real


exit of Great Britain. And I think that should be a very bad thing. As


we know, 50% of the exports of the British economy are going to the


continent. More than �158 billion pounds, that is the figure.


What position should European leaders take now, when they hear


these words, should they be helping him to stay in, helping him to


renegotiate, or helping him to win a referendum? Or none of those?


don't know, a referendum on what? Because he's, first of all, saying


he wants to renegotiate the position, and then he shall have a


referendum. It is like Lord Heseltine has said, we don't know


what it is about. We don't know what even the question of the


referendum shall be. Isn't it in Europe's interest to try to help


him to renegotiate? What we need to do is to have a collective debate


on this. A common debate on this, after or in 2015, how we can


integrate more of Europe, how we can reform the European Union. How


we can manage the single currency. How we can better combat and fight


the crisis. But that is a totally different story than what is


happening now. Let's be honest, what he's doing for the moment is


to try to solve his problems that he has internally in the


Conservative Party. Because he has a number of people in favour of


Europe, and on the other hand he has euro-sceptics under the


pressure of UKIP. The best way to understand what is happening now,


the best way to understand what is happening is to listen to the


American friends of Great Britain, they don't understand it.


From the European perspective, if he comes and says we need to


renegotiate the emergency break for financial services, or repatriation


of powers for the Working Time Directive, or policing opt-out,


will European leaders be at all prepared to listen to that, or will


they say no, no, no? I think they shall say no. And they shall say a


second thing, Mr Cameron wait a little bit, come back in 2015, when


we shall negotiate a new basic Europe, going in the direction of


more integrated Europe, then you ask the British people if they are


in favour origins. Very good to talk to you. Guy


Verhofstadt, thank you. As we mentioned we have George Eustace,


Conservative MP, who fronts a group of MPs campaigning for the new UK-


EU relationship. First your response to this, you heard very


clearly from a former Belgian Prime Minister, that there is no chance


of a renegotiation, it takes you straight to in or out? I don't


agree with that. We needed a much more mature debate about this. It


is really not acceptable for other countries to say we refuse to talk


to Britain, we are going to put our head in the hands, or even engage


on these issues. His point is if Britain does it everyone else will?


And we want them all to, there will be a new treaty, I think, towards


the end of 2014, 2015. When every country in Europe will be talking


about how to sort this mess out. How do we make the European Union


fit for purpose in the 21st sent treatment those trapped in the euro


it may involve deeper integration and co-ordination of tax policies.


For those of us outside we may take powers back. We need a grown-up


debate about that, and not get into the idea that we won't even talk


about it. Let's get back to square one, we now know that tomorrow


morning, roughly 8.15, or whatever. We are going to have a commitment


from a Conservative Prime Minister, to a referendum, should that have a


red line around it for any future coalition? Look, David Cameron will


tomorrow set out a Conservative view. A commitment for the next


parliament, what a Conservative Government would do. I'm very clear


on that. Is it something you would put a red line around, saying under


no circumstances can that be given away or compromised? I would, but


we're going format turt next time. Getting into what -- for maturity


next time. Getting into what might happen, we want what can be


renegotiated in the next election. You could be in the same position


and he would have to decide whether that was something he absolutely


pledged to do, straight down from the manifesto, or whether that was


something that reemerged in a coalition manifesto, that was


watered down? It's possible. This is the first coalition Government


this country has had for many years. The reality is we need people, it


might entertain other parties at the moment, to really focus their


mind and think if you do want a resettlement with Europe and a


referendum, you have to get behind David Cameron and support what he


says tomorrow. It was starkly laid out from Guy Verhofstadt, this idea


that the whole of Europe will be renegotiated, maybe there are lots


of things that lots of countries have to renegotiate, would that be


enough? I think it is absolutely fine. It is what we want to see.


