31/03/2014 Newsnight


31/03/2014

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!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Exchequer is going to make sure everyone has job.

:00:10.:00:12.

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

:00:13.:00:15.

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

:00:16.:00:20.

economics a situation in which all available labour resources are being

:00:21.:00:24.

used in the most economically efficient way. The Economic

:00:25.:00:27.

Secretary to the Treasury will doubtless have an even snappier

:00:28.:00:32.

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

:00:33.:00:36.

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

:00:37.:00:41.

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

:00:42.:00:52.

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

:00:53.:00:59.

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

:01:00.:01:02.

does George Osborne has had a conversion,

:01:03.:01:11.

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

:01:12.:01:15.

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

:01:16.:01:20.

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

:01:21.:01:23.

employment rate of any advanced economy. Another Tory Chancellor,

:01:24.:01:27.

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

:01:28.:01:33.

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

:01:34.:01:38.

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

:01:39.:01:56.

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

:01:57.:02:01.

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

:02:02.:02:06.

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

:02:07.:02:10.

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

:02:11.:02:15.

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

:02:16.:02:21.

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

:02:22.:02:25.

modern approach to full employment means backing business. Surprised,

:02:26.:02:31.

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

:02:32.:02:35.

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

:02:36.:02:39.

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

:02:40.:02:46.

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

:02:47.:02:53.

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

:02:54.:02:58.

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

:02:59.:03:02.

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

:03:03.:03:06.

employment meant zero. It was remarkably stable and low between

:03:07.:03:13.

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

:03:14.:03:17.

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

:03:18.:03:24.

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

:03:25.:03:28.

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

:03:29.:03:38.

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

:03:39.:03:41.

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

:03:42.:03:46.

seeing being created are more diverse and secure There are more

:03:47.:03:51.

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

:03:52.:03:58.

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

:03:59.:04:01.

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

:04:02.:04:05.

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

:04:06.:04:09.

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

:04:10.:04:13.

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

:04:14.:04:17.

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

:04:18.:04:23.

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

:04:24.:04:28.

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

:04:29.:04:33.

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

:04:34.:04:38.

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

:04:39.:04:43.

fulfilling employment by expanding employment and training

:04:44.:04:46.

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

:04:47.:04:52.

forebear, that did such damage. Rising unemployment and the

:04:53.:04:54.

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

:04:55.:05:00.

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

:05:01.:05:05.

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

:05:06.:05:09.

objective of Conservative Governments to minimise unemployment

:05:10.:05:14.

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

:05:15.:05:17.

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

:05:18.:05:20.

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

:05:21.:05:24.

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

:05:25.:05:30.

gain the Government already have established in gating jobs. What

:05:31.:05:36.

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

:05:37.:05:40.

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

:05:41.:05:44.

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

:05:45.:05:48.

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

:05:49.:05:53.

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

:05:54.:06:00.

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

:06:01.:06:04.

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

:06:05.:06:07.

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

:06:08.:06:12.

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

:06:13.:06:16.

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

:06:17.:06:19.

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

:06:20.:06:24.

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

:06:25.:06:28.

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

:06:29.:06:31.

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

:06:32.:06:34.

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

:06:35.:06:39.

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

:06:40.:06:47.

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

:06:48.:06:53.

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

:06:54.:06:56.

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

:06:57.:07:01.

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

:07:02.:07:06.

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

:07:07.:07:11.

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

:07:12.:07:14.

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

:07:15.:07:17.

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

:07:18.:07:21.

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

:07:22.:07:24.

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

:07:25.:07:28.

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

:07:29.:07:31.

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

:07:32.:07:35.

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

:07:36.:07:39.

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

:07:40.:07:43.

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

:07:44.:07:47.

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

:07:48.:07:55.

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

:07:56.:07:59.

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

:08:00.:08:02.

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

:08:03.:08:10.

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

:08:11.:08:13.

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

:08:14.:08:17.

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

:08:18.:08:21.

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

:08:22.:08:26.

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

:08:27.:08:30.

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

:08:31.:08:35.

