:00:08. > :00:12.Britain tomorrow won't be David Cameron. The most powerful figure in
:00:13. > :00:16.Britain will be Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, the Prime
:00:17. > :00:26.Minister wants to renegotiate our EU membership, what succre can she
:00:27. > :00:31.offer? What she want promise has no power to offer is the possibility of
:00:32. > :00:35.treaty change. Will it be enough? These animals are on the verge of
:00:36. > :00:41.extinction. Could these ones be going the same way, why isn't the
:00:42. > :00:47.planet big enough for all of us. And... The first trip is vanish --
:00:48. > :00:53.the first trick is vanishing inflation. If you wonder whether
:00:54. > :00:58.Government plays fast and loose with statistic, we will show you how it
:00:59. > :01:03.is done. And Jerry Springer on whether television serves up poor
:01:04. > :01:13.people as a freak show for the amusement of couch potatoes.
:01:14. > :01:18.Break out the beer, the Riesling the sasauges and the sourkraut, we are
:01:19. > :01:21.on the eve of a celebration of all things German. The Chancellor of the
:01:22. > :01:25.most powerful country in Europe is in London tomorrow to address a
:01:26. > :01:28.joint meeting of parliament. Having tea with the Queen and being
:01:29. > :01:32.buttered up by David Cameronment he wants to keep her sweet because
:01:33. > :01:36.she's potentially his most powerful ally in his attempts to renegotiate
:01:37. > :01:39.this country's relationship with Europe. An opinion poll today
:01:40. > :01:44.suggested voters in the two countries have some quite similar
:01:45. > :01:47.views on the European project. Emily Maitlis has been looking ahead to
:01:48. > :02:01.the visit, which, like Emily's report, may contain flash
:02:02. > :02:08.photography. ??FORCEDWHI # Here she comes... No, not the
:02:09. > :02:12.Queen, but she might as well be, such is the weight of expectation
:02:13. > :02:18.sitting on the German Chancellor's shoulders. Angela Merkel's due here
:02:19. > :02:21.tomorrow, she will get the full royal treatment. It is what she may
:02:22. > :02:24.say in private that may have a far greater impact. The Prime Minister
:02:25. > :02:32.is hoping to hear from her something akin to support for the kind of
:02:33. > :02:36.Europe that his party envisages. My admiration for Angela Merkel is
:02:37. > :02:39.enormous and there are many things that she has achieved that I would
:02:40. > :02:45.like to copy, not least getting re-elected! Angela Merkel gets to
:02:46. > :02:48.come here it address both Houses and she gets tea with the Queen. Warm
:02:49. > :02:52.words from the Prime Minister this morning, it all adds up to a very
:02:53. > :02:59.different level of reception to that accorded other European heads of
:03:00. > :03:01.state in recent weeks. It's far cry, for example, from the treatment the
:03:02. > :03:11.French President got when he turned up here last month. Mr Hollande,
:03:12. > :03:16.more renowned for his social life than socialism, was greeted with a
:03:17. > :03:23.pub lunch. Now no-one can complain about an English country pub, but it
:03:24. > :03:28.wasn't tea with Her 34. Madge. There is a clear reason behind the
:03:29. > :03:31.love-bombing, David Cameron needs Angela Merkel to guarantee him
:03:32. > :03:36.assurances in a revised treaty if he's to win a referendum campaign on
:03:37. > :03:40.the EU. I asked the deputy EU if he thinks that could happen? Reform
:03:41. > :03:46.yes, but unilateral repatriation, no. Merkel, for her part has a
:03:47. > :03:50.vested interest in keeping Britain happy. As a figurehead of EU power,
:03:51. > :03:53.she can't afford to see Britain leave it. I think she can offer
:03:54. > :04:00.certainly her support when it comes to some areas where there are strong
:04:01. > :04:06.common interests. One is to reduce EU regulation and red tape for small
:04:07. > :04:14.and medium-sized enterprise, another would be the support for a trade
:04:15. > :04:17.policy. Fine, says this woman, who understands German sensibilities
:04:18. > :04:23.better than most, but it won't be enough. I think she would be able to
:04:24. > :04:27.deliver what I call some "smarties", that will allow people to feel good
:04:28. > :04:30.about themselves in a limited way. In terms of the fundamental
:04:31. > :04:36.renegotiation which part of the British political class is looking
:04:37. > :04:40.for, returning powers, Angela Merkel is simply not in that kind of
:04:41. > :04:49.business. What the Conservatives want to set in stone, are what they
:04:50. > :04:56.call "limited opt-outs", ways of Britain more power for certain areas
:04:57. > :05:03.of policy. One German politician put it to my early it is not very likely
:05:04. > :05:08.for an opt-out, saying we British want an opt-out for the financial
:05:09. > :05:11.industry, and the Germans for the automotive industry, and the French
:05:12. > :05:14.for their sheep, in other words, once you start you would never stop.