There are other countries that have problems with aspects of European


policy. Germany is in graech of many of the home affairs directives


at the moment, and the data retention directive, they want to


get rid of that. Let's have a grown-up discussion about bits we


want to get rid of. There is no problem with that. You heard the


no-no-no from Brussels, a second ago, if that is the end result, if


throughout all the months and effort of renegotiation that


doesn't happen, would you change your position on EU membership and


say, sorry, it's time for out? will see what happens. But I don't


think we should tolerate that kind of no-no-no attitude. You have


heard the views of one Belgian MEP, there are many others. A former


Prime Minister, a leader. Tomorrow you will hear the views of a


current British Prime Minister, and one of the major countries in the


European Union, it is our European Union as much as anyone else's, we


shouldn't be afraid to advance our views about the future and what


should be done about its failures. Unless it confronts its failures it


doesn't have a future. At a time when the Government is talking


about the urgent need for growth, he will commit us to five years of


instability, with major trading partners? I don't agree with that.


People say this about the euro debate, there was uncertainty that


Britain didn't want to join the euro, and all the Japanese and


American investors would leave t didn't happen. It is not true.


There are many businesses who would like to see Paris come back on


things like employment and social policy which would improve our


competitiveness. You heard your no- no-no was not welcomed or tolerated


here. Do you care if Britain leaves the EU? It is a very bad thing for


the European Union. It is a very bad thing for the single market.


But it is certainly a very bad thing for Great Britain itself. As


I already indicated, the interest of Great Britain is to be inside


the single market, and inside the European Union. And may fear is


that what Mr Cameron is doing now, is creating uncertainty for years


and for years. In this important position of the British economy


inside the European Union. All this, for what? In fact, I hear it very


well, it is a political game, it is a game inside the Conservative


Party. If you vote for us, then you can have a referendum. So that's


clear enough. It is a political game, not in the interests of the


country, I think. Very interesting to hear from both


of you. Thank you very much.


There is no avoiding war, it can only be postponed to the advantage


of others, wrote Machiavelli, a ruler presumably untroubled by a


third round of defence spending cuts. Just hours after the Prime


Minister warned of a new front of Islamist Tory terror, he announced


what will ultimately bring the avoidance of war, or strategic


defence, cuts to army numbers. The Government believes the numbers of


5,300 soldiers to lose their jobs as it plans to reduce the army by a


fifth. How will Britain, who likes to see itself in the vanguard of


defence, see itself. The rhetoric of liberalal interventionism


falling victim to dwindling resources. Draw-downs and


mobilisations would come as no surprise to the old war horses, who


stare down Whitehall, war, economic depression were well understood to


them. Today's bugetry battlefield is different. The cuts are


happening at a time of considerable global instability, and there is


precious little left to trim. What I think many of us are


concerned about is with the significant reduction of the


regular army from 10 2,000 down to 28,000, although mitigated by


30,000, if we can get them, trained and recruited reservists, that


might be all right. It does carry a fair degree of risk. If the world


looks in 10-20 years time as insecure as it does today, it may


be a risk that comes home to bite us. After Waterloo the army was cut


back drastically, to less than half the 82,000 that represents the


Government's new target. But you have to go back to the Crimea in


the 1850s to find the last time the army of that size. Then old


soldiers could be pensioned off without ceremony. But the cut of


5,300, announced today, will require many compulsory


redundancies. And these days, that requires careful political


management. Whilst we need to make up to 5,300


army personnel redundant, the programme will not adversely affect


operations in Afghanistan. As with previous tranches, there are a


number of important exclusions from the programme. Critically, those


preparing for, deployed on or recovering from operations on the


18th of June will be exempt from this tranche. But the Commons


announcement has triggered attacks from the opposition. This is really


difficult news for the members of the British army and their families,


a really dark day for them, the fact that some will be sacked, who


don't volunteer for redundancy. I think it hasn't been handled probr


properly there is a promise that the -- properly. There is a promise


that the gap will be filled with reservist, we support the idea of


reservists, the idea that business is ready to employ that number of


reservists and allow them to be released for military service in a


way that will be demanded in the future, isn't really prepared yet.