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

:08:36.:08:41.

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

:08:42.:08:44.

unemployment figures, there are about two million students, about

:08:45.:08:47.

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

:08:48.:08:52.

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

:08:53.:08:55.

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

:08:56.:08:59.

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

:09:00.:09:02.

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

:09:03.:09:05.

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

:09:06.:09:11.

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

:09:12.:09:18.

policies we have announce today incentivise businesses to invest,

:09:19.:09:23.

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

:09:24.:09:27.

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

:09:28.:09:32.

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

:09:33.:09:36.

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

:09:37.:09:39.

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

:09:40.:09:44.

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

:09:45.:09:48.

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

:09:49.:09:53.

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

:09:54.:09:59.

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

:10:00.:10:04.

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

:10:05.:10:08.

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

:10:09.:10:15.

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

:10:16.:10:18.

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

:10:19.:10:22.

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

:10:23.:10:26.

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

:10:27.:10:30.

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

:10:31.:10:34.

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

:10:35.:10:37.

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

:10:38.:10:41.

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

:10:42.:10:44.

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

:10:45.:10:48.

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

:10:49.:10:52.

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

:10:53.:10:57.

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

:10:58.:11:04.

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

:11:05.:11:08.

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

:11:09.:11:11.

will create will go to native workers and what proportion would

:11:12.:11:20.

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

:11:21.:11:23.

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

:11:24.:11:29.

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

:11:30.:11:32.

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

:11:33.:11:36.

Statement, about incentivising business to create those jobs.

:11:37.:11:42.

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

:11:43.:11:46.

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

:11:47.:11:49.

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

:11:50.:11:54.

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

:11:55.:11:59.

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

:12:00.:12:04.

of political debate. After the fatuous attitude by the Liberal

:12:05.:12:07.

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

:12:08.:12:11.

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

:12:12.:12:18.

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

:12:19.:12:23.

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

:12:24.:12:29.

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

:12:30.:12:33.

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

:12:34.:12:38.

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

:12:39.:12:44.

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

:12:45.:12:49.

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

:12:50.:12:53.

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

:12:54.:12:58.

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

:12:59.:13:02.

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

:13:03.:13:05.

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

:13:06.:13:10.

epitomising the problem. When the coalition proposed to triple the

:13:11.:13:14.

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

:13:15.:13:24.

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

:13:25.:13:29.

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

:13:30.:13:34.

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

:13:35.:13:38.

that they would underestimate the toxicity of this issue at their

:13:39.:13:43.

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

:13:44.:13:50.

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

:13:51.:13:54.

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

:13:55.:13:58.

admitted it got the numbers badly wrong. When the Government

:13:59.:14:02.

introduced the new tuition fees system, and increasing them to

:14:03.:14:07.

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

:14:08.:14:10.

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

:14:11.:14:13.

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

:14:14.:14:17.

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

:14:18.:14:21.

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

:14:22.:14:28.

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

:14:29.:14:39.

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

:14:40.:14:44.

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

:14:45.:14:47.

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

:14:48.:14:50.

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

:14:51.:14:55.

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

:14:56.:14:59.

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

:15:00.:15:03.

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

:15:04.:15:08.

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

:15:09.:15:15.

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

:15:16.:15:19.

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

:15:20.:15:22.

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

:15:23.:15:27.

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

:15:28.:15:30.

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

:15:31.:15:35.

will pay a certain amount through their graduate contributions. And

:15:36.:15:39.

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

:15:40.:15:43.

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

:15:44.:15:46.

paying very different amounts. Labour knows that there is an

:15:47.:15:51.

electoral market in the disillusioned it accident. That --

:15:52.:15:57.

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

:15:58.:16:01.

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

:16:02.:16:03.

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

:16:04.:16:10.

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

:16:11.:16:15.

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

:16:16.:16:20.

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

:16:21.:16:26.

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

:16:27.:16:29.

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

:16:30.:16:35.

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

:16:36.:16:40.

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

:16:41.:16:43.

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

:16:44.:16:48.

