:00:07. > :00:13.Fein is arrested tonight in connection with the murder of a
:00:14. > :00:17.woman killed by the IRA in 1972. We have the latest.
:00:18. > :00:23.How society is dividing into a vast number of have-nots and a very small
:00:24. > :00:27.number of have-lots, and lots, and lots. Why social inequality is
:00:28. > :00:31.predicted to get worse and what, if anything, we ought to do about it.
:00:32. > :00:36.We talk to the French economist who has written what's been called the
:00:37. > :00:41.Das Kapital of the 21st century. On the 25th anniversary of the fatwa
:00:42. > :00:47.pronouncing death on Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis on freedom and
:00:48. > :00:53.fundamentalism. Our latest tribute to Shakespeare: Simon Callow as
:00:54. > :00:57.Prospero. Our rebels are ended, and these are actors, as I foretold you
:00:58. > :01:08.who are all spirits that are melted into air - into thin air.
:01:09. > :01:13.Dramatic developments tonight in the police investigation into the murder
:01:14. > :01:17.of a woman killed by the IRA in 1972. The police Service of Northern
:01:18. > :01:22.Ireland are questioning the president of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams.
:01:23. > :01:28.Mr Adams says he has always been willing to help the police trying to
:01:29. > :01:32.discover how Jean McConville came to die, although he had nothing to to
:01:33. > :01:38.with it, one veteran IRA man has already been charged with aiding and
:01:39. > :01:42.abetting the murder. Mr Adams said attempts to implicate him are pure
:01:43. > :01:47.mischief. Jean McConville, a widow and a mother of ten was abducted in
:01:48. > :01:52.front of her children, killed bit IRA. She had been wrongly accused of
:01:53. > :01:57.being an ininformer. When do you think you'll see your
:01:58. > :02:02.mummy again? I don't know. Her body was recovered from a beach in 2003.
:02:03. > :02:08.Before his arrest this evening, Mr Adams maintained he was not guilty
:02:09. > :02:15.of Hur perioder. But he presented himself voluntarily to police this
:02:16. > :02:19.evening. I will tell the PSA that I am innocent totally of any part of
:02:20. > :02:27.the abduction, killing, or burial of Jean McConville. I do have concerns
:02:28. > :02:31.about the timing. I volunteered to meet them. I have concerns in the
:02:32. > :02:35.middle of an election about the timing, but I have tried to work at
:02:36. > :02:39.building the peace and I will continue to do that. Allegations
:02:40. > :02:43.surfaced recently in a BBC documentary which included an
:02:44. > :02:46.interview with the former IRA commander Brendan Hughes recorded
:02:47. > :02:50.before his death. In it, he accuses the Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams
:02:51. > :02:57.of involvement in McConville's murder. This woman was taken away
:02:58. > :03:02.and executed. Jean McConville. There is only one man that gave the order
:03:03. > :03:07.for that woman to be executed. That man, right, is now the head of Sinn
:03:08. > :03:10.Fein. The or this evening of such a senior political figure will be
:03:11. > :03:14.Fein. The or this evening of such a as a landmark moment in how Northern
:03:15. > :03:17.Ireland attempts to deal with its past. No-one knows exactly what
:03:18. > :03:20.evidence they have against Gerry Adams, but there's a sense tonight
:03:21. > :03:27.that it will have to be pretty watertight for such a major
:03:28. > :03:34.political gamble to be taken. With us now is the seasoned Northern
:03:35. > :03:36.Ireland reporter Peter Taylor, and Alex Maskey member of the Northern
:03:37. > :03:41.Ireland Assembly for Sinn Fein who is in Belfast. Peter Taylor, the
:03:42. > :03:48.Jean McConville case, remind us what happened. She was accused by the IRA
:03:49. > :03:52.of being a tout, an informer working for British intelligence. She was
:03:53. > :03:57.taken away, abducted in front of her children, and then she disappeared,
:03:58. > :04:02.and she was murdered by the IRA and her body was buried, and ultimately,
:04:03. > :04:06.the IRA pointed out where she was buried and her body was recovered,
:04:07. > :04:12.but it is a terrible, terrible story. No-one has ever been held
:04:13. > :04:16.accountable for it? No. It is really interesting about Mr Adams and what
:04:17. > :04:19.has happened to him. First of all, we've got to remember that he's only
:04:20. > :04:21.been arrested - he has been arrested many times. He hasn't been charged
:04:22. > :04:25.with anything. He is denying it. What it really comes down to is what
:04:26. > :04:35.he has always denied which is that he was never a member of the IRA.
:04:36. > :04:41.I've done a lot of work on this and I remember interviewing the Chief of
:04:42. > :04:44.Staff of the IRA who met Willy Whitelaw with the leadership. When I
:04:45. > :04:48.interviewed him, I asked about the people who are with him, the
:04:49. > :04:54.leadership of the IRA, and I said was Gerry Adams a member of the IRA?