:05:15. > :05:19.This restaurant, you didn't think you would see a whole piece on
:05:20. > :05:24.German state visit without a reference to a sausage, is the baby
:05:25. > :05:28.of two expatriots, they have been here four years, I asked how they
:05:29. > :05:31.see the British appetite for Europe? Split in half because in some ways
:05:32. > :05:34.the Brits always like to be the Brits on their own, in a way, I
:05:35. > :05:41.think. But obviously they are also collaborative. So I don't know what
:05:42. > :05:47.to really say? I'm totally in agreement, as long as they can keep
:05:48. > :05:54.the pound! All is good! Hopefully fingers crossed. They serve the
:05:55. > :06:01.Chancellor's favourite street food here, Crushy wurst, probably not on
:06:02. > :06:06.the menu for the dignitaries tomorrow. It is over lunch they will
:06:07. > :06:11.get down to business. Angela Merkel will all for targeted treaty change.
:06:12. > :06:14.This is a phrase that doesn't exist in EU process or proceed ducks and
:06:15. > :06:18.Labour argue if the language were made any plainer the gap between
:06:19. > :06:26.what David Cameron wants and what Chancellor Merkel can actually offer
:06:27. > :06:30.would be way too obvious. The Chancellor will see all three
:06:31. > :06:36.leaders tomorrow, each is likely to claim a meeting of minds. State
:06:37. > :06:41.craft is a powerful tool, but once the red carpet is re-rolled and the
:06:42. > :06:45.day is done, the Prime Minister will have to see with his own party if
:06:46. > :06:54.the German Chancellor has come with enough. Emily's here with more
:06:55. > :06:57.developments on coalition machinations. There were suggestions
:06:58. > :07:01.that David Cameron would rule out any future coalition and even make
:07:02. > :07:05.it a manifesto pledge if he thought it would bring back his backbenchers
:07:06. > :07:10.or anyone who might lend UKIP their vote and tell them he wants to go it
:07:11. > :07:18.alone. Last night on this programme you will remember Len McClusky from
:07:19. > :07:23.Unite, urging Ed Miliband to say he would lead a majority if he could do
:07:24. > :07:26.so. I put it to Nick Clegg in the press conference and asked him if he
:07:27. > :07:29.had a direct Conservatives, or any knowledge that this is what David
:07:30. > :07:36.Cameron might be wanting, along the lines of a coalition in future?
:07:37. > :07:42.Clearly there is a... How can I put it a McClusky tendency in both the
:07:43. > :07:53.Labour and the Conservative Party, what you are seeing is the last gasp
:07:54. > :07:55.of the assumption from the two bigger parties that some how they
:07:56. > :08:00.have always got a right to run things. It is now, they are now some
:08:01. > :08:05.how claiming that they would have a right to decide how this country is
:08:06. > :08:09.governed, even if they don't win a majority, that is clearly a
:08:10. > :08:13.preposterous assertion. He sounds pretty confident he will be in power
:08:14. > :08:17.again? He thinks, given the shape of electoral mathematics now, that
:08:18. > :08:21.coalitions will be more not less likely. He thinks for that reason
:08:22. > :08:24.the public have to get used to two parties working to the, even if they
:08:25. > :08:28.don't particularly get on. The example he used was work place
:08:29. > :08:31.colleagues. He says that people have to get used to hearing different
:08:32. > :08:37.things because they all experience it themselves. Some will have
:08:38. > :08:40.noticed, rather more stride dent tone in the recent weeks about Tory
:08:41. > :08:53.partner, they have been saying things like "unbalanced" "unfocussed
:08:54. > :08:57.and "dangerous policies", you but today he said the public knows and
:08:58. > :09:00.expect us not to be on the same page. One source close to the
:09:01. > :09:03.cabinet told me today that although they were going all out for a
:09:04. > :09:08.majority, this was a Tory source, they would find it much easier to
:09:09. > :09:13.work again with t Lib Dems than their own backbenchers. Still to
:09:14. > :09:26.come, Jerry Springer on how television portrays the poor. The
:09:27. > :09:30.two Muslim fanatics who hacked an offduty soldier to death were
:09:31. > :09:34.sentenced today, one got a minimum 45 years, the other should spend the
:09:35. > :09:39.rest of his life in prison. Neither showed remorse in court, and the
:09:40. > :09:43.judge said one was beyond the possibility of rehabilitation. So
:09:44. > :09:46.they will live at the tax-payers' expense for decades to come. What
:09:47. > :09:51.can be done with them during that time. This report contains some
:09:52. > :09:57.flashing images. It was, the judge said, a betrayal of Islam and the
:09:58. > :10:01.peaceful Muslims who give so much to this country. Michael Adebolajo and
:10:02. > :10:05.his accomplice, Michael Adebowale, started screaming and had to be
:10:06. > :10:09.hauled from the dock as they were sentenced to long prison terms
:10:10. > :10:15.today. There were sobs from the relatives and friends of Fusilier
:10:16. > :10:19.Lee Rigby, who all sat in silence throughout the judge's remarks. A
:10:20. > :10:23.police detective read the family's statement outside the Old Bailey.
