31/03/2014 Newsnight


Full employment - what is it and is it realistic? Are tuition fees working? Climate report, screen addiction, and should Germans tell Hitler jokes? With Jeremy Paxman.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 31/03/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Exchequer is going to make sure everyone has job.


Exchequer is going to make sure exactly. The Government is aiming


for full employment, but what on earth is it? Full employment in


economics a situation in which all available labour resources are being


used in the most economically efficient way. The Economic


Secretary to the Treasury will doubtless have an even snappier


decision. They were sold as ways to freedom, but are screens enslaving


us. We sent a scientist to find out. You check it on an hourly, more than


that basis, when you get up and before you go to bed. And... Hitler


on ice. Hitler gags may be fair game for Mel Brooks, John close Clese and


Charlie chaplain. Should Germans be encouraged to make them? This one


does George Osborne has had a conversion,


after years of telling us he will stop at nothing to plug the hole in


the public's finances he announced today he's going to fight for full


employment in Britain. His target is for this country to have the highest


employment rate of any advanced economy. Another Tory Chancellor,


Norman Lamont once said unemployment was a price well worth paying. No


it's not, said Mr George Osborne today. What does this new ambition


of his actually mean? We have been finding out. Busy, busy, busy, look


the Chancellor wants you to know how many jobs he has made. And promises


just pressing a few more buttons on his economic machine could make


around one million more. A that's why today I'm making a new


commitment, a commitment to fight for full employment in Britain.


Making jobs a central goal of our economic plan. That was a retro


promise of full employment, he said it twice in case you missed it. A


modern approach to full employment means backing business. Surprised,


well it has been quite a while since any Conservative Chancellor talked


of full employment. And decades since it has been anything like what


we would traditionally consider it to be. At Tilbury Docks where George


Osborne came to make his new promise. In days of old he 3,000


people had work, now it is just 800. We were told today some of those


jobs are uncertain. Is anything like full employment realistic when mass


employers are mostly gone. Even Beveridge didn't believe full


employment meant zero. It was remarkably stable and low between


1950 and the early 1970s, average unemployment was just 2%. Always


under a million. By the 80s the picture was drastically changed,


hitting 13% at its peak in 1982. Right now it is seven. 2%, but the


downturn changed the jobs market forever. We have seen the big rise


in self-employment, a greater number of part-time work We have a more


flexible labour market than back then. The types of jobs we are


seeing being created are more diverse and secure There are more


jobs, but more shaky. Workers do less, their productivity is low, if


we solved that problem job creation could slow down. Luckily the


Chancellor's promise isn't quite what it says on the tin? George


Osborne doesn't appear that bothered by the dictionary definition of full


employment. His actual goal is Britain having the biggest share of


people in work out of all our economic rivals. And although it is


not a strict promise, it is an effort to focus the debate on jobs.


Falling unemployment is one of the coalition's successes. And by using


the former language of Gordon Brown, it is rather harder for Labour to


answer back. Our aspiration now must be more than helping people to find


work, regardless of its quality and prospects. But ensuring full and


fulfilling employment by expanding employment and training


opportunities for all. A deliberate contrast to the words of his Tory


forebear, that did such damage. Rising unemployment and the


recession have been the price that we have had to pay in order to get


inflation down. But that is a price well worth paying. So what does that


Chancellor make of his descendant's vow? It has always been the


objective of Conservative Governments to minimise unemployment


and maximise employment. But this is completely different to the type of


language we have heard from the Conservatives for a long time, not


least from you? What George Osborne is talking about, in a world that's


completely different where inflation is below 2%, is maximising the game


gain the Government already have established in gating jobs. What


kind of rate do you think we might get to? I have no idea. Labour


claims there is nothing new to see her, and there is a risk George


Osborne will be judged more as job numbers rise and fall. But this new


version of a promise made opponents in the past, suggests the Chancellor


is brave or foolhardy enough to limit his own room for manoeuvre.