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

:16:49.:16:53.

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

:16:54.:17:07.

Wiletts and the last Labour Government minister on innovation

:17:08.:17:11.

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

:17:12.:17:15.

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

:17:16.:17:20.

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

:17:21.:17:23.

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

:17:24.:17:29.

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

:17:30.:17:34.

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

:17:35.:17:39.

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

:17:40.:17:42.

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

:17:43.:17:48.

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

:17:49.:17:51.

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

:17:52.:17:57.

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

:17:58.:18:00.

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

:18:01.:18:04.

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

:18:05.:18:12.

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

:18:13.:18:16.

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

:18:17.:18:21.

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

:18:22.:18:25.

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

:18:26.:18:31.

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

:18:32.:18:34.

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

:18:35.:18:40.

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

:18:41.:18:44.

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

:18:45.:18:52.

political parties when faced with the challenge of repairing the

:18:53.:18:57.

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

:18:58.:19:02.

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

:19:03.:19:05.

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

:19:06.:19:11.

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

:19:12.:19:19.

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

:19:20.:19:24.

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

:19:25.:19:29.

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

:19:30.:19:32.

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

:19:33.:19:36.

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

:19:37.:19:45.

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

:19:46.:19:52.

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

:19:53.:20:00.

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

:20:01.:20:03.

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

:20:04.:20:08.

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

:20:09.:20:12.

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

:20:13.:20:17.

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

:20:18.:20:21.

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

:20:22.:20:24.

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

:20:25.:20:33.

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

:20:34.:20:38.

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

:20:39.:20:44.

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

:20:45.:20:51.

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

:20:52.:20:56.

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

:20:57.:21:03.

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

:21:04.:21:06.

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

:21:07.:21:09.

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

:21:10.:21:15.

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

:21:16.:21:19.

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

:21:20.:21:24.

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

:21:25.:21:29.

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

:21:30.:21:33.

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

:21:34.:21:36.

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

:21:37.:21:39.

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

:21:40.:21:45.

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

:21:46.:21:48.

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

:21:49.:21:53.

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

:21:54.:21:58.

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

:21:59.:22:02.

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

:22:03.:22:07.

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

:22:08.:22:15.

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

:22:16.:22:18.

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

:22:19.:22:25.

cancellation into teaching. So the Government gives the money directly

:22:26.:22:28.

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

:22:29.:22:33.

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

:22:34.:22:40.

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

:22:41.:22:48.

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

:22:49.:22:53.

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

:22:54.:23:01.

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

:23:02.:23:04.

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

:23:05.:23:09.

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

:23:10.:23:15.

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

:23:16.:23:20.

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

:23:21.:23:23.

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

:23:24.:23:26.

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

:23:27.:23:30.

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

:23:31.:23:34.

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

:23:35.:23:40.

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

:23:41.:23:44.

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

:23:45.:23:50.

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

:23:51.:23:53.

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

:23:54.:23:58.

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

:23:59.:24:03.

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

:24:04.:24:07.

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

:24:08.:24:13.

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

:24:14.:24:17.

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

:24:18.:24:23.

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

:24:24.:24:28.

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

:24:29.:24:33.

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

:24:34.:24:37.

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

:24:38.:24:41.

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

:24:42.:24:45.

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

:24:46.:24:49.

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

:24:50.:24:56.

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

:24:57.:25:01.

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

:25:02.:25:08.

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

:25:09.:25:13.

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

:25:14.:25:19.

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

:25:20.:25:23.

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

:25:24.:25:28.

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

:25:29.:25:33.

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

:25:34.:25:39.

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

:25:40.:25:44.

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

:25:45.:25:59.

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

:26:00.:26:06.

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

:26:07.:26:13.

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

:26:14.:26:23.

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

:26:24.:26:30.

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

:26:31.:26:37.

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

:26:38.:26:43.

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

:26:44.:26:50.

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

:26:51.:26:57.

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

:26:58.:27:03.

reasonably. Compacted fields contribute to flooding. We have to

:27:04.:27:10.