:10:24. > :10:25.The Rigby family welcomes the whole life and significant sentences that
:10:26. > :10:29.have been passed down on Lee's killers. We feel that no other
:10:30. > :10:34.sentence would have been acceptable and we would like to thank the judge
:10:35. > :10:39.and the courts for handing down what we believe to be the right prison
:10:40. > :10:43.terms. Both men will start their sentences at a category A prison,
:10:44. > :10:47.like Belmarsh, in south London. This place has held some of the most
:10:48. > :10:52.high-profile terror suspects of recent years, from the radical
:10:53. > :10:57.preacher Abu Hamza, to one of the men behind the failed London
:10:58. > :11:02.bombings. One in six of the men behind the walls is a Muslim
:11:03. > :11:06.prisoner. As we were filming the man carrying Adebolajo and Adebowale
:11:07. > :11:09.pulled into the prison gates. Both men will be held in the
:11:10. > :11:12.high-security unit here, where any contact with other prisoners is
:11:13. > :11:15.tightly controlled. They have their phone calls monitored, it is
:11:16. > :11:22.unlikely they will be allowed to pray alongside other inmates. These
:11:23. > :11:30.men served time in Belmarsh after being jailed for soliciting murder
:11:31. > :11:33.after a rally about a cartoon satirising the profit Mohammed.
:11:34. > :11:38.Their views are extreme to other Muslims. The fact they are in the
:11:39. > :11:43.high-security unit people will be interested in what they were like. I
:11:44. > :11:50.remember when Abu Hamza was in the unit, people hoped to be in the unit
:11:51. > :11:54.just to see what they will like and hear what he has to say. A lot of
:11:55. > :11:57.people in the prison system, that will go through their mind. First
:11:58. > :12:01.and foremost they won't be able to see them in the high-security unit
:12:02. > :12:06.isolated from all other prisoners. Perhaps five years down the line
:12:07. > :12:11.will they transfer them to other high-security prisons where people
:12:12. > :12:15.may have similar views. Looking up terror suspects and convicts in the
:12:16. > :12:22.same place as of course led to serious difficulties in the past.
:12:23. > :12:26.The H-blocks in the Maze were notorious recruiting grounds for
:12:27. > :12:30.republicans and unionists. The authorities started worrying that
:12:31. > :12:33.looking up high numbers of extremists in Belmarsh could store
:12:34. > :12:37.up similar problems, there was a decision made to disperse those
:12:38. > :12:43.convicted of high-profile terror offences across the estate. It is a
:12:44. > :12:47.massive challenge for prison officers up and -- prison officers
:12:48. > :12:50.up and down the country, because you don't know what you are facing
:12:51. > :12:53.day-to-day. For example those prisoners themselves with extreme
:12:54. > :12:59.and radical views may well be the target themselves from the rest of
:13:00. > :13:03.the prison population. They could be dangerous towards prison officers,
:13:04. > :13:09.and the danger for them is that they radicalise other prisoners. Official
:13:10. > :13:12.Muslim chaplains are now being used to Dublin a new programme of
:13:13. > :13:16.one-to-one sessions meant for inmates with the most entrenched
:13:17. > :13:19.views. Independent advisers who work with extremists say it is possible
:13:20. > :13:23.to make a difference. You have to remember that these people hold
:13:24. > :13:26.these extreme ideas, they are religious zealot, they are people
:13:27. > :13:30.that want to propagage their point of view. They want to convince
:13:31. > :13:33.others around them. You have a premise for engaging in the first
:13:34. > :13:40.place. The difficulty would be I guess the idea that whether you are
:13:41. > :13:44.a credible interlocketer or not, are you someone they could be worth
:13:45. > :13:48.engaging with, you have to establish that credibility. Critics say the
:13:49. > :13:51.Government strategy isn't cutting through, of the 150 people convicts
:13:52. > :13:56.of terrorist-related offences in recent years, it is thought 40 have
:13:57. > :14:00.agreed to par at thises operate in the programme -- participate in the
:14:01. > :14:06.programme. The prison him mans were seen with suspicion. Nobody saw them
:14:07. > :14:14.as somebody who confide in or even to really refer to or to ask. They
:14:15. > :14:18.saw them as another guard or governor who was there to gather
:14:19. > :14:24.intelligence and information. In the case of Adebolajo and Adebowale any
:14:25. > :14:31.talk of rehabilitation and re-entry to society may mean little. Neither
:14:32. > :14:35.will be eligible for release until 2059. It is up to the authorities
:14:36. > :14:40.now to monitor and control. We are joined by Peter Neumann, founder and
:14:41. > :14:44.director of the international centre for radicalisation at King's College
:14:45. > :14:48.London. What will happen to these men? They are both going to go to
:14:49. > :14:52.prison. One will be there without any chance of parole, the other one
:14:53. > :14:57.is going to be released when he's a pensioner. So I don't think we
:14:58. > :15:04.should expect any miracles. They don't have any incentive to change
:15:05. > :15:08.their beliefs. If anything their incentive is to stick to their
:15:09. > :15:11.beliefs, to change them would be to admit to themselves that they have
:15:12. > :15:15.wasted their lives. Will they be free to associate with other inmates
:15:16. > :15:19.do you think? The way it is being handled in this country is they are
:15:20. > :15:23.being treated as high-security prisoners so they are in a
:15:24. > :15:29.high-security prison. And within these high-security prisons there
:15:30. > :15:34.are so called specialist units, they are not particularly made for
:15:35. > :15:38.terrorism offenders but the chance to interact with the rest of the
:15:39. > :15:41.prison population is pretty limited. You are an expert on
:15:42. > :15:47.deradicalisation, you have already hinted that there may not be much
:15:48. > :15:50.reason to think of deradicalising, but 45 years or longer is a great