The MoD may have been at pains to point out those patrolling


Afghanistan won't be sacked, but there are unanswered questions


about just how soon after their return they might become eligible


for compulsory redundancy? And the effect, in units where people have


been risking their lives is not good.


I think there is a real resentment amongst those soldiers, that now


they find themselves having done all of this time, put in all of


this risk to their own lives, suddenly finding redundancies being


foisted upon them. Their own regiments, regiments that have


fought bravely for the last several years, being disbanded. I think


that is quite a hard and difficult pill to swallow. All three services


are being cut, but the army, by most. And the desire to reduce


compulsory redundancies has fed critical skills shortages.


Intelligence corps linguists and interrogators are 55% below


strength. Electronic warfare operators, 45%. And drone pilots


45% too. But compulsory sackings will still


be necessary, and that's hit morale. It is a major leadership challenge,


and the current chief of the general staff and his subordinates,


will have to manage very kairlly the morale of the army -- carefully


the morale of the army of today, to make sure it stays focused and with


its job in hand and maintain high morale. On the frontline in


Afghanistan, this won't be a problem, until we drew from there,


-- withdrew from there, because people are clear of the job they


are doing. But at home people will be wondering if they will be in the


next redundancy pool and will the job last. There is a challenge


there. Is the Government entering into new commitments at a time of


deep defence cuts. Downing Street and the MoD insist they don't want


to send large numbers of combat troops, or fighter aircraft to Mali,


let alone place like Syria. But if that is the case, it does beg the


question, whether announcements such as yesterday's, of a new


strategic approach in North Africa, really amount to all that much. In


the past too there were Governments that tried to steer clear of


foreign entanglements, but time and again events frustrated their


calculation. For the current cuts to be made without risk, Britain


would have to step back from military intervention overseas, for


many years to come. Joining me now are General Sir Mike Jackson, Lord


West, Security Minister under the last Government, and the


Conservative MP Penny Mordant, who is a Navy reservist and sits on the


Commons Select Committee. Is a smaller army a worse army?


necessarily, the question I would ask, it was raised at the end of


the clip you showed, is the language used by the Prime Minister,


this interventionist language, a bit spooky, rather like Tony Blair


really, it doesn't sit well with the pressure there is on the


defence budget. One would have thought after the Strategic Defence


and Security Review, in 2010, when a lot of us warned that there was


no allowance for strategic shock, we then had the Arab awakening, or


spring, whatever you want to call it, immediately the Prime Minister


got us involved in Libya, with all of the pressures it had, a tiny


operation, you would have thought the National Security Council and


Prime Minister would have said, we need to review this. Instead we


have just had another �1.3 billion worth of cuts. Surely you can't


talk the talk, and walk the walk, unless you are spending the money.


How does the Government reconcile that, this talk of a generational


struggle with Islamist terrorists, which David Cameron made just


yesterday, and then these cuts? think one thing that is forgotten


in this debate, is it is not only the headlines that you see in


Afghanistan and what happens in North Africa, it is also the day-


to-day work the Armed Forces do. I'm sure Lord West would agree,


keeping our trade in the sea open. We desperately need to maintain


those capabilities. We don't need it to be smaller, then? We have to


retain investment in. There but would have been crazy is to carry


on with the defence budget that was massively oversubscribed, and not


balance the books and come up with radical ways of how we can get


better value out of the defence budget. Reservists is one way of


doing that. We will have to maintain spending. The Prime


Minister said yesterday, and we have been doing this, is putting


money into actually preventing crises from happening. The books


aren't balanced, are they? They are, when we came into office. Force


2020 needs a 1% increase from 2015, and the Treasury have only allowed


a 1% increase in procurement budget? When we came into power,


and you take the overspend on programmes and the fiscal reality


added in, the deficit was �74 billion, that is on the figures, we


have to close that gap. The people that get short changed if we don't


do that, are the Armed Forces. We short change them in kit, and we


short change them in training. General Sir Mike Jackson, if the


army is 82,000, are there things it cannot do with that number. What


does it rule out? I don't think it rules out anything, it is how the


army is structured. I would wish to actually stand back a little from


the ding-dong over this amount of money and that. There are strategic


choices here. Modern day politics is largely about consumption, today.