We're joined now by the Conservative Economic Secretary to the Treasury,


Nicky Morgan, what is full employment then? The Chancellor was


saying today that what he wants is everybody in Britain who wants a job


can get a job, and people on welfare are incentivised and supported to


get off benefits and find a job too. So when did we last have full


employment in this country? Well, I'm not sure we have ever had full


employment. Ever? We can talk about the definitions about this per cent


and that per cent, but the point is the Chancellor is setting out a


clear strategy and ambition that we want people who want a job to find a


job. This is a revolutionary thing he as aiming for, it has never


occurred before? Well, we can argue the economists today has been argue


beg -- arguing about definition, but we have the highest employment rate


in the G7. He was using language losely today, at one point in the


speech he said we will have more people working than any other


country in the G7. That's absolute rubbish isn't it? That is the


ambition. More people working than any other countries in the G7, you


know the size of the work force here and the United States, it is


completely impossible. It is the employment rate. He didn't say, that


that is different? He did say it in the question and answer session.


Maybe somebody should look at the drafting of his speeches. Do you


think that would be a good idea? I wouldn't presume to tell the


Chancellor how to draft his speech. Somebody should, that's not an


accurate statement. He also said that there will be full employment


if more jobs were being created here than in any of our competitors, did


he mean that literally? Absolutely, the Chancellor is talking about


wanting people, everyone who wants a job, he wants Britain to be the best


place in the world to get and hold a job. But that's not the same as more


jobs being created Health Authority than -- here than anywhere else? If


you want a job you should have a job. That is something up and down


the country people will be grateful to hear. Because bomb are people --


people are looking for jobs. It is a new announcement to incentivise


businesses and create jobs. So he's talking about a higher rate of


employment. Employment in this country than in any of the other G 7


nations. That is what he set out, yes. That would mean, would it not,


that if this economy stagnated and others shrank he would achieve his


goal? That is looking at it in a very negative way. It is but it is a


possible interpretation? It is, but if you set out a clear positive


ambition for people having work. You are very familiar with the


unemployment figures, there are about two million students, about


two million single parents or carers, there are about 1. 3 million


early retirees. How are you going to get them back into work? The


Chancellor will set out in his speech today, it is about people who


want a job and who are on benefits looking for a job. There will be a


number of people for whom working is not an option, caring


responsibility, people between jobs, people who are #12UDying. So -- --


studying. All the others how will you get them back to work? The


policies we have announce today incentivise businesses to invest,


but also the policies that were announced by Iain Duncan Smith and


helping people who are unemployed to get back into work. These will be


British jobs for British workers as we were famously told? We want


people from all over the world from all companies to be based here in


the UK. Many are moving back. We have seen a number of people


re-shoring. But, yes, it is for people who have been long-term, we


want them to have those jobs. So it is British jobs for British workers


is it? The Chancellor has not said. It. We want the highest employment


rate. The lion's share of the jobs could be taken by people from


elsewhere? We can have a debate about inflation. I'm interested in


understanding what the Chancellor is promising? He's saying we want to be


the best place where people to have jobs and we will create these jobs.


These jobs could be taken by people who have come from elsewhere? Of


course, we have an open labour market, and the flexible labour


market is key to the way we have weathered, with many difficulty, the


great recession we have inherited. You want to cut the number of people


coming to this country? Not just us, there are many people out in the


country who have very strong views on immigration. You are the


Government? We want people in this country to have the best possible


skills, we want to attract businesses from overseas to be based


here. We have already seen 1. 3 million private sector jobs created


since the last election, that is three times the rate of job creation


in the last couple of sessions. You want to cut immigration? We do. We


also want businesses locating here and expanding here to know there is


skilled work force to recruit from. What were portion of these jobs you


will create will go to native workers and what proportion would


roughly go to in comers? I won't make course casters, there was a


separate immigration debate if you want that. I wondered how you were


going to achieve the full employment? I have set out the


policies that George Osborne has set out in the recent budget and Autumn


Statement, about incentivising business to create those jobs.


Making it attractive for businesses to take on the next employee. And


the people who are on benefits to get the jobs and have the skills


that employers are looking for. Thank you very much. Now, introduced


by Labour, increased by the Conservatives, the question of how


to pay for higher education looks about to burst back into the heart


of political debate. After the fatuous attitude by the Liberal


Democrats at the last election, all pledges on student fees should be


take within a super tanker load of salt. But the Labour Party are


offering hints on reducing fees, but the word "may" is the one to watch


out for. What is messing everyone up is the people who received loans to


recover the fees look unlikely to pay them. What happened to the


revolution, you this Devil Woman had never been written. The student of


the 1980s popular imagination used to look a bit like this. I hope you


realise all this loafing around has affected one day of being incredibly


rich. Feckless, time wasting, on hight genetic and broke. Three


decades later they are still, for the most part, broke, but they are a


lot angrier. Our nation has been littered with them, a trail of


broken promises. The words that months later would haunt him, the


politician who had promised students he was on their side, and ended up


epitomising the problem. When the coalition proposed to triple the


tuition fees in the first six months of parliament this is what happened.


It was an unhe hadifying spectacle for students and politicians, and it


taught both a valuable lesson. For students that they should never take


at face value anything that those in power promised, and for politicians


that they would underestimate the toxicity of this issue at their


peril. Labour said then it would cut tuition fees to ?6,000 if it was in


tour. Power. This week it said it wanted to go further, hinting at


radical reform. The timing may be key because the Government has just


admitted it got the numbers badly wrong. When the Government


introduced the new tuition fees system, and increasing them to


?9,000 a year. It estimated 30% of the value of the loans would not be


repaid. So people wouldn't earn enough when they graduated. The


subsidy the Government would need to give them would be about 30%, that


has gone up in the latest estimates to 45%. So nearly one pound in every


two that the Government lend it expect not to get back. That isn't


sustainable in the long-term. This man was a leading voice on the


review that the cap be raised, does -- accept that the system is broken?


If the lowest-earning graduates aren't going to pay the full costs


of higher education, and some can't pay anything at all the Government


has to pick up the cost. It means it is an expensive system for the


Government. That is the price we pay for hiving a high, well functioning


system of our education. Labour has a number of ways to address the


problem T could choose to cut tuition fees even further. It could


lower the repayment threshold, currently ?21,000, so graduates pay


it back. Or it could come up with an entirely new system, such as a


graduate tax. We are looking for a long-term and sustainable and


affordable model of funding. One of the difficulties with changes in


policies like this is it doesn't provide that degree of stability to


students, let alone universities. You have one cohort of students who


will pay a certain amount through their graduate contributions. And


another who will pay a totally different amount. It doesn't feel


fair to the students that they are studying alongside each other and


paying very different amounts. Labour knows that there is an


electoral market in the disillusioned it accident. That --


student. The direct appeal of cutting fees was to them. The party


knows it has borrowed votes from the Liberal Democrats, since they came


to power. It knows that radical reform to an unpopular policy could


help retain them. Where there are promises there are pitfalls? If you


bring the fees down to ?6,000, the Government lends less and borrows


less so the debt falls. However you have to make up the rest in grants


to universities, if you want them to get ?9,000, ?3,000 has to come from


public spending. In the short-term it adds to your deficit, turning a


loan into public spending. Labour's hungry for this bright, new voter,


but it knows its fiscal credibility will be key between now and the


writing of the next manifesto, expect to hear every variation of


idea. The one message it can't afford to the send the electorate


too late is the one that simply says "I'm sorry". With us now is David


Wiletts and the last Labour Government minister on innovation


and skills. How close are you to accepting the system doesn't work?


It does work, graduates repay, students don't pay up front, it


delivers high-quality teaching, well-funded universities, ensuring


students have better classes and labs. It is the case, is it not that


you were expecting perhaps 28-30% of the students weren't able to repay


their loans s that correct? Is that the working assumption? Every time


there is a new earnings forecast we recalculate the repayments over 30


years. It is true as earnings have not grown as much as was originally


forecast the ?21,000 repayment threshold has become higher. People


are expecting currently less to be repaid. What we are basically doing


here is forecasting an income tax receipt over the next 30 years.


Every six months in ray cordance to the rules we produce a new forecast


and it will carry on changing. Because of the changes in


employment. The figure is about 45%. That is the current estimate. I have


warned it will change. What makes it unviable? You have a glad wit


repayment -- graduate repayment scheme. And part of the scheme is if


graduates have low earnings they don't replay. That was clear from


the start? The exact calculation of how much they will pay will vary, as


earnings forecasts change. At what point does it become unviable? I


think this is a sol individual system. There is a big, there is an


answer to this, you must have done the sums? I'm telling you all three


political parties when faced with the challenge of repairing the


education came one this model. You haven't given me a number yet? I


don't think there is a number that answers your question. We have a


graduate repayment scheme. If we did as Labour are envisaging and went


down to ?6,000, you would write off all the money, you have to find an


extra pound ?3,000 to pay off the universities as a grant. Let's speak


to the man who used to sit in the seat you currently occupy. He seems


to enjoy sit ago I cross from you. You have been writing a report for


the Labour Party? I have been writing the report and I hope the


Labour Party will take it seriously. At what point do you think the


system sun viable. The situation we are in where the taxpayer borrows


?10 billion and writes off ?4. It would be better to borrow the money


and teach. Fees would fall and the universities would have much money


and graduates should pay back less. We should have the courage in my


view to switch from borrowing and cancelling money to spend money on


teaching students. Does Ed Miliband like this idea? He's listening, as


others are to what I'm proposing. They are listening to other people


with other model, we will have to see. What is clear in the last few


days is an appetite in the Labour Party for saying let's move in daven


direction. I think that is important and we have a way to go. This isn't


working brilliantly? What I don't understand in John's model, he talks


about the loans written off as if it is wasted money. But the ?9,000 fee


is all going to the education of the student. The student is getting more


funding behind his or her education than before we brought in the


system. We have students getting education for lower cost. I have


been able to show you can produce exactly the same amount of income


for universities as they have at the moment. But the Government on behalf


of the taxpayer borrows less money and graduates have lower fees. It is


a ridiculous level of waste in the system at the moment, wasteful of


public spending and wasteful for the graduates paying over the odds for


fees. No gut in university income. I don't think it is a waste to say if


you have low earnings you don't pay. Every six nineties with a new


earning forecast, exactly that change. It is what makes it


progressive. If you have low earnings you don't repay. That was


one of the learns. The film you showed of the students protesting, I


think they thought if they were in low paid jobs they would be


repaying. It is only when you earn ?21,000. If the fee is lower you pay


less money back, there is a the whole point. I would rather have a


system where students paid lower fees but a bigger percentage of the


fee back. Your system started out as a way of trying to save public money


and it has failed to do that? ? You still get the same income to


universities. What you have done is switch money from the waste of debt


cancellation into teaching. So the Government gives the money directly


to the university? Instead of the taxpayer borrowing a huge amount of


money and writing it off. The taxpayer borrows less money and goes


straight to the university. There is maintenance grants to help students


that they might be happy with that. Fees fall so much that a low income


student ends up at the end of their degree with just as much money to


live on but a lower overall debt. Provided each individual student


knows they have just as much money to live on but a lower overall debt


they are better off. That is counting fees as if it is the same


as maintenance. We have Ed Miliband saying when he was wanting election


said he would have a tax. We have fees with black hole in the finance,


we have John with his interest wheeze different from the other two


I don't know what it is that Labour are proposing, but I know what we


are offering. Better-funded universities, with a fair repayment


scheme. Can I ask you, are the universities asking you for the


limit to be raised? They are there are always universities, well


universities come to see me and obviously they all say they need


more money. What I say is ?9,000 is enough to educate a student in


Britain today. It is a fair deal apart from the high-cost subjects


which cost more and for them with adding the fund to go meet the extra


cost, indeed George Osborne in his Autumn Statement found extra money.