:04:55. > :05:03.He said they were all IRA. I said, "Including Gerry Adams?" Said, "All
:05:04. > :05:07.IRA." If Chief of Staff of the IRA says Mr Adams was a member of the
:05:08. > :05:12.IRA, then I think that's a pretty good chance that he was. Alex
:05:13. > :05:17.Maskey, what do you make of this arrest tonight? First of all, as
:05:18. > :05:22.you've already heard, Gerry Adams has repeatedly rejected all these
:05:23. > :05:27.allegations in relation to the killing of Mr McConville and
:05:28. > :05:33.repeatedly said over many years that he's available and willing to speak
:05:34. > :05:37.to the police about this manner. We believe the manner this has
:05:38. > :05:41.happened, that Gerry Adams has arranged to speak to the police this
:05:42. > :05:45.evening, and been arrested in such a public fashion. We believe it is a
:05:46. > :05:49.political agenda. We want to make the point again that Gerry Adams has
:05:50. > :05:54.rejected all allegations against him. You say there is a political
:05:55. > :05:57.agenda here: you're accusing the Police Service of Northern Ireland
:05:58. > :06:02.of acting in a politically motivated fashion? We believe on the basis
:06:03. > :06:05.that Gerry Adams has repeatedly stated publicly that he was
:06:06. > :06:09.available to speak to police at any time, we're now three weeks into an
:06:10. > :06:12.election, and then this has happened in the manner in which it has
:06:13. > :06:18.happened, and we believe there is an agenda, which is a very negative
:06:19. > :06:21.agenda, and it is regrettable it is happening and should not be
:06:22. > :06:24.happening. You surely wouldn't want to impede a police investigation
:06:25. > :06:29.into an ancient and horrible crime like this, would you? Absolutely
:06:30. > :06:32.not. As I've said, Gerry Adams has said repeatedly publicly, over a
:06:33. > :06:37.long number of years now, that he has always been willing and able,
:06:38. > :06:42.and available to meet the police at any time. Far from impeding Gerry
:06:43. > :06:46.Adams has been able to speak to the police for a number of years now in
:06:47. > :06:50.this regard. This has now happened until three weeks before an
:06:51. > :06:53.election. As far as we are concerned, we republicans will take
:06:54. > :06:58.this as part of an agenda. Depending on what does happen, if Mr Adams is
:06:59. > :07:01.charged - and remember he has only been arrested - if he is charged, I
:07:02. > :07:05.find it difficult to see how they're going to make the charges stand up
:07:06. > :07:10.because I can't see any former IRA man or woman standing up pointing
:07:11. > :07:15.the finger at Mr Adams, and I don't think they can use as evidence
:07:16. > :07:18.perhaps as confirmatory or corroborating evidence the voice
:07:19. > :07:23.from the grave of Brendan Hughes because you can't, whatever Mr
:07:24. > :07:26.Hughes says in that tape-recording, can't be cross-examined in a court
:07:27. > :07:31.of law because he's no longer with us. I think they would find it very
:07:32. > :07:36.difficult to make a incredible case against him, assuming he were to be
:07:37. > :07:41.charged, which of course he hasn't. Do you share a similar view on that?
:07:42. > :07:45.I would expect Gerry Adams to be released fairly soon because there
:07:46. > :07:48.was no case against Gerry Adams, and let's remind ourselves that those
:07:49. > :07:52.people who made statements because obviously we're working on the basis
:07:53. > :07:58.that Gerry Adams is in this position because people have made statements,
:07:59. > :08:03.for example, to the boss, the tapes inquiry, as it has been called,
:08:04. > :08:05.those people who made those statements can have no reliability
:08:06. > :08:11.since they made the statements on the basis they would not be released
:08:12. > :08:18.until they died. There is no reliability or integrity as far as I
:08:19. > :08:23.am concerned - Alex says this very well,
:08:24. > :08:25.am concerned - Alex says this very through much of the
:08:26. > :08:28.am concerned - Alex says this very conflict, a very close friend of
:08:29. > :08:30.am concerned - Alex says this very Gerry Adams. He was
:08:31. > :08:30.am concerned - Alex says this very Brendan Hughes says what he says
:08:31. > :08:36.when he Brendan Hughes says what he says
:08:37. > :08:41.degree of credibility in it, Brendan Hughes says what he says
:08:42. > :08:45.over the peace process. First of all, you're
:08:46. > :08:48.over the peace process. First of comment. They parted their ways,
:08:49. > :08:51.over the peace process. First of unfortunately, and the same could be
:08:52. > :08:53.said for a small number of other republicans.
:08:54. > :08:55.said for a small number of other someone makes a statement for
:08:56. > :08:58.whatever reason doesn't mean to say that it is true. I have to say that,
:08:59. > :09:00.as far as I am concerned, there's not a lot of integrity in a process
:09:01. > :09:04.as far as I am concerned, there's where someone says, "I am going to
:09:05. > :09:09.say what I want to say but you can't use it until I die." I really don't
:09:10. > :09:10.think that is credible, to be truthful with
:09:11. > :09:16.think that is credible, to be Once upon a time, inequality,
:09:17. > :09:17.think that is credible, to be gap between rich and poor was a
:09:18. > :09:20.touchstone of gap between rich and poor was a
:09:21. > :09:24.country, but, by the turn of the millennium, attitudes had changed.
:09:25. > :09:29.Peter Mandelson, one of the architects of new Labour, confessed
:09:30. > :09:33.he was intensely relaxed about people getting filthy Richard, and
:09:34. > :09:37.apart from the occasional flourish with mansion taxes, a version of
:09:38. > :09:43.trickle-down seemed to have held sway. The poor are always with us.
:09:44. > :09:47.According to that rare commodity, a hugely popular new book on
:09:48. > :09:50.economics, while inequality reduced in the 20th century, it is now
:09:51. > :09:53.rising and destined to carry on rising. The situation which the
:09:54. > :09:59.French author thinks is hugely dangerous. I'll be talking to him
:10:00. > :10:06.shortly, but first sit back and pay attention to Chris Cook.
:10:07. > :10:10.When it comes to inequality, Thomas Picketty Capital in th 21st Century
:10:11. > :10:15.says we should all worry about capital. Not so much incomes and
:10:16. > :10:18.bonuses. So, what does he an by "capital"? That's anything that can
:10:19. > :10:23.be owned and that generates an income. That can be housing, land,
:10:24. > :10:26.stocks, or shares. That idea isn't new. In fact, the link between
:10:27. > :10:33.capital and incomes is very familiar, not least to readers of
:10:34. > :10:36.Jane Austen and Balzac. He says 19th century novelists and their readers,
:10:37. > :10:40.the two ideas were used interchangeably. The book's big
:10:41. > :10:45.innovation has been to build a massive data set that allows him to
:10:46. > :10:49.look at patterns in the ownership of stuff going back centuries. His
:10:50. > :10:55.research found that, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the value of capital
:10:56. > :11:00.grew faster than the economy at large. So, by 1900, the amount of
:11:01. > :11:04.wealth had grown to aroundseven times national output in Britain.