I understand that. It is the stuff of day-to-day politics. But, and I


think the Prime Minister has flagged this up. We are looking at


not only the last decade, but arguably problems over the next


decade or two. I think when you look at it in that way, it probably


is time to just step back, not a billion pound here and there but to


step back and, perhaps, revisit that strategic review, which was


done, what, two and a bit years ago. I'm not sure that the balance is


there. That's what I said t needs to be


reviewed. Interestingly, he talks about the generational thing


against terrorism, when I took over as Security Minister in 2007, you


filmed me, the BBC, and I said, this is a generational campaign,


this will go on for 30 years, and so he knew the, we knew the sort of


investment that was needed. You are always going to be out of date,


with something like a defence budget, you can't possibly know the


wars you will be fighting? whole point of the defence budget


is to make sure we have a spectrum of capablities to meet the


unexpected. That's it, the only thing we have consistently had with


our defence strategy is we have failed to predict the next threat.


And that is a very sensible basis on which to go forward. Quite, I


criticise the SDSR for not being strategic enough, but when people


want to go and reopen the SDSL, what they are saying is they want


to reevaluate the budget. I'm sorry you have to get the horse and cart


in the right order. What we have to do is get more out of the budget,


and ask questions like, how do we afford future surface fleet. Maybe


the questions we should be asking now, is that our rhetoric is wrong,


we shouldn't think of ourselves as this interventionist power that has


to save the world? That is a strategic political choice as to


whether we think in those terms or not. Maybe the public would like


that now, maybe that is what they want, ten years of not being


interventionist? If one looks at our little global village, actually


that stability around the world is very important to our country. We


are the fifth-richest country in the world, we run all world


shipping from the this country, we need that stability in the world.


The Americans are retraench trenching, they are pivoting


towards the Pacific. There is much more we could be doing. We need to


think much more long-term about how we afford our future capabilities.