:15:51. > :15:56.time to think about it? Absolutely. But since they are not going to be
:15:57. > :16:06.let out, I wonder if any efforts are going to be made? What would be the
:16:07. > :16:09.point of doing that? The principle incentive to deradicalise people is
:16:10. > :16:12.they will be let back into society at some point. If you are not going
:16:13. > :16:17.to be let back into society why would you even try? Are they similar
:16:18. > :16:21.in any sense to other guerrilla groups, terrorist groups that have
:16:22. > :16:30.been in prison, I'm thinking for example of the IRA? So the principle
:16:31. > :16:33.difference between Al-Qaeda-inspired terrorists and Irish republicans,
:16:34. > :16:36.Irish republicans looked at other prisoners as ordinary criminal, they
:16:37. > :16:41.wanted nothing to do with them. They didn't want to recruit them, they
:16:42. > :16:45.saw themselves as superior to them. Where as Al-Qaeda-inspired prisoners
:16:46. > :16:51.see their time in prison as an opportunity to radicalise. If they
:16:52. > :16:56.are being exposed to other prisoners they will try to make recruits. That
:16:57. > :16:59.creates a dilemma for the prison authorities, they can't allow them
:17:00. > :17:03.to associate with other prisoners that much because they will try to
:17:04. > :17:08.radicalise them. They are a real security risk? They are, they are
:17:09. > :17:17.and they have been, there have been incidents, and Abu Qatada said he
:17:18. > :17:22.saw so many people in prisons coming in ripe for recruitment. And now it
:17:23. > :17:25.is a dilemma for the prison authorities because they don't want
:17:26. > :17:29.the prisoners to be exposed to them. Let's hope there are no more
:17:30. > :17:32.incidents, if there are more there will be more men and women being
:17:33. > :17:37.locked up, because the Government have a strategy? Well the
:17:38. > :17:41.Government, if you had asked me that question five or six years ago I
:17:42. > :17:46.would have said probably no, but over the past five or six years they
:17:47. > :17:55.have actually done quite a lot, so prison staff have been trained,
:17:56. > :18:01.there are moderate Imans in prisons, you don't have to go to extremist to
:18:02. > :18:05.get religious instructions. There are a lot of things in place that
:18:06. > :18:09.would prevent radicalisation happening. It is not perfect but
:18:10. > :18:14.better than it was five or six years ago. Thank you very much. Now the
:18:15. > :18:18.end of life as we know it. In the last 500 million or so years there
:18:19. > :18:21.have been five mass extinctions of life on earth. The most famous is
:18:22. > :18:31.the one that wiped out the dinosaurs after a meetite about the --
:18:32. > :18:35.meteorite in excess of 45,000 miles an hour hit the earth. We are
:18:36. > :18:43.entering a sixth mass extinction it is thought, this time the agent is
:18:44. > :18:46.us. Kolbert is the author of The Sixth Extinction -- Elizabeth
:18:47. > :18:51.Kolbert is author of The Sixth Extinction, and we have the previous
:18:52. > :18:57.economist and writer from the Economist. Elizabeth Kolbert, how
:18:58. > :19:01.close are we to the sixth extinction? Well, some people would
:19:02. > :19:06.say that they are, you know, only on the verge of it, we can still
:19:07. > :19:10.prevent it and some scientists would say we are pretty deep into this
:19:11. > :19:16.project already. That we have been, human cause of extinction is a thing
:19:17. > :19:21.that goes back 50,000 years or so ago, since our ancestors went to
:19:22. > :19:31.places like Australia and caused a wave of extinctions. Do you worry
:19:32. > :19:37.about this? Yes I do. It is a really dramatic impact we have had on other
:19:38. > :19:40.species on the planet. I'm a little less pessimistic in that I think
:19:41. > :19:47.richer countries are beginning to take this in hand. One of the key
:19:48. > :19:53.factors in this is climate change isn't it? Yes. Climate change is
:19:54. > :19:56.predicted. If you, once again, all we can do at this point, because
:19:57. > :20:01.there is a pretty big lag time in the system in climate change. So
:20:02. > :20:06.there is a lot of modelling efforts, people trying to figure out what
:20:07. > :20:09.will the world look like 50-100 years from now. Many of the studies
:20:10. > :20:14.will be climate change will become the major driver of extinction. It
:20:15. > :20:19.isn't at this point. There we are. Some reassurance there? Well, if
:20:20. > :20:24.climate change is at the upper end of current estimates, then it will
:20:25. > :20:29.be disastrous, but if it is at the lower end than probably most
:20:30. > :20:34.biodiversity won't have that much of a problem with it. What time scale
:20:35. > :20:38.are we talking about here? In terms of climate change? Yeah. Well we can
:20:39. > :20:43.see some serious climate change by the end of the century. Some people
:20:44. > :20:47.are talking about four degrees, some talking one degree. One degree is
:20:48. > :20:50.not that much of a problem, four degrees is a massive problem. Let's
:20:51. > :20:54.supposing, Elizabeth Kolbert, I don't think in New York you can see
:20:55. > :20:58.this, but we have a rather nice illustration of a spotted frog,
:20:59. > :21:04.which has now vanished conveniently, a spotted frog and a wildcat. But
:21:05. > :21:11.supposing these creatures disappear, in what way are we diminished? We
:21:12. > :21:15.are really talking about the richness and variety of life on
:21:16. > :21:21.earth, which is last taken many, many millions of years reach this
:21:22. > :21:26.point, and we are unravelling it very, very quickly. We have to be
:21:27. > :21:30.concerned on absolutely all levels, on an ethical and practical level,
:21:31. > :21:34.at every level. Surely extinction is the natural counterpart to
:21:35. > :21:38.evolution. Everything is going to become extinct at some point? That
:21:39. > :21:41.is absolutely true. The question is the rate at which things are
:21:42. > :21:45.becoming extinct. When you think about it, it is absolutely clear.
:21:46. > :21:49.You don't see new species popping up around you all the tile. And you
:21:50. > :21:54.shouldn't, in the course of a human lifetime for example you should not
:21:55. > :21:58.be able to see a single species of mammal go extinct, it should only
:21:59. > :22:04.happen on the order of many hundreds of years that one species of mammal
:22:05. > :22:07.should go extinct. If they are going extinct faster than that, it means
:22:08. > :22:10.they are evolving more slowly an extinction, the variety of the
:22:11. > :22:15.planet is plummeting. That is happening now. Are you bothered by
:22:16. > :22:19.this deminute fusion in variety? Yes, but I do think we need to look
:22:20. > :22:23.at the efforts that a lot of countries are making to stop this
:22:24. > :22:27.reduction in variety. If you look over the last 30 years in the rich
:22:28. > :22:32.world we have made huge efforts in terms of getting rid of invasive
:22:33. > :22:38.species, of increasing nature reserves. The deforestation on the
:22:39. > :22:43.Amazon is running now at about 10% of what it was ten years ago. All
:22:44. > :22:48.over the world people are making a huge effort to stop this happening.
:22:49. > :22:52.You are absolutely right that over thousands of years humanity has had
:22:53. > :22:56.a disastrous affect on other species, but there is a good chance
:22:57. > :23:01.that we, simple Lewis because we have decided to, may be able to stop
:23:02. > :23:06.this destruction. And there will be plenty of people at home will say
:23:07. > :23:10.frankly what does it matter if the spotted frog disappears? A number of
:23:11. > :23:15.things, all sorts of species have really interesting DNA that medical
:23:16. > :23:17.researchers are increasingly realising can solve all sorts of
:23:18. > :23:27.problems that scientists which themselves cannot. Chairman Mao
:23:28. > :23:32.decided to wipe out all the sparrows and the result was a playing of
:23:33. > :23:36.insects. We need creatures more than we think we did. What do you make of
:23:37. > :23:40.the argument that human kind has it within its possibility of doing
:23:41. > :23:43.something to arrest this extinction, which may already have started, not
:23:44. > :23:47.of the frog of the general extinction, the mass extinction? I
:23:48. > :23:52.certainly hope that Emma is right. Absolutely. I think that what is
:23:53. > :23:56.propelling this extinction event forward is the ways in which we are
:23:57. > :24:01.changing the planet. Changing the planet on a global, geological
:24:02. > :24:05.scale. Very rapidly, much more rapidly than most species can adapt
:24:06. > :24:09.to, what we need to be thinking about and we need to be thinking
:24:10. > :24:15.about it very fast and on a global level is how we are doing that and
:24:16. > :24:19.how can we minimise our impact. Let as be realistic about it, this is
:24:20. > :24:22.all accelerating since the Industrial Revolution kicked off.
:24:23. > :24:29.Which has been a huge benefit to human kind. Are you suggesting that
:24:30. > :24:35.we some how diminish the benefits to human kind in order that we avoid
:24:36. > :24:38.something that may happen in a couple of million years time. How do
:24:39. > :24:41.you get people to think about that? I don't think we are talking about
:24:42. > :24:44.something that may happen in a couple of million years time. If we
:24:45. > :24:48.continue on the trajectory we are on, we are talking about causing a
:24:49. > :24:51.significant extinction event, a major extinction event within a
:24:52. > :24:56.matter of centuries, not a couple of million years from now. We are not
:24:57. > :25:00.talking about something that lies in some distant mythological future,
:25:01. > :25:05.and balancing what people need. There are as you suggest seven. Two
:25:06. > :25:09.billion of us on the planet right now, balancing what we need and
:25:10. > :25:14.want, against the needs of all the other creatures with whom we share
:25:15. > :25:20.this planet, the challenge really I think of our times and as was
:25:21. > :25:27.suggested it is not some abstract thing that is it nice to share your
:25:28. > :25:33.planet on with other creature, we dependant on those other creatures.
:25:34. > :25:38.I will ask Emma a question, without any preparation, could you persuade
:25:39. > :25:45.your children to wore and care about -- worry and care about an event
:25:46. > :25:51.that may happen in century's time? ? I would encourage them in different
:25:52. > :25:57.ways, I would say we need soil to grow stuff and DNA. You look very
:25:58. > :26:01.sceptical, but, about, more than a quarter, something like a half of
:26:02. > :26:05.the new drugs found these days comes from the DNA of other creatures,
:26:06. > :26:10.this is really important to us. Plus, people like nature, you know.