:11:05. > :11:08.And, since that wealth started off being owned by rich people, that
:11:09. > :11:14.means that the rich pulled away from the rest of us. Now, you can see
:11:15. > :11:19.that in the way that the proportion of national wealth owned by the top
:11:20. > :11:24.one per cent rose, and, the top ten per cent, but, in the twentieth
:11:25. > :11:30.century, things were a little different. First of all, because of
:11:31. > :11:36.war. Between 1910 and 1950, the world wars and decolonisation
:11:37. > :11:41.clobbererd the European rich. All that stuff they had accumulated got,
:11:42. > :11:45.well, blown up, or handed back to other people. Then, after the war,
:11:46. > :11:50.the recovery was historically unusual, partly because it was all
:11:51. > :11:54.catch-up growth. The capital stock grew more slowly in the economy at
:11:55. > :11:59.large and was more heavily taxed. So, owning all that stuff didn't
:12:00. > :12:03.really help the top one per cent power ahead. The rest actually
:12:04. > :12:08.caught up a little bit. Since 1980, however, Piketty thinks that things
:12:09. > :12:12.have reverted to the older pattern. Capital has been growing faster than
:12:13. > :12:19.the economy at large, and, since the rich start off owning more stuff,
:12:20. > :12:26.that drives up inequality. So far, so uncontroversial. But Piketty's
:12:27. > :12:30.thesis is that this trend might well continue. If the rate at which
:12:31. > :12:34.capital grows remains faster than the economy at large, then the rich
:12:35. > :12:38.will keep pulling away, and the world could look once again like a
:12:39. > :12:42.Victorian age. The rich will be rich because of who
:12:43. > :12:47.their parents are, not who they are, and that's a major public policy
:12:48. > :12:51.challenge. Piketty's diagnosis might upset people, but his prescription
:12:52. > :12:57.will make him even more enemies. His proposed solution is a global wealth
:12:58. > :13:01.tax, a policy that he suggests is pretty unlikely to happen. Still,
:13:02. > :13:06.Piketty's data collection and analysis is likely to win him a
:13:07. > :13:14.Nobel Prize, even if his policy suggestions are not taken up.
:13:15. > :13:18.The book has had Guardian-reading North London Liberals smiling into
:13:19. > :13:23.their frappuccinos. I sought out Thomas Picketty and asked him why we
:13:24. > :13:27.should care and inequality. Inequality matters because our
:13:28. > :13:32.democratic institutions can't work properly if inequality becomes too
:13:33. > :13:37.extreme. We need inequality for growth to happen to have incentives.
:13:38. > :13:42.If it is really too extreme, then the unequal voice and unequal access
:13:43. > :13:46.to political influence - When does it become too extreme? There is no
:13:47. > :13:51.mathematical formula for that. We have to rely on history. This is an
:13:52. > :13:59.imperfect guide but this is the best we have. One of the lessons from
:14:00. > :14:02.history is that, for instance, 19th century inequality wasn't good for
:14:03. > :14:06.democracy and wasn't good for growth, either. That was useless
:14:07. > :14:12.inequality, if you wish. There was no middle class then, the wealth was
:14:13. > :14:15.concentrated prior to World War one in Britain or France, 90 per cent of
:14:16. > :14:21.the national wealth would belong to the top ten per cent. This was one
:14:22. > :14:26.of the reasons I think why our parliamentary system was not working
:14:27. > :14:30.as well as it should have. Some people seem to believe that there is
:14:31. > :14:36.nothing to learn from this because the future will be different, growth
:14:37. > :14:39.will be a lot higher. Prior to World War one, this was a time where we
:14:40. > :14:44.invented the automobiles, the electricity, the radio, so this is
:14:45. > :14:48.less important than Facebook but still these are important
:14:49. > :14:54.innovations, so growth and innovation was already there, but
:14:55. > :15:00.growth was not sufficient to prevent very large wealth concentration from
:15:01. > :15:04.happening, and I think there is a lot to concern by going back through
:15:05. > :15:08.time. There are circumstances, are not there, where inequality can be
:15:09. > :15:13.good for a society? Of course. It is all a matter of degree. Look, let's
:15:14. > :15:19.be very concrete. In this country, the bottom half of the population
:15:20. > :15:23.owns about two and three per cent of national wealth. Now, if that was
:15:24. > :15:26.full equality, it should only 50 per cent. I am not saying it should be
:15:27. > :15:33.50 per cent. I am just saying that two or three per cent is very small,
:15:34. > :15:37.and that maybe, you know, it is I think spreading wealth and giving
:15:38. > :15:42.access to wealth is important for our economy, and for our democracy.
:15:43. > :15:47.If you take - Speaking out of ideology there, aren't you? I am
:15:48. > :15:50.talking about poor people who would like to access wealth and become
:15:51. > :15:55.owners. Everyone would like to access wealth. It is one of the
:15:56. > :15:59.triggers for capitalism, isn't it? Some inequality, capitalism doesn't
:16:00. > :16:02.work? Some inequality, but I am telling you that the bottom half of
:16:03. > :16:09.the population who own three per cent of national wealth, so I am not
:16:10. > :16:13.saying it should be 50% but maybe we can make it to five or eight or do
:16:14. > :16:17.you think that three per cent is the maximum that the bottom half can own
:16:18. > :16:21.in order to make the economy work. Why draw another arbitrary figure?
:16:22. > :16:25.There is no mathematical certainty about it. Exactly. What we know is
:16:26. > :16:31.that the share of national wealth going to the middle class has been
:16:32. > :16:34.shrinking over the past 30 years. In this country, and actually across
:16:35. > :16:40.Europe and in the US. Why does that matter? It matters because the
:16:41. > :16:45.question is has it been good for growth? No. Growth over the past few
:16:46. > :16:48.decades compared to the previous period wasn't better. If these
:16:49. > :16:53.trends continue, I think it is period wasn't better. If these
:16:54. > :17:00.benefits to broad segments of period wasn't better. If these
:17:01. > :17:03.that disproportionate share of the benefits from globalisation and
:17:04. > :17:08.economic openness accrues only to top income and wealth groups, I
:17:09. > :17:11.think there is a risk that a passenger part of the population
:17:12. > :17:14.will turn against that. The latter part of the book, you do propose
:17:15. > :17:23.some solutions. Now you say people are free to come up with their own
:17:24. > :17:26.solutions. If there were to be an international wealth tax - well, it
:17:27. > :17:35.is never going to happen, is it? What I would propose is to transform
:17:36. > :17:39.this, given tax revenue a progressive tax on net wealth. That
:17:40. > :17:45.means most people will pay less. If you have ?500,000 property but a
:17:46. > :17:48.president you have ?500,000 property but a
:17:49. > :17:53.not rich. You should pay less tax than someone who has inherited from
:17:54. > :17:57.his property and doesn't have a mortgage. If your net wealth is only
:17:58. > :18:04.?10,000, then the progressive would be 0, and the progressive tax
:18:05. > :18:06.would only start with people above ?1 million. You've identified this
:18:07. > :18:10.as ?1 million. You've identified this
:18:11. > :18:18.presumably, you believe that ?1 million. You've identified this
:18:19. > :18:24.people finding shelter somewhere else but they're everywhere, equally
:18:25. > :18:28.liable to punitive rates of taxation. Who do you want to punish?
:18:29. > :18:33.You want to punish the rich? Not at all. I want to - You don't want - I
:18:34. > :18:38.want to help the middle class. When you have 90 per cent of the
:18:39. > :18:44.population who owns less than 25 per cent of the wealth, I think it would
:18:45. > :18:49.be crazy to say that we cannot do better than that. I think we can
:18:50. > :18:54.spread the wealth more. One lesson of the 20th century is that we don't
:18:55. > :18:59.need 19th century inequality to grow.
:19:00. > :19:01.need 19th century inequality to we don't need the kind of extreme
:19:02. > :19:03.concentration of wealth that we had in Britain but also in France and
:19:04. > :19:08.all over Europe. in Britain but also in France and
:19:09. > :19:12.now? We still have a middle class. There is one big difference to
:19:13. > :19:15.now? We still have a middle class. and one century ago. Today, at
:19:16. > :19:18.least, there is a middle class that owns 20, 25 per cent of the total
:19:19. > :19:26.wealth. That didn't even exist at the time of the-of-down tonne Abbey;
:19:27. > :19:28.of down tonne Abbey. You don't want to get back there for economic and
:19:29. > :19:36.political reasons. Given it to get back there for economic and
:19:37. > :19:38.you think clearly is necessary - That's not what I said. I told you
:19:39. > :19:47.the opposite. Yes, but when That's not what I said. I told you
:19:48. > :19:52.with the problem of disproportionate shares of the national cake, the
:19:53. > :19:58.only way you can do that is by taxation, isn't it? Okay, you can
:19:59. > :20:00.have a mansion tax in this country without
:20:01. > :20:04.have a mansion tax in this country European Union. Number 1. Number 2,
:20:05. > :20:06.of course, it is even better if you have
:20:07. > :20:10.of course, it is even better if you can do more in terms of top
:20:11. > :20:13.of course, it is even better if you progress - is it easy? No. Is it
:20:14. > :20:23.impossible? No. You know, five years ago, everybody was saying that Swiss
:20:24. > :20:26.banks will never renounce seeksy. Then the United States came with
:20:27. > :20:32.sanctions on Swiss banks and told Swiss banks you know, if you keep
:20:33. > :20:35.not sending us information on our taxpayers and how much you have in
:20:36. > :20:41.your banks, we will cut your banking licence in the US. Suddenly, things
:20:42. > :20:44.change in Switzerland. I am not impressed by people who know in
:20:45. > :20:50.advance who will know or will not happen. I think history is full of
:20:51. > :20:56.surprises, and I think the European countries have a lot more to lose
:20:57. > :21:02.than the US from bank secrecy in Switzerland. I think in the future,
:21:03. > :21:05.it is possible with better and more international co-operation,
:21:06. > :21:09.particularly involving European countries and the US to move towards
:21:10. > :21:15.a global registry of financial assets in order to have more
:21:16. > :21:19.international co-operation in the fiscal domain. That doesn't mean a
:21:20. > :21:24.global tax, but that means national tax with more global co-operation
:21:25. > :21:32.between those countries. Thank you very much.
:21:33. > :21:38.While Mr Piketty's tome has provoked debate, today, Ed Miliband accused
:21:39. > :21:45.the Prime Minister of presiding over inequality in the UK. Two years ago,
:21:46. > :21:49.protesters were camped outside St Paul's Cathedral complaining about
:21:50. > :22:07.the fat tax one per cent. What is going on here? Have or have-not?
:22:08. > :22:15.Equal or less equal? Forget the concepts. What is
:22:16. > :22:21.actually happening here? It wasn't so long ago this square
:22:22. > :22:26.was crammed with protesters, furious at bankers' behaviour and angry
:22:27. > :22:29.about the gap between rich and poor. Politicians clambered over each
:22:30. > :22:33.other to look concerned about fat-cat pay, but, through the
:22:34. > :22:39.recession, overall incomes actually became more equal as George Osborne
:22:40. > :22:43.now likes to boast. But that only happened because, as pay fell,
:22:44. > :22:47.benefits continued to rise. That situation is expected to go into
:22:48. > :22:52.reverse. And the gap in earnings has
:22:53. > :22:58.stretched uncomfortably. By 2011, FTSE bosses were taking home 139
:22:59. > :23:02.times as much as their average workers. But the actual UK top one
:23:03. > :23:09.per cent includes not just bankers or bosses, but the best-paid police,
:23:10. > :23:14.doctors, even teachers - anyone earning over ?100,000 after tax,
:23:15. > :23:21.but, in the shadow of St Paul's, arrange is still there. Anger is
:23:22. > :23:24.still there. It annoys me, there should be people they've worked
:23:25. > :23:28.their way to the top. The amount of money you've got up there, when
:23:29. > :23:32.you've got the lowest of the low scrimping and scraping, it is not
:23:33. > :23:37.right. If people are poor, they should go to work more, shouldn't
:23:38. > :23:42.they? I just like earning money. We're going to have a very big
:23:43. > :23:47.social problem because you're going to have all these youngsters that
:23:48. > :23:51.have worked hard for their education and the salary they get, they won't
:23:52. > :23:56.be able to afford accommodation for any kind of decent lifestyle. You
:23:57. > :23:59.think it is as serious as that, we're looking at big social
:24:00. > :24:03.problems? Yes, I think so. You can't hide it. But it is less and less
:24:04. > :24:06.about what you earn or not. No matter how the government tinkers
:24:07. > :24:12.with what you're allowed to keep, it is the influence of what you have or
:24:13. > :24:23.not, your wealth, that's really changing. The gap between haves and
:24:24. > :24:28.have-not haven't - have-notes isn't as big as it was when this square
:24:29. > :24:31.was built, but now inheritance is growing as a share of the whole
:24:32. > :24:36.country's income. For most of us, that's about access to your own
:24:37. > :24:40.slice of bricks and mortar. More people buy homes with cash now than
:24:41. > :24:46.buy for the first time, although Labour and the Lib Dems both vow to
:24:47. > :24:50.tax property raising inheritance tax, few would dare. The value of
:24:51. > :24:53.wealth, even of ordinary wealth, let alone top wealth, became much larger
:24:54. > :24:57.in relation to people's incomes. That makes it very much harder to
:24:58. > :25:02.move a notch or two up the wealth ladder because you need many more
:25:03. > :25:06.years of saving, many more years' worth of income to move a number of
:25:07. > :25:09.rungs up that ladder. That's going to be very difficult for young
:25:10. > :25:14.people to do just through their own saving, and it makes it much more
:25:15. > :25:17.important who their parents and grandparents are, and whether they
:25:18. > :25:21.can help them get on the housing ladder, whether they have a lucky
:25:22. > :25:25.inheritance and so on. This isn't all just about cold, hard cash.
:25:26. > :25:29.There are dramatic variations in our health, not just our wealth, and
:25:30. > :25:33.stubborn gaps in opportunities for our children.
:25:34. > :25:37.The richest children's grandparents are likely to enjoy nearly20 years
:25:38. > :25:42.more healthy life than the poorest, and the difference is growing. And
:25:43. > :25:46.while 40 per cent of children on free school meals get five decent
:25:47. > :25:49.GCSEs, it is 70 per cent for the rest.
:25:50. > :25:53.There is enormous variation between and within schools, so in England,
:25:54. > :25:56.it matters where you're born if you're poor as well addition the
:25:57. > :26:00.fact that you're born to relative poverty, so there are one in seven
:26:01. > :26:04.secondary schools, for example, in England with respect the free-school
:26:05. > :26:06.meal children do better than the national average and those schools
:26:07. > :26:09.are distributed right across the country in all communities. One of
:26:10. > :26:14.the big questions is why can't more schools do what those schools are
:26:15. > :26:20.doing? No-one government can push away or
:26:21. > :26:24.promote global trends alone. But our politicians' choices can affect
:26:25. > :26:29.inequality here. It is our own disquiet or acceptance, perhaps,
:26:30. > :26:33.that dictates how hard they try. With us now are Lord Lamont,
:26:34. > :26:39.Conservative peer and former Chancellor of the Exchequer; Stella
:26:40. > :26:42.Creasy, the Labour MP and shadow business minister; and Gillian Tett,
:26:43. > :26:47.assistant editor at the Financial Times. Telling La Creasy, since --
:26:48. > :26:51.Stella Creasy, since the French economist seemed to accept that a
:26:52. > :26:56.degree of inequality was almost necessary, what is undesirable about
:26:57. > :26:58.it? I don't think he said it was necessary, he said it was
:26:59. > :27:02.inevitable. I think that's the challenge for all of us looking at
:27:03. > :27:05.this which is what is the level of inequality which is actually so
:27:06. > :27:09.damaging and destructive not only to our economy but our society that we
:27:10. > :27:12.should deal with it. How do you decide that? One of the things that
:27:13. > :27:15.is interesting about his research is the link between power and the
:27:16. > :27:19.damage that it does when particularly small groups of power
:27:20. > :27:22.have disproportionate power in our society. We have to look at what are
:27:23. > :27:26.the consequences for this kind of inequality in terms of our future.
:27:27. > :27:32.Are you bothered about growing and inequality? I couldn't envisage
:27:33. > :27:36.circumstances in which I would. If great disparate tease in wealth
:27:37. > :27:42.obstruct social mobility, that would worry me a lot. In tackling the
:27:43. > :27:46.issues, there a two things you ought to consider: the fact that some
:27:47. > :27:50.people are well think, is that harming other people, causing
:27:51. > :27:55.poverty? In very few cases do I think is that the case. Secondly,
:27:56. > :27:59.before you go in for confiscatory taxation, you awed to ask yourselves
:28:00. > :28:04.the question, would this wealth actually exist if this person who
:28:05. > :28:09.had it did not exist, i.e., an entrepreneur who has created a huge
:28:10. > :28:12.n technology empire, if you just tax his wealth out of existence, you
:28:13. > :28:18.damage an economy, and you damage a lot of people. The point is that
:28:19. > :28:21.what Piketty is arguing is not so much about inequality of outcome,
:28:22. > :28:23.the entrepreneur who had the brilliant idea who starts the
:28:24. > :28:28.company and end up with a lot of money, it is more about equality of
:28:29. > :28:33.opportunity. There are two questions here: firstly, what degree of
:28:34. > :28:38.inequality can we live with? Is it about opportunity or outcome? The
:28:39. > :28:40.really big shift about the focus on capital, inheritance and wealth is
:28:41. > :28:41.making the point that if you come from a family that starts with
:28:42. > :28:46.wealth from a family that starts with
:28:47. > :28:49.worried and R if there's been a break between
:28:50. > :28:54.worried and R if there's been a receive. I am struck, we saw those
:28:55. > :28:56.Barclay Shaylerers being rightly angry frankly because they've seen a
:28:57. > :29:01.32 per cent drop in their angry frankly because they've seen a
:29:02. > :29:02.bonus pool. That is clearly not linked to performance, so you have
:29:03. > :29:17.to point. I think, for example, the
:29:18. > :29:21.remuneration of chief executives in very large companies worldwide is
:29:22. > :29:26.probably being very overdone, and I think it has
:29:27. > :29:29.probably being very overdone, and I and the incentive to boost your
:29:30. > :29:33.share price by buybacks and manipulation of that kind. I think
:29:34. > :29:37.that is actually pretty unjustified. But that is a different question.
:29:38. > :29:41.That's a particular example from the issue of is society becoming
:29:42. > :29:47.That's a particular example from the unequal? I don't think we had a lot
:29:48. > :29:51.of talk from the Professor about this is incompatible with democracy.
:29:52. > :29:54.Well, as an American writer once said, if democracy consists of
:29:55. > :29:57.robbing Peter to pay Paul, Paul will vote for that. We should not just
:29:58. > :30:02.construct a great vote for that. We should not just
:30:03. > :30:05.prejudice. Maybe that is a difference between you and I because
:30:06. > :30:08.I don't want to live in a society where it is the largest waltz or
:30:09. > :30:11.perhaps the loudest funded by where it is the largest waltz or
:30:12. > :30:13.largest waltz that determine outcomes. I am not alone in thinking
:30:14. > :30:18.that. I don't outcomes. I am not alone in thinking
:30:19. > :30:21.Thatcher but she talked about enfranchising people by giving them
:30:22. > :30:25.a stake in society. Inequality damages that. I agree with that and
:30:26. > :30:27.what Gillian said that what we are talking about is equality of
:30:28. > :30:33.opportunity, but of course equality of opportunity is a very abstract
:30:34. > :30:36.idea because, unless you were bullish or inheritances, you can't
:30:37. > :30:41.have true equality of opportunity, so it is only an idea you can move
:30:42. > :30:45.towards gradually. What is interesting is that it is not just
:30:46. > :30:48.in the UK that Piketty's book is provoking debate amongst the
:30:49. > :30:53.Liberals of North London, what is fascinating in America, this book,
:30:54. > :30:58.which is 557 pages long, it is dense and heavy, is a top-selling book in
:30:59. > :31:04.America on Amazon in all categories. It is beaten books about Frozen,
:31:05. > :31:08.Kardashian, sports memoirs, you name it. The reason for that is many
:31:09. > :31:12.people are saying we came out of this big recession, big financial
:31:13. > :31:18.crisis. We've got to get growth at all costs, and now they're saying
:31:19. > :31:22.hang on a second, who benefits? Can I make one point: this one point
:31:23. > :31:26.about the arithmetic of this that people forget and that is even if
:31:27. > :31:31.you had a society in which everybody was paid the same income but they
:31:32. > :31:35.saved a given proportion of it each year, you would end up with a
:31:36. > :31:40.society in which people over 60 owned 80 per cent of the wealth.
:31:41. > :31:47.Wealth is concentrated among elderly people, and all these statistics you
:31:48. > :31:51.get from - I remember this with Professor Titmus a long time ago
:31:52. > :31:55.when he used to write about inequality, he made that fundamental
:31:56. > :31:58.arithmetical error that so much wealth is concentrated in older
:31:59. > :32:04.people. I think the solution to the problem of inequality is to spread
:32:05. > :32:10.wealth, and I think - I feel like I have to stand up for Professor
:32:11. > :32:14.Titmus having won his prize, because that's not what he said.
:32:15. > :32:17.Autoinrolement of pensions will give people the opportunity to save, and
:32:18. > :32:20.create more distribution of wealth as well. That's not what the
:32:21. > :32:23.research is telling us. What is fascinating about the research it is
:32:24. > :32:27.about the accumulation of capital and how that is being passed on, and
:32:28. > :32:32.one of the challenges of being able to access capital in itself. That is
:32:33. > :32:37.different from savings. Gillian, in your experience, what is it that
:32:38. > :32:40.people most get angry about? Income disparatety or angry about the fact
:32:41. > :32:43.that some people have inherited wealth. Speaking from an American
:32:44. > :32:48.perspective, there are two things going on. Until now, America had
:32:49. > :32:51.probably been the Western country most accepting of inequality because
:32:52. > :32:54.people believed there was equality of opportunity. That was the
:32:55. > :32:58.American dream. What people are realising is that in America it is
:32:59. > :33:02.actually no longer that much equality of opportunity, and they're
:33:03. > :33:05.questioning whether they can live with such unequal outcomes. It is a
:33:06. > :33:08.recognition that, essentially, what things like quantitative easing has
:33:09. > :33:12.done is making people who have assets a lot wealthier; what the
:33:13. > :33:18.globalisation is doing, what the change in industry, the increasing
:33:19. > :33:22.competition, not just from China but digitisation is hollowing out the
:33:23. > :33:27.middle class, you have a small minority at the top who have lovely
:33:28. > :33:32.jobs earning wonderful incomes and many people are struggling. I think
:33:33. > :33:35.there is force in that. Quantitative easing has altered things. The
:33:36. > :33:39.sooner we get back to normality, the better. I do think that the
:33:40. > :33:44.Professor is not on a strong point in predicting that what has happened
:33:45. > :33:49.in the recent pass will go on. A longer period, over 40 years, LSE
:33:50. > :33:54.research shows that the share going to incomes in this country, the
:33:55. > :33:56.share of GDP has remained broadly constant, and the idea that this is
:33:57. > :34:02.going to diminish I don't think is borne out by the facts. The
:34:03. > :34:07.proportion of corporate profits being retained and not paid paid out
:34:08. > :34:09.by employment earnings and at capital is at record levels. Who
:34:10. > :34:13.benefits from the fact that corporate profits go to capital?
:34:14. > :34:15.It's basically the shareholders. Who owns the shares? Primarily the rich.
:34:16. > :34:20.Essentially, what you're seeing time and time again is that workers,
:34:21. > :34:23.ordinary workers, are being weeded in their slice of the economic pie.
:34:24. > :34:28.In the recent past, both in this country, Europe, and going on in
:34:29. > :34:31.Europe, and in the United States, obviously, incomes of ordinary
:34:32. > :34:35.people haven't risen. That is what has created this problem. That has
:34:36. > :34:39.been the adjustment to 2007, 2008. The rich have run away with, in, but
:34:40. > :34:42.we've got a greater challenge, what is the potential we're missing out
:34:43. > :34:46.on if we live in an equal society because we're not going to tackle
:34:47. > :34:49.those issues until we have an ability for everyone to create
:34:50. > :34:53.wealth. What this book shows so well is that this American dream if you
:34:54. > :34:56.work hard and put your effort it is rewarded is not necessarily true,
:34:57. > :35:00.and that should challenge all of us of the what potential does that give
:35:01. > :35:04.us for our children and future that we can create wealth and be a more
:35:05. > :35:08.prosperous society if we can't do that? You may recall hearing a
:35:09. > :35:11.couple of weeks ago that more than 200 girls had been abducted in the
:35:12. > :35:20.middle of the night from their boarding school in Nigeria. There's
:35:21. > :35:26.not been much coverage since, and indeed there doesn't seem to be much
:35:27. > :35:30.action to rescue them either. Today, marchers marched to press the
:35:31. > :35:37.government to do more. The girls are thought to have been taken by the
:35:38. > :35:41.Islamist group Boko Haram, b with little information where they might
:35:42. > :35:47.be being held, relatives are left to hope and pray for their daughters'
:35:48. > :35:52.safe return. Joining us from Abuja is the novelist and journalist
:35:53. > :35:56.Mbwarde. What is the feeling in Nigeria about the way this mass
:35:57. > :36:04.abduction - almost unimaginable -- what is the feeling there about the
:36:05. > :36:09.way it's being dealt with by the government? I think what is most
:36:10. > :36:13.worrying is the fact that the first few days after the acducks, the
:36:14. > :36:16.government didn't - there wasn't a flurry of activity in terms of
:36:17. > :36:20.rescue operation. That was the worrying thing. We of course are
:36:21. > :36:24.concerned about the fact that - we are concerned about the ability to
:36:25. > :36:28.do anything and about the fact that no-one was pretending to do anything
:36:29. > :36:31.and there was some misinformation from the armed forces when we are
:36:32. > :36:35.told on the second day that the girls had been rescued, and it
:36:36. > :36:39.turned out to be a lie. There's so much confusion, nobody is sure about
:36:40. > :36:43.what the government is doing and how much anybody can do. It is all a bit
:36:44. > :36:46.confusing for people here. Yet, there was this protest march today
:36:47. > :36:50.which was expected to attract at least many thousands of people, and,
:36:51. > :36:58.in the end, it was just a few hundred, wasn't it? Yes, it was.
:36:59. > :37:02.Yes, it was a few hundred. I think that's the disadvantage of a lot of
:37:03. > :37:06.the activity and social media: people who actually live here, who
:37:07. > :37:12.get about their business, are not really involved in all that, so it
:37:13. > :37:17.was mostly a social media thing. Really, the Nigerians on social
:37:18. > :37:22.Twitter and Facebook are different from everyday Nigerians. It is
:37:23. > :37:26.almost t different worlds. Most of the organisation was done on social
:37:27. > :37:30.media, and there are thousands of Nigerians who are not on Twitter,
:37:31. > :37:34.Facebook, or at least who don't engage as one would expect. A lot of
:37:35. > :37:39.the Nigerians on Twitter, a number of them are abroad, so we have
:37:40. > :37:42.situations where a lot of there is so much organisation going on
:37:43. > :37:45.Twitter and social media, but when it comes to being physically present
:37:46. > :37:47.to get things done, there are not that many people. I think that's
:37:48. > :37:50.what happened. Everybody is concerned but I am not sure about
:37:51. > :37:54.how many people really knew what was going on today and how many people
:37:55. > :37:58.will be mobilised to come on board. That's what happened, I think.
:37:59. > :38:03.You've talked about the failure of government and the failure of the
:38:04. > :38:06.military. The Nigerian military is actually one of the better
:38:07. > :38:12.militaries in Africa, isn't it? Are you saying that you really need some
:38:13. > :38:17.outside help here? I think we are facing a situation that we haven't
:38:18. > :38:21.ever faced before, so it is new terrain. I am not sure how much
:38:22. > :38:24.training our armed forces have received in this area in terrorism.
:38:25. > :38:29.We are facing a situation no government, no Nigerian government
:38:30. > :38:34.has ever faced prior to this president, so it is a completely new
:38:35. > :38:37.situation. There are lots of things we face in the pass: violence,
:38:38. > :38:40.religious, but this Boko Haram situation is so peculiar. I don't
:38:41. > :38:45.think we know exactly how to handle it yet, which is not to say we
:38:46. > :38:48.can't, but we haven't been trained. Our armed forces in that direction
:38:49. > :38:52.haven't been trained. It's new. The horrors of Boko Haram are different
:38:53. > :38:56.from any horror we've witnessed in this country ever before - not even
:38:57. > :38:59.in the civil war has it been like this, you know? There's just
:39:00. > :39:02.something different, something more horrifying about this. We don't know
:39:03. > :39:06.who the enemy is, we don't know who the target is. It is just so
:39:07. > :39:11.arbitrary, so I think we don't quite know how to handle this kind of
:39:12. > :39:15.situation, which is why I believe the government should reach out for
:39:16. > :39:18.help. There are countries that have dealt with this kind of thing for a
:39:19. > :39:23.long tim We should be asking those people how to go about it. Thank you
:39:24. > :39:26.very much indeed. Thank you. Now, it's 25 years since Ayatollah
:39:27. > :39:32.Khomeini the Iranian religious leader pronounced a fatwa to the
:39:33. > :39:36.effect that anyo murdering Salman Rushdie will be doing God's work.
:39:37. > :39:47.Rushdie's crime in the eyes of this ancient bearded zealot was to have
:39:48. > :39:51.written a book The Satanic Verses. The Ayatollah died soon after, but
:39:52. > :39:54.the if a the with a remained in force. Rushdie was force to live
:39:55. > :40:00.under police protection for years. It was never just a book: critical
:40:01. > :40:01.praise quickly turned to controversy. The The Satanic Verses
:40:02. > :40:05.was banned in many controversy. The The Satanic Verses
:40:06. > :40:07.burned at protests, including on British streets.
:40:08. > :40:13.Many demonstrators hadn't read it, British streets.
:40:14. > :40:22.but the anger and hurt of its depiction of the Muslim Prophet
:40:23. > :40:27.Mohammed was real. Sir Iqbal Sakarani was one of the main
:40:28. > :40:30.organisers of the protests. The book was deeply offensive, not only to
:40:31. > :40:34.Muslims and Britain and overseas but was deeply offensive, not only to
:40:35. > :40:37.of other faiths as well. The notion of freedom of expression goes with
:40:38. > :40:41.responsibility. It must also be noted that the protests were carried
:40:42. > :40:42.out in a dignified and in a responsible manner, and I think we
:40:43. > :40:51.had to get the very across that the book was
:40:52. > :40:56.unacceptable. Anger spread. The new ruler of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini
:40:57. > :41:00.issuing for a fatwa for ruler of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini
:41:01. > :41:03.be killed. Despite, or because of this, sales of the book rocketed.
:41:04. > :41:09.Although many British Muslims felt offended by the novel, many also
:41:10. > :41:13.opposed the fatwa. This man took part in some of those protests in
:41:14. > :41:19.London, but he now thinks the episode ended up giving a negative
:41:20. > :41:25.image of Muslims. There's no question that verses have affair was
:41:26. > :41:30.a -- that the versus -- The Satanic Verses affair was a seminal moment.
:41:31. > :41:34.They wanted, as they saw it to defend the honour of the Prophet
:41:35. > :41:38.Mohammed. It served as a catalyst for the emergence of a British
:41:39. > :41:41.Museum identity. However, there were a number of downsides, too, not
:41:42. > :41:45.least of which was the fact that Islam now came to be seen as having
:41:46. > :41:51.real issues with the modern world, and it left a very negative
:41:52. > :41:55.impression on the Western psyche. It was, perhaps, the first
:41:56. > :42:04.contemporary moment when the liberal values of free speech and Muslim
:42:05. > :42:08.culture clashed. But it wasn't to be the last. Angry demonstrations
:42:09. > :42:13.against Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Mohammed provoked similar
:42:14. > :42:18.fury. 25 years on, the balance between freedom of expression and
:42:19. > :42:24.religious sensitivities is perhaps just as tense.
:42:25. > :42:27.The author Martin Amis was o of Salman Rushdie's inner circle of
:42:28. > :42:39.friends when the fatwa was declared and he joins us from New York. Was
:42:40. > :42:45.Mr Rushdie very - Sir Salmon surprised by the reaction to his
:42:46. > :42:49.book? Yes, he was horrified. Let's not forget that there had already
:42:50. > :42:56.been violence, protests, and some deaths in Pakistan before the fatwa
:42:57. > :43:01.was issued. On the two previous days, there had been intensifying
:43:02. > :43:07.riots in Islamabad and Kashmere, so it was already a nightmare, and the
:43:08. > :43:15.fatwa made it a nightmare within a nightmare. A writer is horrified if
:43:16. > :43:18.anything he writes - a novel - takes on a sort of concrete meaning in the
:43:19. > :43:24.real world. It was never meant to be that. That's not what novels are.
:43:25. > :43:29.But surely he knew what he was doing, for example, naming
:43:30. > :43:36.prostitutes after the prophet's wives? Well, I had an interesting
:43:37. > :43:46.discussion with this with Prince Charles. He said at a small dinner
:43:47. > :43:54.part, in his usual he did xcathedra way, I am sorry if someone sets out
:43:55. > :43:59.to - I said the novel comes with a kind of shiver, this is an idea that
:44:00. > :44:04.I can write a novel about it, nothing else that it appeals to you.
:44:05. > :44:10.Then you start to spore it, and the only restraints on your treatment
:44:11. > :44:17.are those self- - explore it, and the only restraints your -- I am
:44:18. > :44:20.sure Salman like all novelists disappeared into the idea for five
:44:21. > :44:24.years and never thought about what effect it would have when it crossed
:44:25. > :44:27.the border and came into the real world.
:44:28. > :44:35.When he discovered what the effect was, did he regret writing in the
:44:36. > :44:44.terms he wrote? I don't think one can ever quite do that. I know he
:44:45. > :44:52.felt gangrenous with horror when the death toll started to climb and
:44:53. > :44:56.whenties translators - when his translators and pull sifts were
:44:57. > :45:00.attacked, knifed, and shot. It must have been a terrible helter-skelter
:45:01. > :45:07.experience of escalation, and he writes about it beautifully in his
:45:08. > :45:13.memoir Joseph Anton. It is like being on a bucking bronchio. It is -
:45:14. > :45:19.bronco. It has left your control. In the light of what happened in this
:45:20. > :45:26.particular case, and in the light of t rows that we have had either over
:45:27. > :45:30.the Danish cartoons, even these rather anodyne Jesus and MO cartoons
:45:31. > :45:36.in Britain, are writers thinking differently about what they put pen
:45:37. > :45:44.to paper about? Well, they should not be, I don't think. The late
:45:45. > :45:48.Ronald Dworkin said that no-one has the right not to be offended, and
:45:49. > :45:56.that is a fact of the modern world. You don't have that right. The other
:45:57. > :46:02.great sort of maxim is that writing is freedom. That's essentially what
:46:03. > :46:08.it is, an expression of freedom, and once it is hedged, it loses that
:46:09. > :46:18.indivisibility, and you're really like a hack during the Russian
:46:19. > :46:24.revolution; you're like Myerkovky or Senin. Both those poets committed
:46:25. > :46:29.suicide because they had talent that was being resisted by the system.
:46:30. > :46:32.That's almost it for tonight. Our celebration of Shakespeare's 450th
:46:33. > :46:40.birthday comes to an end tonight with his last play The Tempest.
:46:41. > :46:45.Simonal low plays Prospero. Our rebels are ended, and these are
:46:46. > :46:51.actors as I foretold you, are all spirits that are melted into air -
:46:52. > :46:58.into thin air. Like the baseless fabric of this vision, the cloud
:46:59. > :47:05.camped towers, the guard outpalaces, the solemn temples, the great globe
:47:06. > :47:10.itself, yea, all which it inherits shall dissolve. And, like this
:47:11. > :47:22.insubstantial pageant faded leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
:47:23. > :47:26.as dreams are made on. And our little life is rounded with a sleep.