Lord West is right, if you look at how much of our fuel comes by sea,


90% of everything in the viewers' living room will have come to this


country by sea. David Cameron once called himself a liberal


Conservative, he didn't want to be convening necessarily in the


affairs of the world. Now, there is more the language of Blair, he


sounds as if he's more committed to the rest of the world? You are


putting this almost in party political terms. Cameron speaks


like Blair, we should get away from this. That is not party political


is it? It might just be that strategic circumstances hold


whichever Government is in power. And you have to come to terms with


those strategic circumstances. need to be investing in


capabilities that prevent stuff from happening, as well as enabling


us to respond where we want to. One of my criticisms of the SDSR is it


cut our carrier capability. When the carriers come back into


Portsmouth, that will be a massive deterrent to things happening, as


well as helping us to respond to conflict and humanitarian


situations. It is the need to meet the unexpective, that is the thing,


none of us can predict, the thing that happens tomorrow is something


none of us predicted. Bill Clinton, out one day on the campaign trail


is reported to have boasted about the 20 million or so jobs he


created when he was heckled by a middle-aged woman in the crowd, who,


the story goes, "yes Mr President and I have three of them". The tale


illustrates a well-trodden truth, women often have the worst paid


jobs in the economy, and are often the carers too. Tonight we look at


the real picture behind the downturn on what was predicted to


be the women's recession, and has how much has come to past. We will


look at the broader picture in a moment. First we visited St


Leonards. Sun lit before snowfall, St


Leonards presents a grand face to the world, prosperous even. But


appearances deceive. The seasonal nature of employment along the East


Sussex coast means that this time of year the list of jobless is even


longer than usual. Paula Charlesworth moved to St Leonards


after her husband died. She describes herself as desperate to


work, but with a young daughter to bring up she needs a job that fits


with school hours. In the meantime, she volunteers five days a week at


this mental health charity. I would love to go out to earn money,


because I want to come off benefits, but the jobs round here, you either


have to work late nights or weekends, as you are a lone parent


what do you do with a child under the age of 15. Weekends are the


only time I get to spend quality time with my daughter, I don't want


to work weekends. Paula relies on her widowed parents


pension to bring up 12-year-old Jocelyn. Money is a struggle, and


she has felt the rise in fuel and heating bills. I would love to give


my daughter everything her friends have, I can't. Most of what both of


us wear is charity clothes. I can't afford to go to the shops and buy


her stuff when she grows out of them. She is only 12, she is


growing all the time. It just makes me feel a bad parent, it makes me


feel a failure in some ways. It sounds silly, I know. But I cannot


provide for her the way I would like to. How to provide for their


babies is on the minds of these young mum, living at a support unit


in Milton Keynes. They stay here for up to two years, the idea is


for them to live independently. But while they all want to work, they


know they are facing a difficult economy.


I want to start youth work, so, obviously, I have to work to get


the job that I want. But if I was just to go out and try to get any


job, it is so difficult at the moment. My partner is trying to


work, and it is impossible. didn't plan to have a baby, but now


having a baby it has changed my life, and you work for her, and you


don't just want to rely on the benefits to provide for her, then


you can't provide for yourself either. You want to be able to do


it for yourself. Rather than rely on other people.


Of the �18.9 billion cuts announce in the coalition Government's


Emergency Budget in 2010, �13.2 billion comes from women's incomes,


while �5.7 billion, 30%, is taken from men's incomes. Meaning women


are being hit by austerity measures twice as hard.


The mums unit is run by one of the largest housing associations in the


country. It finds that many of its female tenants, in particular, are


fearful. Women represent two thirds of low-paid workers, they are


juggling, quite a lot of them, low- paid work, with childcare, some of


them are caring for other dependants, and I think that


combination of how to look after the kids, how to manage the money,


how to perhaps juggle other responsibilities in terms of


parents, or other people that they are caring for, means they are


particularly badly hit. But it is an impact felt by both


sexes. A few years ago we were told the downturn would create a


"woman's" recession, the vice-like combination of cuts in public


sector jobs, and spending cuts generally, would affect women the


most. As the economy has bumped along the bottom, a slightly


different picture has emerged, there is some areas where men are


worse off. More women are employed by the public sector, so they are


hit by both pay freezes and job cuts. But, the first industries to


contract in the recession, financial and construction, are


male-dominated, and they remain depressed. Labour figures for last


July to September suggest that of those working part-time, men are


more likely than women to want to work extra hours. Around 35% of


male part-timers said they would like to work more hours, compared


to 21% of part-time female workers. For both sexes, underemployment sup,


when the economic downturn started five years ago, those figures stood


at 25% of male part-timers, and 16% of part-time female workers. Right


across the board men tend to do worse, this hasn't changed during


the recession and the austerity period. Men have higher


unemployment, they have higher inactivity rates, they face more


redundancies, on all these indicators, women do slightly


better than men. But outside the labour market, women who make up


two thirds of the lowest paid, and make greater use of public services,


stand to lose more. Figures from the TUC show that by 2016/17, the


highest 10% of earners will lose services that are worth 2.5% of


their income. But the bottom 10% will lose the equivalent of almost


32% of their income. A far greater impact.


It is very hard for low earners, who are disproportionately affected


by those sorts of reductions in income, people are already having


to make choices between whether they spend their money on food, or


whether they put the heating on. For Paula, as for many on the


lowest incomes, it is a time of uncertainty and fear for the future.


In the absence of a job, she will carry on volunteering. I want to


get off benefit, I want to be able to pay my way. I always have done,


ever since I left school. I like working. So being here gives me


that joy back, it makes me feel useful, and I like being useful.


