22/04/2014 Newsnight


The clash between money and football following the sacking of David Moyes. Is the National Union of Teachers about to turn left? Robots and the future of work.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/04/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Game over! David Moyes is out, but whoever will be in next at


Manchester United they will need to perform and fast. But do we all lose


out if we are just unwilling to wait for success? We will talk to the


City financier, one of the Red Knights who tried and failed to buy


the club in 2010. Michael Gove, the demented Dalek on speed! Teaching


unions often want to exterminate Education Secretaries, but is the


National Union of Teachers also on track to poison itself as candidates


from left-wing militants push for control. Technology is meant to make


everything so much easier, everything apart from finding a job.


There is no economic law that says everyone will benefit from


technology, it is possible for some people, even possibly the majority


of people to be made worse off. And industrial action at 30,000 feet.


After more than a dozen mountain guides lose their lives in an of a


large, Sherpas say they won't take climbers up Everest unless their


lives improve. We will seek the views of climbers who have reached


the summit themselves. Good evening, the moment the manager


loses his authority you don't have a club. Sir Alex Fergsuon didn't


intend that as a warning to his hand-picked successor, but it might


as well have been. David Moyes was uncermoniously shoved out of the


UK's wealthiest club after only ten torrid months in the club. If the


club's billionare owners ever had much faith in him, it didn't last


long. Once senior players started to lose faith the game was up. Now


football is a multi-billion, rather than a beautiful game, who can we


really expect to lead them? To admiring spectators Old Trafford


is the theatre of dreams, but not for manager David Moyes. On his way


out with fans' derision ringing in his ears. Easter is a time of


renewal of course, but this isn't what Moyes had in mind, his team


beaten 2-0 by his old team, Everton, out of the lucrative Champions


League for the first time in 19 years, and looking for a new


manager. Old Blue Eyes is sacked. So was it down to his failings as a


leader? I think the leadership of any football manager at any football


club is critical. That person is the standard bearer for everything the


players do on the pitch. Now you will have players who will assume


leadership roles on the field of play. But they are not ultimately


responsible for the results. It is the results that matter to football


clubs. And if you don't get the results, then you hit the cutting


room floor. Cartoonist Paul Wood, whose strips inspired by the


Premiership appear in Private Eye, have drawn these especially for


Newsnight. "Actually I'm a bit embarrassed by that one, it was a


very bad year". We put a huge amount of importance in what the manager


does. Everyone assumes that it was David Moyes who guided his team to


victory, or David Moyes who allowed his team to flop and defeat. Where


does this idea come from? Was he playing? He was just standing on the


touch-line and maybe giving a few words at half time. We did a study


that suggested a lot of players can't understand what the manager is


saying at half time and it doesn't matter if they do or don't. It is


not only leaders in sport who know the pain of following a proven


winner. But analysts of management technique say there is more to it


than personality and character. Business and politics and sport are


competitive activities. You only have to do better than the


opponents, it doesn't mean you have to be an extraordinary team


yourself, you just have to be less bad than your opponents. This is


where the mythology of great leaders is built up. Arguably Margaret


Thatcher and Tony Blair both faced enfeebled oppositions at the height


of their powers. It doesn't mean we were genius leaders or invisible or


conquering characters t just means they were much better than what they


were facing. Politicians and share advisers invest heavily in the image


of leadership. Here are messers Cameron and Osbourne, as men of


action and purpose today. But the rest of us follow suit, say some.


Political leadership is absolutely critical to a party's election


success, all of us as voters put a huge amount of emphasis on leaders.


Are we right to do that? Do we put too much emphasis on the character


of a leader, rather than the team or the ideolgical presumptions or the


interest groups, or as with this Government for example the period


through which they were governing, or the size of their majority, which


has probably had a bigger influence on how they performed that has the


personality or otherwise of David Cameron. In football more than


politics all careers end in fail arcs -- failure, as Enoch Powell


almost said. One day you are the anointed one appointed by your


predecessor, and the next you are out the door with only a ?5 million


pay-out to cushion the blow. This was, of course, Sir Alex


Fergsuon's own succession plan, why did it go so badly wrong. With us is


one of the so called Red Knights who tried to buy the club in 2010,


Alison Rudd a sports columnist for the Times, and Bill George a former


fortune 500 CEO and Professor of Management at Harvard Business


School. You are fan of businessmen, someone who wanted to have a slice


of the club. In your view was it a business or football decision? First


of all I wanted the supporters to have a slice of the club, that was


the key thing about the Red Knights. This is partly sport and partly


money, the two cannot be separated today. And the key, the drivers of


success of a club on the field is overwhelmingly the squad and the


amount of money that is spent on the squad. The key issue for Manchester


United is that in 2005 they were taken over in a leveraged buyout,


there was ?600 million plus put into the club, which meant they could no


longer compete in the way they should have been able to do. You


referred to them earlier as the wealthiest club in Britain. They are


by revenue, if you look at their balance sheet they are one of the


poorest. Because they have got far too much debt which, means they have


underspent against all of the main peers. The record is not too shabby,


doesn't this show leadership as well as money matters. Because Alex


Fergsuon was able to bring in silverwear although they were


underspent? The people who write about soccer say the management


accounts for 10% of the performance of club. Fergsuon was an exceptional


manage e not good at succession planning, but an exceptional


manager. Overperformed compared with the budget we have spent. We have


been underspending for several years now compared with other British


clubs, let alone the Europeans. What is the danger of Manchester United


having done this. The whole point of the long legacy, giving Alex


Fergsuon a lot of time to bed in when he started. Will they come like


other clubs with short-term attention spans and a short-term


cycle? That is not bad thing, that is the way football is shifting. You


can't suddenly say we would like to have a long legacy it was accidental


that Fergsuon was able to give them that. Wasn't that the point of


giving Moyes a six-year contract? Yes, but you could also argue nobody


really, really believed it. What Moyes has ended up being is a buffer


between Fergsuon, the man nobody wants to take over from, and the


next man, who will probably be there for two or three years F he did stay


there for two or three years they are considered a success. They are


out of fashion now these empires. Most Arsenal fans are getting very


tired of the Arsene Wenger empire. They would actually vote for a new


manager to come in, who hadn't been there 15 years. They would be quite


happy for someone to come for two or three years and bring in silverwear,


and move on somewhere else. Nobody minds that any more. Bill George how


do you succeed when the predecessor was so successful, such an


exceptional leader that continued to outperform, is it impossible? No, it


is not impossible. But I have an empathy for Moys, who is following


-- Moyes who is following a legend in Alex Fergsuon. We wrote a case


about him at Harvard because of their leadership. I disagree, it is


about leadership and the money will follow the leadership and anyone who


can win the Premier League 13 out of 26 years and two Champions Leagues


is a real leader who can align and bring people together. Moyes


couldn't do. That he didn't get the best out of his players, he didn't


inspire them, and the result is he's out. It is no different than a CEO,


you look at how Paul Pullman has turned around Unilever because of


his leadership. He has to perform too, that is what is happening.


Arsene Wenger has performed and it is a big challenge now for


Manchester United to find someone who can take it back to the levels


Sir Alex guided the club to and made it the most successful club in the


world. Why are successful leaders often so bad for planning what


happens after them. We have seen company after company after company,


Apple, Microsoft, Tesco's here in the UK, many struggle after the


superstar boss moves on? First of all it shouldn't be his call, it


should be the board's call to bring in the right leader and find the


right person. Look at what Chelsea did going after Jose Mourinho, they


wanted a winner, and they got a winner. I think the same thing will


happen after here. It is hard to follow a legend, it is hard to carry


on. It is a challenge, but it can be done. It was done in Novartis and


General Electric. It can be done here. Look at what is happening in


Bayern Munich, not shabby club, and look Pep Guardiola has put together


an undefeated season. They finally lost and it will be a great game


this week, but you are seeing what leadership really matters whether it


is in football or in business or in Government or in life. Leaders


matter and the kind of leadership Sir Alex represented is far superior


to what David Moyes unfortunately represented, so we're going to have


to find new leadership here. What do you say to that? Under your view a


big part of the problem at Manchester United is the structure


of the whole thing? Well, it is both, I don't want to create a


disagreement where there isn't one, essentially today there are


eight-to-ten clubs that dominate in Europe, arguably four, and they are


dominant because of money. It is economics that drives that. You have


a small number of leaders who have emerged as the top managers and


Theroux Tating around the clubs and they are succeeding each other at


different clubs and United made the mistake of appointing somebody who


had never won anything. He was not a proven leader at all. In that sense


it was a mistake. Now in terms of models of football clubs, there are


four models of football clubs in Europe, there is the supporter-based


club, Barcelona, ideally. There is the German model, 50% owned by


supporters and 50 plus one owned by the supporter, there is the


benefactor model, which is most British clerks somebody puts in a


lot of money. There is the malafactor money, Liverpool and


historically Manchester United, they are unique, the money is taken out


of the club. All of those models have successful clubs? You can


decline for many years like Liverpool if you have the wrong


ownership. In United's case it is a great irony, in the NFL you have a


limited to the amount of debt in a club $150 million. The only two


clubs in Europe which have had leveraged buyout, Liverpool and


Manchester United. They were taken over by Americans applying financial


market real practices to a community-based activity. What are


the lessons from how this is handled, it was said that it was a


mistake to hire Moyes because he hadn't won anything. Are there wider


lessons here? Yeah, people have to acknowledge football is changing. We


have entered a clipboard manager revolution, to be honest. You can


come through as a younger manager, you don't necessarily have to do the


"I have got my trophies to show you routine", but you can say "I've done


my homework". Jose Mourinho at Chelsea is the ultimate example. You


don't have to have a stellar playing career, but you need to show a


passion, and you have the star quality to pull it off. They are


popping up all over the place managers. People know as managers


that is what they are good at. They are not people you remember holding


up a trophy at Wembley, they never did. That but they were good at


going into people's office, doing the homework, learning from the


greats and putting a package together. Paul, finally to you,


whoever the next manager is would you and your comrade who is were


part of the Red Knights bid, would you consider putting in another


deal? It has to be the right price and with the supporters. The idea is


that the supporters have a say in the affairs of their club. At the


moment Manchester United's owners hardly even set foot in man Chester.


If you do come back to us. I agree with that Paul. That's all we have


time for, but Bill George in America, Paul Marshall and Alison


Rudd thank you for coming in. The Geneva deal struck last Weir


over Ukraine already looked unconvincing, but tonight it feels


almost like it wasn't even worth the paper it was writ on. The acting


President has relaunched military operations against the pro-Russian


sim thighesers in the east of the country. Oleksandr Turchynov's


decision came after a politician from his own party was found dead,


appearing to have been tortured. What does this announcement tonight


mean? How important is it? The Geneva deal was meant to have given


a road map for de-escalation of the crisis. Now it forms almost a point


for new recriminations. The signatories agreed to restrain from


violence and terrorist acts. Now you have this anti-terrorist action


being launched in response to two murdered officials. You have Ukraine


saying its National Guard battalion, these are the activists, they are in


the east and ready to start the operation. And you have new


rhetorical attacks today from the acting Prime Minister, Arseniy


Yatsenyuk. "In this century and in the world we


live in, no-one should be able to act like gangsters".


What about the allegations that Russian forces have been directly


involved in eastern Ukraine? There are two sides to the story, and


nobody is taking the Geneva agreement seriously. The Russian


side was expected by the EU, the US, the Ukrainians to vacate Government


buildings, which they haven't done over the weekend. They have also


been presenting new evidence, gathered by Ukrainian Security


Services and amateur sleuths, that groups from Russian military


intelligence, the GRU Special Forces have been active in fermenting this


trouble. Now today some new pictures appeared, these two individuals


here, and the beard-spotters, if we may call them that in Ukraine, have


tied them to images which they have previously harvested from social


media. If we look back at the next image we can see in the bottom of


the screen, two photos, taken of a Russian GRU Special Forces unit


before this whole Ukrainian crisis started up, on an exercise in


Russia. Which the Ukrainians say those two individuals we first saw


can be spotted in those pictures. They have also tied these


individuals, if we look further on here, to an operation, one of them


in particular on the left of the screen there, to an operation in


Georgia in 2008. Their argument is this is not just spontaneous,


co-ordination and key roles are being played by Russian troops,


belonging to this special unit, and that's a view that America buys, for


example today the US Vice President in Kiev, Joe Biden. We call on


Russia to stop supporting men, hiding behind masks in unmarked


uniforms, sewing unrest in eastern Ukraine. And there are also reports


tonight that American journalists is being held. That will inflame things


further? There have been two Ukrainian journalists detained and


tonight, a man called Simon from Vice News, he has contributed to


this programme. He is said to have been detained, it is said to be a


provocative act. But they would see it as a response to the visit of the


Vice President to Kiev. The National Union of Teachers'


members traditionally spend Easter enjoying each other's company at


their annual meeting. This week they confirmed yet again they are going


on strike, and yet again they confirmed they de despised Michael


Gove, the Education Secretary. Nothing new there, but the union is


the closest thing teachers have to an official voice. And they are


considering elect Agnew General Secretary from what was once called


the militant tendency. Who wouldn't have wanted a day out


in Brighton this weekend, thousands of teachers certainly did, they were


in town for the National Union of Teachers' conference. But, while


these people relax by the seaside, the biggest teaching union was


inside debating pensions, pay and workload. And, if you read between


the lines they were also arguing about whether they want their union


to be led by the ultra left. Turning up to the conference it is pretty


obvious that some unusual political groups are strongly represented. The


hard left has now built up a majority on the union's executive.


There is an element of the People's Front of Judea and the Judean


People's Front for some of it. People like the Socialist Workers'


Party, the SocialIst Party, and the alliance for liberty are well


represented. When you get them into the conference room, many are


unsubtle about their radicalism. Not even their language is moderate.


Michael Gove, the demented Dalek on speed, who wants to exterminate


anything good in education that came along since the 1950s! I would


submit that teachers never like to withdraw their labour. This former


NUT General Secretary fought the hard left for his whole career, but,


he says, its current domination of the union is something quite new.


When I first came to the union, you had a prominent Conservative who had


been the treasurer, the President became a treasurer, he had another


honour as President. Within the membership in various parts of the


country some quite strong Conservative membership, they


haven't all gone away. What they are not doing is playing as big a part


in the union as they used to. I think because of the discontents


within the profession, and the pressure us on the profession, and


NUT members, it is still a very large membership, are such that they


are not turning up to meeting and voting on the scale they should.


Which only helps the more extreme left and the moderate left has lost


some ground as well. Surveys show teachers are a bit more left of


centre than most. But they include a sizeable minority of Conservatives


and UKIP voters. That is definitely not reflected at the NUT. Senior NUT


officials say because their union is the largest teachers' union, that


makes them is a particular target for some hard left groups. And


things may be about to get more extreme. This summer the General


Secretary, Christine Blower, will need to fight to keep her role.


She's on the hard left herself, but is being challenged from her own


left-wing, by Martin Powell Davies, he's part of the Socialist Party,


the group once known as the militant tendency. What we are debating this


afternoon is my idea and others who support me, is that you can't simply


have occasional one-day protest strikes, you actually need to step


one a calendar and series of strikes until the Government has to take


notice. That is what we are ever. After. He thinks the public would


support longer strikes? I would say if you are on in London on the day


of the tube strikes you would see the big amount of support. Everyone


knows pay is cut and jobs are under threat, people respect people who


will stand up for themselves and good luck to them. That is what we


found on the picket lines on March 26th. Mr Powell Davies sun likely to


win, but de-- is unlikely to win, but it has already become a battle


between organised hard left factions. These people, leaping up


are so called floor managers, they are a so called whip for one of the


factions. They call votes that allow their blocks to manage the pace of


debate. Fred Jarvis thinks that at root it is union members' lack of


interest that is helping to give these groups a free rein. In my time


there was hardly ever an occasion when you had candidates who returned


unopposed, this time there are about 20. Returned unopposed. Some of them


from the ultra left. This is reminiscent to me of student


politics? Not in my time. When I ran the NUS, I ran against a communist


and we beat them. The unions' revolutionary zeal has already led


several NUT moderates to leave in he can SAS persituation racial. --


exasperation, more strikes and militancy they say will upset


parents. And while the NUT has picked fights on pensions and pay,


it really isn't winning them. They ask who exactly are they


representing? With us to debate that are our


guest, we have the deputy General Secretary of the NUT, and John Blake


one of the prominent NUT moderates who has recently left over precisely


these kinds of concerns. Kevin, listening to that, hearing again


that the NUT is planning to strike, hearing again that they are


resisting basically all the Government's changes, and hearing


that there are militants standing. Parents would be forgiven for


thinking you are obsessed with your own left-wing politics rather than


standards in the classroom and what is best for children? Well, if that


was the entirely accurate picture of the weekend, maybe they would have


justification. We spent time debating whether four is too young


to test children. We have been debating the questions of primary


curriculum and assessment. We are debating that Michael Gove is giving


?45 million to the Harris Academy chain. And voting to strike again


and hearing from militants who are planning to stand as candidates, you


are still advocating policies like, that suggesting that Bob Crow is a


good model? We have been discussing further strike action. You have to


understand why that is. Since Michael Gove came to power eacher


workloads have gone up by 10-20%. Those extra hours primary teachers


are working 60 hours a week. The extra hours are not spent on


preparing exciting lessons for children. John is one of the


moderates, we believe you were forced out because of the rising


tide of militancy, what is your experience? My experience is, I


joined in 2005, it was an organisation then thinly tethered to


reality. By the time I left it had detatched itself entirely.


Conference is extremely unpleasant. If you are not willing to walk in


the orthodoxy of the NUT it is a very narrow idea of what it means to


be left-wing, of what it means to be a teacher, and what it means to be a


teacher-activist. I give you one example, I gave a speech at one


conference in which I suggested that a group of teachers talking about


going out on a general strike was not helpful to the union or Labour


movement, and I was denounced and denounced by the leader of the


moderate fraction on the executive as outrageously right-wing. It is


ridiculous. Are you proud of that someone saying they can't stand up


and say what they say? I don't recognise that, John was the NUT rep


where I was branch secretary. I encouraged John on to the local


community and into the party because we are a broad church. John has


decided to leave the NUT. Is it a broad church? I will say this about


Kevin and Kevin is a very kind and generous trade union activist, but


the branch where we were both members, after I went to conference


the first time attempted to bring in a motion to ban people speaking on


issues that had been predecided in tiny meetings that took place long


before conference started. Who then is the NUT representing? If there is


no place for moderates like John, which clearly he feels seriously


there is not. Who do you purport to be representing? John has chosen to


leave, he's not just criticising the NUT, it is the NASWT, saying that it


was wrong to say teacher morale is so low. Generally teachers are being


represented by the NUT, the voice of the teacher in classrooms around


England and Wales is being represented effectively, and you


have not been able to block academy schools, which you wanted, or free


schools, and the pension and pay policies going ahead? We have


representation in the free schools and in the academies, our joint


strike action with the ATL improved the position on pensions. The joint


boycott of the Sats with the NHT has worked to a point. We have stopped


teacher review bodies and damaging teacher relations. It was a huge


setback for Michael Gove for that body to go back in the way it did.


Kevin is massively overstating the case, striking with the ATL made


slight and important differences to the pension campaign, but it was


Kevin and others who decided the NUT would carry that on to this point


where it is another round of strike action, but because they didn't get


very far on pensions we will add something else into it, this time it


will be about workload or something else. It is not the case that the


sats point and the NASWHT won't working with the NUT on certain


things. Because the NUT is in a militant position and detatched from


teachers, classroom and the mainstream of politics completely.


He's completely wrong about them not being wanting to work to with us. I


would like to put a particular point to you John. As a union and


membership organisation isn't it, however, entirely the NUT's role to


be bolshi, and radical in order to affect change. Maybe your party


because you represent Labour teachers was doing a better job of


opposing reforms, then you wouldn't have been to be so spiky. In one


sense you are correct, it is their problem if the they wondered off and


have no political power. But we are seen as a represent voice by the


public and teachers, we need a voice that is sensible and capable of


engaging with Government policy and being proactive and forward


thinking. You talked about the overwhelming opposition to


academies, there are thousands who work in academies, where are they


getting the representation. They are represented at conference. When was


the last time f you can remember, that the NUT actually supported a


Government policy? Let me turn it round and ask when was the last time


that Michael Gove listened to his critics. We are asking you the last


time you supported his policy, maybe it was under the last Government? We


supported Michael Gove when he said that teachers would be given


anonymity for accusations by children. That was in 2010. We


didn't support in closing down the London challenge, we don't support


the radical expansion of academies with no evidence. He decries his


opponent as the blob, and that is why teachers are so angry with him.


Worried about your job, two American academics think nearly all of us


should be, what they say call is the second machine age is upon us. The


first time round was disastrous if you worked with your hand. The first


moderate census said we worked the land or fished the seas, today that


is one per cent. Because the machines took all the muscled jobs.


In their place technology created huge numbers of roles where you have


to use your brain. Now they account for 80% of UK employment. A new book


out of MIT in Boston says the machines in the shape of robots and


computers are about to destroy most of these jobs, with profound impact


on our society and economy. This is how we used to think robots


would takeover the earth. In reality, well it could be far


scarier. Because this time the robots are after our jobs. Science


has invented a new mechanical Helpmate for the former. Machines


have been gathering up human jobs for centuries, now some believe we


are creating a huge time of mass redundancy created by technology. I


have come to MIT to meet two professors who believe we are at the


point where future is very different with blistering speed. Because of


technology they believe many of the jobs we depend on are simply going


to disappear. Andrew and Eric have called their book The Second Machine


Age, and it has policy makers worried. The reason we called the


book what we did, it was a direct reference to the Industrial


Revolution where the limitations of our muscles were augmented or even


eliminated by the steam engine and the internal combustian engine.


Today we are doing much the same for our brains for cognitive tasks. What


is driving the change is the exponential rise in computing power.


Today's consumer electronics would have been classed as super computers


a couple of decades ago. When there are dozens of super computers around


the world and they are all connected there is an explosion of data. It


puts us in a place we have never been before, and that is why we are


seeing the crazy science fiction advances coming now. Crazy science


fiction advances like cars that can drive themselves, thought impossible


just a decade ago. Not great news for lorry drivers. Crazy science


fiction advances likes Baxter, a robot worker made by Re-think Rob


otics. He can do menial jobs and costs half the minimum human wage in


Massachusetts. Anybody can put him to work. I press a button to say


close your land, lift it up, drop it in the box like, that I have already


shown him the position of the other widgets here. Press one button, I'm


going to put that one back, it is expecting where it is. I can just


pick up my coffee while gets on with his work. Jo that were considered


human only are falling to the rob ots, like warehouse picking,


navigating around a space with ever-changing inventory and no two


asks the same, it was all thought impossible for the machines, not any


more. Autonomous robots lift up the shelves and bring them to one of the


central pickers. Companies need far fewer humans. With a quickening pace


the jobs under threat are creeping steadily up the education scale to


graduates and professionals. The scope of task that machines can do


is rapidly expanding into more high-level tasks, lawyers, some


types of investment banking. At the other end truck drivers and


different kinds of robotic work that used to be done by people on


assembly lines. The IBM computer Watson can thrash human champions in


the American game show Jeopardy. Elected every five years it has 736


members from every party, Watson? What is parliament. But that is just


a party trick compared to what else it can do. A new generation of


doctors are helping Watson learn the language of medicine. Ingesting


every available scrap of digitised medical knowledge, he's on his way


to being the best diagnostic doctor, and he can treat millions at the


same time. This is one of the ways jobs will disappear in the second


machine age. The best in any field can capture the whole market and


potentially fabulous wealth. Professions like accountany and the


law are already in the frame. Previously the human best tax


account didn't have the capacity to serve the entire market. But with


digital goods it is different. Once you have made one copy it is trivial


to make additional copies. I should say that is mostly good news. It is


nice we all have access to the best of many of these different


categories. As consumers it is good news. But it leads to a big


reallocation. In other words, even greater wealth inequalities. But at


least new jobs will be created, well don't count on it! This retail


development in Boston used to be a Ford factory, here new jobs come


from the rubble of the old. If the machines are able to not only


outmuscle but out-brain humans, which jobs will humans do? There is


no automatic guarantee these jobs will appear or they will be good


wages. There is no economic law that says everyone is going to benefit


from technology. It is possible for some people, even potentially a


majority of people to be made worse off. What sort of society and


economy could this lead to? There is a story about a Ford executive and


union boss touring a newly automated car plant. The Ford executive


overlooking the ranks of machines building the cars jokes to the union


boss "how will you get these guys to pay union subscriptions", the union


boss came back with "how are you going to get them to buy Fords? ".


When it vanishes from the community, you see lots of flavours of social


breakdown. For most of us these days a meaningful life has work as one of


its main components, a job, a career, a trajectory in your life.


If and win that goes away, what replaces it. I don't have a quick


answer to that question, we better start thinking long and hard about


it though. The vintage robots on display seem childish and


rudimentry. There is nothing exciting about this stick creature


from the 1980s. You can't say the same for the latest model. According


to the two men we need to prepare for a greater world of lower


equality and mass unemployment. The only place you might learn about


good middle-class jobs is in a museum. Edmund, hillry and Sherpa


Tensing could hardly have believed hundreds would follow them up


Everest. The industry helping largely wealthy westerners up


Everest has boomed. There is talk of queues on the way to the summit.


After 16 mountain guides were killed in an avalanche last week, it is


essentially at a stand still. Some Sherpas want to boycott the climbing


season completely after the terrible accident. Unless they receive a


bigger share of the revenue paid by foreign mountain years. Joining us


from Salford is Alan Hinkes, the first Britain to have climbed all


four of the world's peaks over 8,000ms. And we have the youngest


British woman to climb Everest. Thank you for being with us. First


to you Alan, how have you felt that your life is at risk? Yes, a lot of


times. On 8,000m peak, on Everest, the first time I went through the


ice fall my heart was in my mouth. I had read all the books and knew it


was dangerous. There was a little bit of apprehension. Bordering on


fear, it is a dangerous place. If Sherpas face those kinds of dangers


on climbers' behalf every day surely they deserve a bigger share of the


rewards? They do, and these Sherpas are friends of mine, they are


fantastic, sensitive, brave people, they are lovely. But they choose


this career, they are not forced to go into the ice fall, just as I


choose a career as a mountain guide I'm not forced to go into the ice


fall. I have been to Mont Blanc and it is a choice they make and a


dangerous place, more dangerous than the British hills or Mont Blanc.


They should get more money, they get well paid, they average $2500 a year


-- $500 a year, most will get ten or twenty-times that for a month's


work. The compensation case is about ?230, that is an insult isn't it? It


is an insult. The Nepalese Government took $3 million in permit


fees alone. The Sherpas are asking for an insurance pay-out of $100,000


pay-out to each of the dead's families. I think that is fine


considering what the Government are taking. So who is taking the money?


You can always guess what the Nepalese Government is doing with


the money. It might be the case they are investing in the country as a


whole. Because the valley where Everest is gets lots of money, and


the industries around it are impoverished. There is way of


spreading the word and maybe the Government is doing it. These


Sherpas are the life blood of evidence, so without them there is


no investment for the Government. Given the amount of money changing


hand, this is a boom industry isn't it, is that appropriate? Everest is


a special case. Most of the money is made from trekking, thousands of


people go trekking, particularly to Everest base camp and all around.


Everest is only for two months of the year it is a big windfall for


April/May, then nobody there for the rest of the year. As was said, this


part of Nepal is quite wealthy because of Everest. I should point


out there is not that much money for a lot of the western trekking


companies, a lot of the British companies don't make vast profits


from Everest. Most of them are put back into Everest, you have A a lot


of money being spent. Have we lost the respect of going up the mountain


in the first place? Aesthetics involved in this. I could understand


if the Sherpas or the Nepalese guides as they should be called, if


they decide not to go on the mountain I would understand it, they


have had 13-16 of them killed. It is the mother goddess of the world,


they are Buddhists and it could be bad Karma to go back on to the tar


mark. I would expect it if they decided not to go back this week. It


is a special case and the highest mountain in the world. Do you fear


the industry, that is what it is, is now out of control? It is a very


difficult question. You have got a really unique situation on Everest,


you have some of the richest people in the world, meeting some of the


poorest. And you have also got mother nature mixed in there. It is


an explosive mix. The Nepalese Sherpas want western climbers there,


they want as many as they can. Maybe there is a limit, but the more


people who come to their mountain the richer they get. And they can


support their children. It is not so much about it being horrible


industry, as you put it, it is a mountain, like others, where


hundreds of people go up every year and it doesn't get the same bad


press. Is it possible to go up Everest without a mountain guide,


could it be attempted without Sherpas if they go back to the


mountain? I don't think it would be, the ice the Sherpas are going


through was maintained by the Sherpas, they fix ladders and ropes,


the mountain changes constantly without their knowledge, skills and


expertise, I think it would be very difficult to fix a safe route for


the most part of the climbers there. There are people who go to Everest


without wanting to shout for help, but they are few and far between.


Before we go. Get your stopwatches ready, Ben Lee is the Guinness


record world holder for the fastest violinist. We give him the


opportunity for a dry run tonight. The piece is Flight of the


Bumblebee, the choice is four. 4.55. More showers around in the rest of


the week, the heavy showers will die away as we go through the


The clash between money and football following the sacking of David Moyes. Is the National Union of Teachers about to turn left? Robots and the future of work. Mount Everest is closed due to industrial action.

Download Subtitles