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

:27:11.:27:15.

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

:27:16.:27:19.

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

:27:20.:27:24.

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

:27:25.:27:28.

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

:27:29.:27:37.

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

:27:38.:27:42.

Parrot. Like many strategies protection against climate change is

:27:43.:27:46.

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

:27:47.:27:58.

business adaptation well. Unlike Bangladesh, I visited these rues

:27:59.:28:05.

fleeing from floods in the countryside. TRANSLATION: My sister

:28:06.:28:12.

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

:28:13.:28:17.

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

:28:18.:28:22.

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

:28:23.:28:29.

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

:28:30.:28:34.

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

:28:35.:28:40.

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

:28:41.:28:49.

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

:28:50.:28:53.

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

:28:54.:28:57.

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

:28:58.:29:00.

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

:29:01.:29:05.

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

:29:06.:29:10.

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

:29:11.:29:14.

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

:29:15.:29:19.

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

:29:20.:29:23.

the catastrophic impacts predicted in this report of the IPCC,

:29:24.:29:28.

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

:29:29.:29:34.

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

:29:35.:29:41.

in the UN report of adaptation alongside emissions cuts is a

:29:42.:29:45.

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

:29:46.:29:51.

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

:29:52.:29:56.

parents as they watch their teenagers fingers engaged in

:29:57.:29:59.

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

:30:00.:30:05.

privately plenty of adults too wonder if there might genuinely be

:30:06.:30:09.

an element of addiction in their devotion to social networks or

:30:10.:30:18.

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

:30:19.:30:22.

Through smartphone, apps and laptops, technology influences

:30:23.:30:28.

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

:30:29.:30:34.

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

:30:35.:30:36.

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

:30:37.:30:42.

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

:30:43.:30:48.

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

:30:49.:30:53.

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

:30:54.:30:57.

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

:30:58.:31:00.

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

:31:01.:31:04.

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

:31:05.:31:11.

inherently addicted about modern technology? Technology is so

:31:12.:31:18.

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

:31:19.:31:24.

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

:31:25.:31:28.

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

:31:29.:31:35.

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

:31:36.:31:39.

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

:31:40.:31:43.

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

:31:44.:31:50.

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

:31:51.:31:57.

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

:31:58.:32:10.

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

:32:11.:32:14.

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

:32:15.:32:19.

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

:32:20.:32:22.

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

:32:23.:32:26.

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

:32:27.:32:33.

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

:32:34.:32:40.

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

:32:41.:32:44.

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

:32:45.:32:49.

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

:32:50.:32:55.

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

:32:56.:32:59.

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

:33:00.:33:04.

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

:33:05.:33:12.

of the rewards system. Recreational drugs stimulate massive reward

:33:13.:33:17.

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

:33:18.:33:21.

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

:33:22.:33:27.

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

:33:28.:33:32.

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

:33:33.:33:38.

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

:33:39.:33:43.

gambling became one of the first memberedically recognised addictions

:33:44.:33:46.

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

:33:47.:33:50.

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

:33:51.:33:57.

response lead dictive-like behaviour. This scientist believes

:33:58.:34:06.

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

:34:07.:34:16.

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

:34:17.:34:20.

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

:34:21.:34:24.

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

:34:25.:34:30.

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

:34:31.:34:38.

affected because they are not participating or coming down for

:34:39.:34:42.

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

:34:43.:34:48.

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

:34:49.:34:52.

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

:34:53.:34:55.

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

:34:56.:35:00.

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

:35:01.:35:03.

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

:35:04.:35:09.

Where is the addictive trigger is something like social networking.

:35:10.:35:13.

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

:35:14.:35:17.

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

:35:18.:35:22.

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

:35:23.:35:29.

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

:35:30.:35:36.

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

:35:37.:35:43.

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

:35:44.:35:47.

is why the heavy use becomes addictive behaviour. Mark grief

:35:48.:35:55.

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

:35:56.:36:02.

argument is technology enhances and facilitates the vulnerability. It is

:36:03.:36:06.

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

:36:07.:36:10.