Some views in the film. With me is Ceri Goddard, the chief executive


of Women rights Organisation, the Fawcett Society, and Margo James, a


Conservative MP who was until recently the vice-chair forwomen in


her party. Broadly, women have been hit harder because they have lost


more from public sector jobs? I think that women are


overrepresented in the public sector, and also among low-paid


work as well. So, and the fact that they are more reliant on benefits


than men. I think it does potentially give rise to a cocktail


of disadvantage for women. That's absolutely true, which the


Government have tried their best to mitigate, but it is the structural


problems going back decades, really. It is interesting, because you say


they have tried to mitigate, it is things like the welfare cut, the


benefits cuts, that are hitting women at a time when certainly the


Conservatives can't afford to lose them? The trouble is, the


Department of Work and Pension, benefits and pensions, make up a


third of all Government spending, so if we are to restore the balance


in the economy between the public and the private sector, and get the


finances back under some control, and reduce the deficit, we have to


cut money from where it is spent. It is spent in large quantities on


the welfare and benefits system. Ceri Goddard, would you disagree


with any of that? I would certainly disagree with the point that the


Government is doing its utmost to mitigate the situation of women. I


think that we need to be clear, everybody agrees the deficit needs


to be reduce, but it is a political choice that the austerity approach


is to take 80% from cuts and 20% from taxes. It has been well known


in prior to the Comprehensive Spending Review, that would


massively disproportionately impact women. The last financial statement


said over 8% of 80% of cuts comes from women's pockets. We are not


seeing a clear Government strategy to mitigate that. This is not a


structure here for decades, this is an additional inequality created by


the austerity approach. This is something the Government has to


solve, this is not the labour market itself, or women having to


be more flexible, for example? I think it is a combination of both.


We had preexisting economies in the labour market and the economy


before the recession, women were in more low-paid jobs and earned less.


Because of that we were forced -- we in the Fawcett Society and


campaigners were concerned in considering the deficit the


Government policies didn't make the situation worse unnecessarily. So,


of course, Government policy is critical, and Government also needs


it take a lead in terms of how gender-sensitive its policies are.


But also businesses themselves, and the private sector, need to do more.


Currently the Government policy is to, for the private sector to pick


up these lost jobs from the public sector. If that's going to be the


case, are they going to tackle the fact that the private sector pay


gap is twice the public sector. guess you could say if they are


going to pick up those jobs, and that hasn't happened to the extent


it was meant to, do women have to be more accepting, for example, of


the overtime? That was a very string statistic that came out, not


surprise -- interesting statistic that came out, not surprising, when


women were asked, because they are carers with homes and families to


run more often to say no to overtime, does that have to change?


There are more part-time jobs in the economy, which suit a lot of


women from. Your film only 25% of the women who were working part-


time actually wanted to work more hours. As you say, it's a good way


of balancing caring responsibilities with work, being


able to work part-time if you want to. And fewer men want to work


part-time? Fewer machine want to work part-time. I think it is


important -- men want to work part- time. It is important to remember


on a positive note that there are over a million new jobs in the


private sector created in the last two years. We have record numbers


of women in employment as a result of that. I think the part-time


point is really interesting, actually. On the one hand you have


a lot more single mothers, as we were looking at in the film, who


are looking for more part-time work, but they are finding less of that,


because those part-time positions are being cut from the public


sector, there are less of them in the private sector. Yes, we can


focus on the 75% of women who want part-time work, but there is a


massive increase in women's underemployment. In women who want


to work more than part-time, but can't. Let's not forget the 25-year


high in women's unemployment. Over a million women who want to work at


all, part-time or full-time, who cannot get a job. That has


increased 14% since 2010. The unemployment rate for men has gone


down 3%, it is not accurate. Very briefly? Briefly, we have 250,000


more women in work since 2010. That's because there is more women


coming of age. I think that is a positive note on which to end.


Just to tell you, we will have more on David Cameron's Europe speech in


a moment. That is coming up with Allegra


Stratton. If the mackerel had held on to its


ancient name, scomberomorus commerson, it is doubtful anyone


would have got their tongues round ordering it enough -- to order it


enough for the fish to be in peril, the fish may be spurned again when


it became the latest endangered species on the Marine Conservation


Society list. This is not only one of the most elegantly formed but


beautifully coloured fishes taken out of the sea we have. Mrs Beeton


loved mackerel, and it is a huge part of the diet on these islands.


If you had mackerel tonight, that heartburn you are feeling may be


guilt, yes, guilt, because the little Big Mack is under threat.


people fish the way they are at the moment the stock will be


unsustainable in the future. The stock is downwards, although it is


currently at a sustainable level. That is all very well, the trouble


is no-one has told the fish. They weren't finished, they have just


gone away for a bit. So says a chef with two Michelen stars to his


credit. There is huge shoals of mackerel, we have swum right up to


the islands because there is better food. For food, they don't know the


customs between Great Britain and Iceland, they don't know, they just


want better food. If it had a transparent silvery hue, the flesh


is good, if it is red about the head, it is steal.


# I want some seafood mamma They know their fish and seafood at


this wet fish shop here in North London. You know they are running


out of mackerel, there aren't enough? We heard about it. But what


are we going to do about it. Eatless of it? To eat less?, no we


love it, we can't eat less, it is wonderful. I remember a year ago


everyone was telling us to eat mackerel because it wasn't


endangered, I felt duped. The "man" has deceived us again? Is that what


you are saying? It would appear so, something like that. First, take


your fish, all nice and ethical and line-caught from an in-shore boat,


says this fishmonger. I spoke to a few suppliers, they said if you


stick to the old method of line fishing, there is not a problem,


small in-shore boats, buying it off them it is not a problem. There is


loads of mackerel about. It is the big boats that are taking scoops of


mackerel out of the sea. voracity of this fish is very great,


from their immense numbers they are bold in attacking objects of which


they might otherwise be expected to have a wholesome dread. There are


loads of recipes of mackerel in 189th century cook books, it wanes


in popularity again in the 20th century, when you look at books


from the 1950s or 1960, it doesn't appear in them often. Partly, I


think, because it has never been a really posh fish, it is not really


used on dining tables. Mackerel was no longer catch of the day, because


it also got a reputation as a dirty fish. In the summer they tend to


come loser in shore, and some people associate the coming in


shore of the mackerel with sewage pipes and things like that. They


have nothing to do with sewage pipes. They live on the cleanest


plankton, and small fishes and occasionally small squid. A dirty


fish, our man in the whites won't have it. That is a terrible


expression. Whoever said that is very unfair, very particularly to


mackerel, it is the most magnificent fish for a number of


reasons. It is nutritious to eat, the best nutritional values you can


possibly have. In fact, this humble fish has been


macking it on the supper tables and supermarkets, sales were up 11%,


the advice now is easy on the favourite fish, or it could be the


one that got away. Death impayers the vivid splendor of its colours,


but it -- impairs its vivid shrend dor but doesn't entirely impede


them. We are going through the You're back, what else do we know


about this, how is it going down? He has had good headlines from


different papers across the political divide. The 2017 figures


arrived at because it is the first two-and-a-half years of the


parliament. It took a long time in coming this speech. Do you think he


had to harden it up because of that? I think when it nearly came


out and didn't, they were quite confident that it would answer some


of the questions that have been raised. I don't think it has been


refined, I think it is just that they knew it would get the


reception it has got, so far, but tomorrow is the real thing on day


two. Will anyone mind that you are getting reaction, from Brussels and


Europe already, saying no way you can start renegotiating? They will


assume that. As we said earlier, he has set out five principle that is


are sufficiently vague, that if it turns out he's banging his head


against a brick wall he has the get out he will need. Thank you very


much. You might have seen the picture of Beyonce on some of the


palmers. One President, one megastar and the biggest day in the


American political calendar. For some, the Beyonce singing star


spaingled banner was the pinnacle, for others it was a fudge. It is


reported the acoustics being what it was, and the crowd being what it


was, she might have mimed the song. We will let you decide.


Army cuts - are we overstretched? Will the government announce a referendum on Europe? Are women harder hit by recession? Should we eat mackerel? With Emily Maitlis.

Download Subtitles