:26:11. > :26:14.People actually like holidaying in the sun, they don't want live in
:26:15. > :26:18.concrete jungles. Even the Chinese they have destroyed their
:26:19. > :26:22.environment more than anywhere else on the planet, they are now creating
:26:23. > :26:28.National Parks as a faster rate than anywhere else in the world. We could
:26:29. > :26:31.talk all night on this. Now there is a 97% chance you will believe this
:26:32. > :26:39.and a very much smaller chance that you won't. Politicians misused
:26:40. > :26:43.statistics to their own advantage. The head of the statistics society,
:26:44. > :26:47.the man in charge of guarding the official significants pointed out
:26:48. > :26:52.today that figures given by the Government for spending on flood
:26:53. > :26:54.defences weren't all they appeared to be. Ed Miliband announced that
:26:55. > :26:59.the Government was banged to rights, and no Labour Government would ever
:27:00. > :27:03.stoop so low as we all know. In this four-year period and indeed in this
:27:04. > :27:08.parliament overall spending on flood defences has gone up. Mr Speaker I
:27:09. > :27:13.am afraid that the figures the Prime Minister is quoting are phoney, and
:27:14. > :27:18.I believe he knows it. How is it that politicians are always able, as
:27:19. > :27:25.if by magic, to find statistics to suit their case? Revealing the
:27:26. > :27:35.Westminster's inner circle's inner trick, we present to you tonight
:27:36. > :27:47.Lessons in Lull illusion. The First trip is vanishing inflation. The
:27:48. > :27:50.slight of -- sleight of hand here is the Government hopes you don't
:27:51. > :27:54.realise that money loses its value over time. You might hear them talk
:27:55. > :27:58.about protecting a budget in cash terms, that is what they say when
:27:59. > :28:01.they can't say they are protecting a budget in real terms. That is to say
:28:02. > :28:06.they are increasing the budget faster than inflation. If you
:28:07. > :28:11.protect it only in tax terms it means you are only cutting it by
:28:12. > :28:22.more than 10%. The The second trick is apples and oranges. This piece of
:28:23. > :28:27.conjuring is very switch but very powerful. What you do is you compare
:28:28. > :28:35.two numbers and they seem to talk about the same thing but aren't the
:28:36. > :28:40.same at all. Chris Grahaming back in 20 -- Grayling produce figures that
:28:41. > :28:48.showed a rise in crime in the 1980s, but in truth statisticians knew it
:28:49. > :28:52.had fallen. But Mr Grayling was looking at the way they recorded
:28:53. > :29:04.crime. That was one trick that didn't come off. For their next
:29:05. > :29:08.trick the amazing moving goal posts. This is where Governments just
:29:09. > :29:12.change rules when the data doesn't suit them. Take the case of Gordon
:29:13. > :29:17.Brown, he set himself two fiscal rules, those are rules that are
:29:18. > :29:23.designed to show that he was a prudent custodian of the public
:29:24. > :29:27.finances. When one of them, the golden rule, didn't suit him, he
:29:28. > :29:31.fiddled with the definitions of the data and finally changed the years
:29:32. > :29:42.over which it would count. For their next trick, junk research. Ministers
:29:43. > :29:45.can just commission dodgy analysis. Cambridge University opposed plans
:29:46. > :29:50.to change the AS-level, presenting real research that showed it was
:29:51. > :30:02.helpful. Whitehall officials cooked up some nonsense numbers of their
:30:03. > :30:07.own in retaliation. Finally, just lying claim You know how that works.
:30:08. > :30:09.But even so they do a lot of it. Takes the case of the Liberal
:30:10. > :30:16.Democrats who claimed credit for a doubling of our offshore wind
:30:17. > :30:21.capacity since 2010. That did actually happen, we have increased
:30:22. > :30:25.our offshore wind capacity, but all because of policies undertaken by
:30:26. > :30:29.the last Government. Everyone involved in politics says they want
:30:30. > :30:33.more evidence-based policy. But if we are going to have that we need
:30:34. > :30:38.everyone involved in politics, the politicians, the lobbyists, the
:30:39. > :30:47.charities and the journalists to just be a little bit straighter when
:30:48. > :30:54.it comes to statistics. Chi Onwurah is a Labour Shadow
:30:55. > :31:01.Cabinet office minister with an MBA in statistic, David Spiegelhalter is
:31:02. > :31:05.Professor for public understanding at the University of Cambridge. You
:31:06. > :31:09.are not surprised Governments play slightly fast and loose with
:31:10. > :31:12.statistics? As we saw in the segment, you need to tell a story to
:31:13. > :31:16.get a message across. Politicians need to tell us in the story and a
:31:17. > :31:23.narrative, and statistics are important. Characters in that
:31:24. > :31:27.narrative. The real danger comes when they are part of the fiction.
:31:28. > :31:34.It is the case that this Government seems to be running a kind of
:31:35. > :31:36.culture of statistical administration. Gordon Brown
:31:37. > :31:40.wouldn't have doing anything like that would he? This Government has
:31:41. > :31:44.been written to by the national statistics authority, so repeatedly,
:31:45. > :31:48.a so many times that it is becoming embarrassing. It is also the case
:31:49. > :31:52.that this Government doesn't believe in active intervention. They are not
:31:53. > :31:57.going to freeze energy prices. Get off the party horse for a second?
:31:58. > :32:01.When you believe it should be left to free markets then you need to do
:32:02. > :32:04.more, you have more of a temptation to manipulate the statistics. Do you
:32:05. > :32:09.think things have got cleaner and better? Actually I think they have a
:32:10. > :32:14.bit. I think they have got better. I think statistics now are subject to
:32:15. > :32:19.more scrutiny than they used to be. There is agencies such as Fact Check
:32:20. > :32:23.and Full Fact, that will take people to task, then there is the national
:32:24. > :32:28.statistics authority. When be somebody sees a bad number they
:32:29. > :32:33.write to Sir Andrew Dilnot, it is like going to the headmaster and say
:32:34. > :32:38.David Cameron said something wrong and then he's writing letters. It is
:32:39. > :32:42.a great development that politicians are being held to account for their
:32:43. > :32:49.use of numbers. Is public understanding any better though?
:32:50. > :32:53.Yes, that was supposed to be my job. It is difficult, I mean the royal
:32:54. > :32:56.statistical society has a campaign to try to improve public and
:32:57. > :33:00.political understanding of statistics and chance and risk and
:33:01. > :33:05.how that will work in society. It is a long job, to give them their
:33:06. > :33:08.credit the changes to the GCSE and the proposed new core maths
:33:09. > :33:18.qualification should also contribute to that in education. Do your
:33:19. > :33:22.colleagues have any idea of statistics? MPs represent people,
:33:23. > :33:27.and coming from engineering it was something of a shock to the system
:33:28. > :33:36.to see the extent to which the understanding of statistics and
:33:37. > :33:44.figures and being familiar around numbers is no better than the public
:33:45. > :33:48.average. The fact that what we say tends to be amplified we contribute
:33:49. > :33:51.often more to the noise than the signal when it comes to statistics
:33:52. > :33:55.and figures. That is really important because statistics are so
:33:56. > :34:00.important. I often think about Florence Nightingale, well known as
:34:01. > :34:06.a nurse, less well known as a statistical innovator who invented
:34:07. > :34:10.the Pi Chart and said if you want to understand God's thoughts you must
:34:11. > :34:14.study statistics for there is written his purposes. I wouldn't put
:34:15. > :34:18.it so religiously, I would say if you want to understand humanity and
:34:19. > :34:22.Government achievement study statistics. For example in
:34:23. > :34:27.Newcastle, some areas of Newcastle the average life expectancy is 15
:34:28. > :34:35.years more than some areas of south Kensington. It tells us. Fewer,
:34:36. > :34:43.sorry 15 years fewer than in some areas of south nsington. That tells
:34:44. > :34:46.us a lot about our society. In a highly educated person like you
:34:47. > :34:51.makes that elementary slip where will the rest of us go. I'm sure
:34:52. > :34:55.that everybody could make slips and what we're talking about here is the
:34:56. > :34:57.public understanding and use of statistics.
:34:58. > :35:02.There is a big difference though between the sort of job that we have
:35:03. > :35:10.got over here and your sort of job. Your job is about clean, facts,
:35:11. > :35:18.data? Yes. Your job is about judgment? That's very true. I don't
:35:19. > :35:21.think you can make a complete split. People who produce statistics knows
:35:22. > :35:25.that statistics have been chosen and constructed. They are not just pure
:35:26. > :35:30.facts about the world. The last unemployment figures in the last
:35:31. > :35:34.couple of weeks says unemployment has gone down 124,000, no it hadn't.
:35:35. > :35:41.It is based on a survey, did you know that. They only know those
:35:42. > :35:44.figures accurately to plus or minus 100,000. People don't know that.
:35:45. > :35:51.That changes almost within the margin of error? Exactly. But last
:35:52. > :35:55.year unemployment went down by 37,000 and a big fuss was made about
:35:56. > :35:59.it, actually you had no idea if it had gone down or not. That is not
:36:00. > :36:03.part of the discourse. People don't understand that statistics are
:36:04. > :36:07.actually constructed to some extent. The argument today with David
:36:08. > :36:10.Cameron and the flooding expenditure, that was because of
:36:11. > :36:14.changing the time scale, changing not allowing for inflation, it was
:36:15. > :36:18.what you included in terms of expenditure, all those little
:36:19. > :36:23.changes meant that they could say they sent more than Labour did in
:36:24. > :36:27.their period. It is not to say those statistics in a sense are correct,
:36:28. > :36:32.it is just what they chose to use. That is why you do need people to
:36:33. > :36:35.look rat these, to take them -- to look at these and take them apart
:36:36. > :36:39.and deconstruct them. It is not a choice between fact and fiction,
:36:40. > :36:43.there is always an element of judgment in the statistics we have
:36:44. > :36:47.useded. You have to use facts to get across developed policy and a
:36:48. > :36:53.message. What we can perfectly agree about is the really important
:36:54. > :36:57.decision that is we're taking now. Say on flood defence but in the
:36:58. > :36:59.future around climate change and increasing population extinction
:37:00. > :37:02.there will be a lot of statistics involved in making those choices,
:37:03. > :37:12.people have to understand how they are used and politicians who have
:37:13. > :37:22.the job of getting those decisions made have to understand them. Can I
:37:23. > :37:26.ask you on public subjects understanding. At what point does an
:37:27. > :37:31.unemployment figure become reliable. If it goes down by 50,000 it is
:37:32. > :37:35.meaningless. It is not meaning less, it is more likely to go down rather
:37:36. > :37:40.than up, but it has to go down by 100,000 for the confidence of it
:37:41. > :37:44.going down. The broadcasting regulator Ofcom
:37:45. > :37:47.says it is going to investigate the Channel 4 programme Benefits Street,
:37:48. > :37:52.after receiving the best part of 2,000 complaints. Yet the programme
:37:53. > :37:56.yielded Channel 4 their biggest audience for the best of two years.
:37:57. > :38:02.It is more evidence of the way in which a particular portrayal of poor
:38:03. > :38:08.people on television has become immensely popular. The people on the
:38:09. > :38:11.Jeremy Kyle show on the ITV reflects the same taste. The old injunction
:38:12. > :38:16.for the special care and reverence for the poor seems to have been
:38:17. > :38:23.shunted aside for the freak show. There was a time not so long ago
:38:24. > :38:29.when the two people you needed and replied upon were your grand show.
:38:30. > :38:33.Years ago the talk show was a careful gassing about the business
:38:34. > :38:38.of the day, and perhaps the little general discussion on such saucy
:38:39. > :38:44.topics as relationships. Then this happened... The Jerry Springer show
:38:45. > :38:51.and others like it found huge ratings success in the 1990s, with
:38:52. > :38:56.an increasingly unashamed brand of lurid personal confession and
:38:57. > :39:04.confrontation between protaganists. My next guests say they have double
:39:05. > :39:11.the troupe. At the show's peak this journalist turning politician turned
:39:12. > :39:16.ring master, he spawned a foul mothed opera in his tribute.
:39:17. > :39:22.# Hope you die slow with Payne The airing of dirty washing on
:39:23. > :39:32.national television format has found notable success on these shores too.
:39:33. > :39:37.The Jeremy Kyle once "human bear bating" by a judge has reached its
:39:38. > :39:42.ten years. Recently Channel 4's Benefits Street brought a slanging
:39:43. > :39:47.match over whether the trove viles of poor people -- at that veils of
:39:48. > :39:55.poor people should be put on television.? ? What does the creator
:39:56. > :40:03.of these shows think about the monster he helped to create. The
:40:04. > :40:07.Godfather of the confessional chat show is here. Are you ashamed of it?
:40:08. > :40:13.The show is stupid but I have always thought the show is stupid. Ashamed,
:40:14. > :40:18.not. Shouldn't you be? No, not any more than a journalist should be
:40:19. > :40:22.doing the news. For example you would make a living, let as say you
:40:23. > :40:28.are a journalist and you do the news every night, every night you tell
:40:29. > :40:32.stories about very bad things and it is very profitable for the station,
:40:33. > :40:36.you are not necessarily helping the people you talk about, newspapers
:40:37. > :40:42.are in that business all the time. You could decide, you could decide
:40:43. > :40:48.only to put well-scrubbed, wealthy people that speak the Queen's
:40:49. > :40:55.English on television and just do that. But that wouldn't reflect the
:40:56. > :40:58.whole society. You are being factitious? No television should
:40:59. > :41:03.reflect, in a free society the entire culture. If all shows were
:41:04. > :41:11.like mine that would be wrong. But you cannot just have television that
:41:12. > :41:15.is like Friends, Seinfeld, all these good looking and wealthy people and
:41:16. > :41:19.you love it. If some wealthy and famous person goes on television and
:41:20. > :41:23.talks about who he or she has been sleeping with, we can't get enough
:41:24. > :41:27.of it, we cheer them. If it is a person of low income we say trash,
:41:28. > :41:33.trash, like they are less than another person. Speak for yourself,
:41:34. > :41:37.some of us chose not to look at either? You do watch television, are
:41:38. > :41:42.you saying here that you don't want television? Of course you watch
:41:43. > :41:47.television. I'm interested in whom is sleeping with whom? I'm not, I
:41:48. > :41:51.watch sport. I don't watch my show I have always said that. If I was in
:41:52. > :41:57.college I would. I would get a hoot out of it. I'm saying we shouldn't
:41:58. > :42:03.be too uppity and say if these shows show poor people it is trash but if
:42:04. > :42:09.it is rich people it is OK. It is not that it shows poor people but
:42:10. > :42:17.that it ex-employments poor people? -- it exploits poor people. I worked
:42:18. > :42:21.in news for ten years, that was exploitation, never once was there a
:42:22. > :42:25.conversation in the newsroom that we should drop a story because this
:42:26. > :42:30.story might hurt this person, ruin their career, ruin their marriage or
:42:31. > :42:34.as you them discomfort. We never cared about the people we did
:42:35. > :42:38.stories on. You were working in a rubbish newsroom. I have been party
:42:39. > :42:42.to those conversations many a time? You are telling me when you run a
:42:43. > :42:47.story on the BBC that puts someone in a bad light, you ask their
:42:48. > :42:50.permission first. No, not ask their permission, that is what you said, a
:42:51. > :42:55.conversation saying is this going to be damaging to the person, that
:42:56. > :42:58.Conservatives most certainly the one? Did you say to the person who
:42:59. > :43:01.was it was damaging and you don't run the story. That happened many a
:43:02. > 0:36:06time? That is not true. If