Let me ask you a financial question too, there is talk about Labour


bringing in a cap of say ?6,000 or ?6,000, we will find out later this


week. Should Labour go further? What in what way? Do you think a cap of


?6,000 is all right, or ?4,000? This is as you gathered through the


conversation a complicated system. But if you maximise the amount of


money you take out of debt cancellation and agency fees you can


bring it below ?6,000. It is slightly odd the system, the more


you make of big change the better it works. Trying to make changes at the


top costs a lot of public money. You can make a big change and I think we


should, but we will have to see what the Labour Party decides. There


comes a point when you have heard so many warnings of apocalypse that


there is a good chance of diminishing returns kicking in. The


scientists are more certain than every and the world solution. That


doesn't mean the apocalypse is any more likely to aright. The The


international panel of on climate change said it has human causes and


average temperatures rise and so does sea levels. In a noticeable


shift from previous reports, as well as encouraging politicians to cut


greenhouse gas, the authors say some changes are along the way we have to


adapt to. What does that mean? Will it work for everyone? Who will pay


for it. We report on a tale of two nation. This is what climate change


adaptation looks like. In the wilds of Exmoor a scheme to stop the


flooding we are experiencing. They are blocking up drainage dishes, the


plan is to capture rainfall in the bog and Moss that created it. This


Moss scores 20-tim its own weight in water. Every drop up here doesn't


end up in a flood downstream. We estimate when the restoration is


complete there is 6,000 Olympic swimming pools will be initially


stored up here. We can improve warming too. Here in Cranfield


university, they have created arch fish mini-fields and switched on the


rain. In the plot on the let the soil has been compacted by farm


reasonably. Compacted fields contribute to flooding. We have to


smart about managing soils and land. And good soil management is the key


to the rainfall events, and reduce the impact of the flooding we have


been HACHLTH It may not be marketed that way, about adaptation is under


way in many parts of the UK. Over in East London, for example, is the


Thames Barrier, it is a classic piece of hard engineering,


adaptation to climate change. Today work started on dredging the River


Parrot. Like many strategies protection against climate change is


part of a package of benefits. A rich nation like the UK have the


business adaptation well. Unlike Bangladesh, I visited these rues


fleeing from floods in the countryside. TRANSLATION: My sister


left her baby on the bed, she came back to see and the baby was gone.


The baby was swashed away and later on we found the body. Adaptation is


advanced in Bangladesh, it has to be. This British aid scheme helped


people on an island to build a platform to raise their homes. New


cyclone centres on the coast have saved thousands of lives. Now flood


tolerant rice has been developed. But the sea water is making farmland


unusable. Almost anybody you talk to in Bangladesh is familiar to the


project and will talk about how unjust it is that the bigger


countries are doing this. There is a strong feeling of injustice involved


in this. If we could move these people from the water's edge to


decent homes inland, we would improve their lives and adapt to


climate change. The win-win lauded in today's report. It takes money


that Bangladesh doesn't have. Where I feel disappointed is the global


leaders to have responsibility to reduce emissions so we don't have


the catastrophic impacts predicted in this report of the IPCC,


hopefully this report will ring alarm bells cloud enough to hear and


they will get over the deafness they seem to be expecting. The new parity


in the UN report of adaptation alongside emissions cuts is a


striking shift. Some willing with come its pragmatisim, and others say


it lets rich nations off the hook. It is a constant complaint from


parents as they watch their teenagers fingers engaged in


conversations with unseen others, you are addict to that thing! And


privately plenty of adults too wonder if there might genuinely be


an element of addiction in their devotion to social networks or


on-screen gaming. We asked a psychology what they made of it.


Through smartphone, apps and laptops, technology influences


almost every aspect of our lives. We are engaged politically, socially


and emotionally 24-hours a day, because of the technology


revolution. Our digital lives are just as full on as real world lives.


But the fear is that this new digital way of life, that we are all


exposed to, is in reality powerfully and dangerously addictive. For me


this is one of the most important issues concerning mental health.


However, in our overly diagnostic world, before we push to


memberedically label yet another one of our behaviours. I need to be


convinced, is there really something to fear. Is there something truly


inherently addicted about modern technology? Technology is so


immeshed in life, that it is becoming difficult to tell what is


normal use and what is obsessive and dangerous use. I'm meeting


self-confessed heavy users, are they addicts. How often are you using it


defer day? Pretty much -- every day. Pretty much all the time, I couldn't


tell you the amount of times I'm checking Facebook. I do too, even if


I'm board, you look straight at what people are doing it. You check it on


ran hourly basis, before you go to bed and after you get up. We are


going to see if they get rid of all data. It starts with deleting the


apps from their phones. I'm going to do it too, I feel I'm going to be


disconnected and I can't spy on my kids! It is definitely going to be


difficult to give it up. There is a difference between the annoyance of


losing a useful and enjoyable tool, and the physical and mental anguish


that comes from giving up something truly addictive. Most addictions in


the classic sense, such as to drugs, have a physical dimension, linked to


our inbuilt rewards system. So the rewards system in the brain is both


about pleasure and about motivation, so when we do certain behaviours


like eating, drinking and sex, natural chemicals are released that


both help us enjoy those behaviours but also motivate us to do them


again and again and again. This scam shows the rewards system in action,


areas of the brain that are flooded with the dopamine, the key element


of the rewards system. Recreational drugs stimulate massive reward


response, and the combined buzz and motivation is for some, powerfully


addicted. But this scan is actually not taken from a recreational drug


user, it is taken from a gambler. We are seeing a response in the rewards


system, a smaller one, but nevertheless a response from a


purely behavioural activity. It is It is one of the reasons why problem


gambling became one of the first memberedically recognised addictions


in 2013. Early studies are beginning to see the same response with


technology. Particularly when we look at internet gaming. Could that


response lead dictive-like behaviour. This scientist believes


it can. The gaming industry is adept with reward levels and dope in


dopamine hits. Especially if you have done something that gives you a


hit. Of course if you have it flowing through you, you want more


of it. Can you give me a few examples of negative outcomes?


Simply attendance at school tends fog, -- to go. Family life is


affected because they are not participating or coming down for


meals. When it gets really bad what are they doing to resist the


parental experience? I have had situations of knives being pulled on


parents because they are take ago I way their gaming advice. It is a


minefield to parent through that. Gaming addiction is the focus of


research to decide if it should join problem gambling as a recognised


condition. What about other elements of the feck neology revolution.


Where is the addictive trigger is something like social networking.


Many point to the ability to change the mood, the emotional boost and


sense of self-worth we get from peers, liking, sharing and


retweeting that we post. Then there is the thrill of finding if we have


found out we have had those comments, and driving us to log in


and keep posting. It may be be why social networking is so important.


But there isn't enough research to say anything. What is more important


is why the heavy use becomes addictive behaviour. Mark grief


faiths has been -- Griffiths who has been studying this for 25 years. My


argument is technology enhances and facilitates the vulnerability. It is


not to demonise the Internet, most of us use it and it is a positive


thing in our lives. One of the things I want to stress is doing


something a lot doesn't necessarily mean it is problematic. Genuine


internet addiction I would put it one tenth of a certificate. I hear


parents say there is nothing I can do the kid is an addict. If you put


the kid in front there is no way it is an addict. Can you understand why


there is an urge to memberedically label behaviour, particularly for


parents. Parents might use a label to justify or try to explain the


behaviour they are doing. Every week I get e-mails and without fail, from


parents, saying that my son or daughter is addicted to Facebook or


playing World of War craft. They will e-mail and say they are


watching three hours a day, I would say that is normal, is it affecting


their education or childhood friendships. If it is no to all


those questions to me it is not something parents see as a problem.


They need to take it on board that kids do this these days. How have


the heavy users fared, have they struggled to give up social media.


Did you manage to lapse or relapse? I didn't. A few urges but didn't act


on it. It has been refreshing to realise I could get rid of Facebook.


It took a little while. Now it is OK, but in the mornings, I still


check my phone. There is nothing to do and where's Facebook and Twitter.


It doesn't sound like it has been too give for you really. I have to


admit something to you all. You guys are in your early 20s, I'm in my


late 40s, I cracked. Obviously I'm just completely beyond help. I just


missed that kind of -- breadth of connection, and I felt incred below


disconnect #D. Even simply from my own experience, it is clear that


technology can have a powerful hold on us. But by labelling it as an I


diction, before we really understand the processes at work. We run the


risk of removing our own responsibility for how we use


technology. We are going through massive change in the way we live


our lives, because of this huge technological revolution. There are


those vulnerable and addicted to new pleasurable behaviours. We have a


duty of care. This is about adaptation, it is about


understanding our behaviour, not panicking about change and taking


personal responsibility. Responsibility as parent,


responsibility as individuals and as society as a whole. Could Adolf


Hitler have cut it as a stand-up comic. Apparently so if we are to


take a hugely successful comic novel does. Look Who's Back, imagine


Hitler on the loose and picked up by a concert promoter. German humour is


no laughing matter, but if they can see the funny side in his bone


headed offensiveness, is something changed. The Brits have been


fascinated by Hitler. I had do the funny walk. Hitler on ice! Hiel


myself, Hiel to me. I am # I'm the crowd Kraut out to change


history # Heil myself


# There is no greater dictator in the land.


Can you guess which one of those was the advertisment for the book Look


Who's Back. I have the author and a German author and journalist working


in the UK. What do you think the success of this book tells us about


Germany? It is hard to say. Obviously I have to, I think it is


something new for Germans. Mostly. Because I think it is telling the


story of Hitler, without telling what you should think of it. You


should have your own opinion and this is something unusual for


Germans, I think. What is your feeling about it? Well I read the


book, I felt it wasn't as successful as the other examples we have seen.


The difference for me is if you look at monthity python, the produce --


Monty Python, if you look at this book it is not really making fun of


Hitler, I'm not sure if it is meant to be a social satire or critque. It


wasn't clear who the butt of the joke was, but it was. For the


feeling that we are ridiculing the Nazis and there by taking them down


a peg or something. I didn't get it. What was the intention? Having fun


righting it, but quite soon I in theed that it was something


different, it was not making fun of Hitler, of course, it was just


showing his thoughts and showing the funny conflict with the MoD he were


society and the difficulties in finding out who he was. -- modern


society and the difficulties of finding out who he was. There is a


danger embarking on that sort of enterprise when it can be seen it is


diminishing the terrible things he did. He don't ever deny anything he


did. He is constantly throughout the whole book telling you he is doing


the same things again. Whatever he is doing in this book is in reaching


these old goals again. He makes no secret of this. Does he engage with


the Holocaust in your book? Of course, why shouldn't he. Why should


he deny T it is East proud of it, of -- he's proud of it of course. You


know it is the real Hitler and he will do it again. That is the scary


part in the book. Do you think it is easy for Germans to laugh at Hitler?


I'm German and it is easy to laugh at it. The way the Holocaust has


trothed, for me that was one of the real problems I had with it, there


is a scene where the fictional Hitler speaks to an elderly


Holocaust survivor, whose entire family perished in the Holocaust,


her granddaughter is a secretary, he goes to see this elderly laid year,


we hear it from the fictional Hitler perspective, he says after he told


her that her granddaughter was such great assistant and praised her, she


came around and she was fine with it. I felt in the scene who is the


butt of the joke who is shown as gullible. We are being encourage


today laugh at the elderly Holocaust survivor. When there are living


Holocaust survivors we could be listening to instead telling their


stories. It wasn't so much as are we allowed to laugh at Hitler, it was


more like who are we encourage today laugh at here. I know the scene you


are talking about, most people in that scene are expecting something.


Because the readers are the only ones knowing this is the real


Hitler. We are expecting this grandmother is take up the fight


instead of us. We are hoping she will do some resistance and show us


some sign of resistance, because we could close the book, or we should,


but we hope too much of this grandmother because for her it is


not the real Hitler, there is no such thing as time travelling. She


hasn't the advantage we have as a reader. That wasn't my expectation


as well, I wanted to find one drawn well Jewish character in the book.


I'm a Jew from North London, I didn't have expectation as what she


should say or take up as a fight. I thought just like a person, and we


have this person who appears for one stage and made to represent. It was


almost reading it as if the author decides there should be one


confrontation between Hitler victor and Holocaust victim. We don't know


anything about her. The second thing is quite right, the first part I


think it is difficult. The narrator is Hitler himself. You wouldn't


expect a fully pledged Jewish character telling the story. Maybe


it is not the problem it might be the limitation of the form.


This is the youth orchestra from Japan, performing at the south bang


this week, to raise awareness about the nuclear power station. Here they


are playing a piece called home. Good evening, but I think Tuesday is


going to be a


Download Subtitles