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

:36:11.:36:15.

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

:36:16.:36:21.

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

:36:22.:36:25.

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

:36:26.:36:30.

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

:36:31.:36:35.

there is an urge to memberedically label behaviour, particularly for

:36:36.:36:45.

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

:36:46.:36:48.

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

:36:49.:36:53.

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

:36:54.:37:01.

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

:37:02.:37:05.

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

:37:06.:37:09.

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

:37:10.:37:13.

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

:37:14.:37:19.

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

:37:20.:37:26.

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

:37:27.:37:38.

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

:37:39.:37:43.

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

:37:44.:37:46.

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

:37:47.:37:51.

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

:37:52.:37:56.

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

:37:57.:38:02.

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

:38:03.:38:07.

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

:38:08.:38:15.

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

:38:16.:38:19.

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

:38:20.:38:22.

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

:38:23.:38:28.

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

:38:29.:38:32.

risk of removing our own responsibility for how we use

:38:33.:38:38.

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

:38:39.:38:43.

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

:38:44.:38:48.

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

:38:49.:38:52.

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

:38:53.:38:56.

understanding our behaviour, not panicking about change and taking

:38:57.:38:59.

personal responsibility. Responsibility as parent,

:39:00.:39:03.

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

:39:04.:39:10.

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

:39:11.:39:19.

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

:39:20.:39:27.

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

:39:28.:39:33.

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

:39:34.:39:38.

headed offensiveness, is something changed. The Brits have been

:39:39.:39:51.

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

:39:52.:40:16.

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

:40:17.:40:23.

history # Heil myself

:40:24.:40:26.

# There is no greater dictator in the land.

:40:27.:40:45.

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

:40:46.:40:55.

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

:40:56.:40:59.

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

:41:00.:41:07.

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

:41:08.:41:12.

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

:41:13.:41:17.

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

:41:18.:41:22.

should have your own opinion and this is something unusual for

:41:23.:41:25.

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

:41:26.:41:35.

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

:41:36.:41:40.

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

:41:41.:41:46.

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

:41:47.:41:51.

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

:41:52.:41:56.

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

:41:57.:42:01.

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

:42:02.:42:08.

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

:42:09.:42:13.

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

:42:14.:42:18.

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

:42:19.:42:24.

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

:42:25.:42:30.

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

:42:31.:42:38.

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

:42:39.:42:45.

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

:42:46.:42:49.

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

:42:50.:42:56.

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

:42:57.:43:01.

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

:43:02.:43:08.

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

:43:09.:43:14.

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

:43:15.:43:20.

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

:43:21.:43:24.

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

:43:25.:43:28.

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

:43:29.:43:38.

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

:43:39.:43:43.

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

:43:44.:43:48.

is a scene where the fictional Hitler speaks to an elderly

:43:49.:43:53.

Holocaust survivor, whose entire family perished in the Holocaust,

:43:54.:43:57.

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

:43:58.:44:03.

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

:44:04.:44:07.

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

:44:08.:44:11.

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

:44:12.:44:15.

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

:44:16.:44:19.

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

:44:20.:44:24.

Holocaust survivors we could be listening to instead telling their

:44:25.:44:31.

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

:44:32.:44:36.

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

:44:37.:44:40.

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

:44:41.:44:48.

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

:44:49.:44:51.

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

:44:52.:44:55.

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

:44:56.:45:01.

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

:45:02.:45:06.

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

:45:07.:45:12.

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

:45:13.:45:16.

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

:45:17.:45:24.

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

:45:25.:45:29.

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

:45:30.:45:33.

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

:45:34.:45:39.

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

:45:40.:45:43.

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

:45:44.:45:50.

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

:45:51.:45:55.

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

:45:56.:46:02.

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

:46:03.:46:08.

expect a fully pledged Jewish character telling the story. Maybe

:46:09.:46:13.

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

:46:14.:46:39.

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

:46:40.:46:51.

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

:46:52.:46:53.

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

:46:54.:47:56.

going to be a

:47:57.:47:57.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS