10/07/2014 Newsnight


News stories with Kirsty Wark. Including surveillance through the back door, who can prevent war in Gaza, Michael Gove vs the NUT, Peter Greenaway interview and Conservative youth.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 10/07/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



act between privacy and security. It is not the sort of thing you can put


through the House of Commons in a single day. You have to think about


it carefully. As the conflagration burns in the Middle East, have we


entered a dangerous new phase. I will be speaking to the Israeli


intelligence minister. An old faster on the old masters, we


talk sex, death, religion and art. Carravagio and Rembrandt, the first


four film directors and dealing in the extraordinary business of


artificial light and what is cinemas it is no more and no less the


manipulation of artificial light. And... So long to the spirit of '68,


why is it that generation Y is moving to the right.


Good evening. When the Home Secretary Theresa May made a


statement to the House today, outlining fast-track legislation to


ensure police and Security Services can access mobile and internet data,


she did so secure in the knowledge that she would square the


opposition. Her Labour shadow, Yvette Cooper, and party leader, Ed


Miliband, wrote to their party today saying they had been guided by their


firm conviction that it was essential to ensure the safety of


civilians and privacy protected. Not all politicians are so sanguine.


2006 and a plot that caused chaos at airports across the world. You have


nothing but to expect but floods of martyr operations, volcanos of anger


and revenge erupting amongst your capital. In the end three men were


convicted of trying to blow up planes with liquid bomb, plan


uncovered after tapping into phone and internet records. From the


killer of Rhys Jones to the men who groomed girls in Rochdale. The


Government claims all could have gone free without the power to


monitor electronic communications. David Cameron says it is a power


that could disappear after a recent European ruling and an emergency law


is now needed. We face real and credible threats to our security


from serious organised crime, from the activity of paedophile, from the


collapse of Syria, the growth of ISIS in Iraq, and Al-Shabab in East


Africa, I'm simply not prepared to be a Prime Minister who has to


address the people after a terrorist incident and explain I could have


done more to prevent it. The police and other Government agencies made


more than 500,000 requests for data from communications firms last year.


This is so called met at that data, the raw information that shows who


is contacting who, for how long and if on a mobile, where from. There


were another 2,760 requests for interceptions, that would be the


content of the actual phone call, e-mail or message. It is an


essential source, I think, both countering terrorism and dealing


with serious crime. Particularly for law enforcement, this is an


essential tool. A lot of it is very basic, it is who called whom, when


and where, basic communications data. It is really important that


capability is maintained. In the aftermath of the Madrid and London


bombings, a European directive was put in place, forcing companies to


store customer data for up to 24 months and hand it over to the


authorities when needed, for years that wasn't questioned. But the leak


is from this man, Edward Snowden, changing the way companies and


Governments feel about state surveillance. In April this year the


European court of justice ruled that those firms no longer have an


obligation to store that data. Privacy campaigners say they have


already sent more than 1500 letters out, demanding that all personal


information is immediately deleted. Without this legislation we face the


very prospect of losing access to this data overnight. That appears to


have caused a panic in Whitehall and the sudden realisation that the


police and Security Sers could be on the backfoot. Today's emergency law


will override that European ruling, effectively restoring the status


quo. The new law is unusual for a number of reasons, the speed it will


be on the books for one, it should complete all its parliamentary


stages by next week and the way in which it has the backing of all


three main parties before being debated. Long-term critics are


suspicious, accusing the Government of a stitch-up. If there was a real


emergency it would be on April 8th when the European Court actually


made the ruling. Then you would have expected the Government to come to


the House and say we need to have an emergency law, if that was


necessary. They should have seen that coming. Instead, to rush it in,


one-and-a-half weeks before we end the session. It doesn't seem


sensible. Nick Clegg was at David Cameron's side today to support the


measures. On paper at least the new bill has greater safeguard as new


oversight board and promise of a review before the next election. We


have inserted a poisoned pill into the legislation, we are not putting


anything permanently on the statute book. The bigger question is what


happens after the date. The PM made clear today he would like to go


further, giving greater powers to the police and Security Services.


Even those who have worked on the frontline need to be convinced that


is really necessary. I think the act is pretty good. It is technology


neutral, it has enabled the authorities to collect information


which has saved lives and prevented crime. I'm not personally convinced


that there is a huge new area that is needed. Since Snowden, there has


been pressure on the state to roll back its ability to snoop.


been pressure on the state to roll marks a new stage. An attempt to


draw a line and set out why these powers are so necessary. Even the


politicians admit that getting the balance right between security and


privacy may take some time yet. Joining me now are the Justice


Minister and Liberal Democrat MP, Simon Hughes, and the director of


the Campaign Group Liberty. Simon Hughes, first of all, a massive


climb-down for the Liberal Democrats and another example of throwing your


principles to the wind to remain in the coalition? Completely not,


because, it doesn't increase the powers of the state at all. It


doesn't agree to the snoopers' charter which we have resisted and


has not been agreed by the coalition, and although the Tories


would like it we haven't agreed to it. It doesn't pick up some of the


ideas that were advocated by the last Labour Government. Why is so


last minute, what David Davis was saying is there has to be some kind


of debate in this, you had three months? You asked me a question


saying is it a big climb-down, I'm just saying not only is it not


because it doesn't change the present law in terms of its impact,


it also, as you heard Nick Clegg say, adds a huge amount of extra


things. We have got guarantee, we have secured a guarantee that the


big law, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act will be


reviewed before the general election. We have secured that this


piece of temporary legislation has an end in 2016. Are these good


things? No. You do accept the terror threat, the threat from criminal


gangs is often on-line? I'm not going to have the nonsense I heard


from my Prime Minister today about this emergency being caused by


paedophiles and Jihadis. This court judgment that found the existing


regime unlawful, a disproportionate blanket interference with


everybody's privacy, criminal or not, this judgment came down on the


8th of April this year. I have read the bill very carefully, it is a


very short piece of enabling legislation that could have been


introduced into parliament pretty much three months ago. What is the


emergency? Why has it taken three months? Because they have been


stitching up a little deal with the coalition and it seems with the


opposition behind closed doors. They talk about committees of oversight,


why can't parliament be the committee of oversight? It will be


the committee of oversight. Parliament will have... Three days


to do this. You have looked at the bill it is a short bill, you have


conceded that. It took three months to draft. Let me deal with one point


at a time, it doesn't extend the powers of the state at all. Reverse


the judgment. It replaces via piece of legislation the secondary


legislation that was in existence under the directive, it doesn't


change or add to the law. Why so last minute? Because we were very


careful that once the judgment of the European Court was given, we


didn't want to get legislation wrong. Careful attention was given


to make sure we had the minimal amount of legislation to replace T


that is why this, and also for us, that many additional safeguards were


put in place. You have utterly changed your position? Who has? That


speech from the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister today


could have come from Tony Blair or Gordon Brown or any previous Prime


Minister. It couldn't. You would have not supported this before the


general election? It couldn't. Minister you would not have done.


Because you heard what the safeguards are, they are a review of


the substantive legislation, part of an interim review. 2016, why so


late. There is a review of the main legislation, a new oversight board,


a change in the Scrutiny Committee in parliament, a sunset clause which


kills the bill, it doesn't enable it to be reviewed, there is a huge


reduction... In two years time... . Let me, it is really important. You


were against the whole communications data act? And it is


gone, we have stopped it, the Tories want it and we have stopped it. The


really important thing is this bill reduces the commitment we have got,


reduces the number of authorities who ask for data. It doesn't. It is


only such a short time since Lee Rigby and you said it was a kneejerk


reaction, and now we have this last-minute legislation. It was not


kneejerk reaction, if you it was you would have seen something brought to


parliament the day after the judgment. In the same way you are


attacking the idea that there is very little chance to have any


oversight of this, in the same way there doesn't appear to be any


public outrage, because the public believes, by and large, that the


Government is doing what it can to keep people safe from terrorism,


from paedophiles and from organised criminality, that is the duty of the


Government? Absolutely. I agree that this kind of data can be really,


really helpful and essential in all kinds of serious criminal


investigations, I'm sure the court of justice agrees that too. But they


found this blanket surveillance, this blanket reception and access to


data, all those thousands and thousands of requests, they found


that disproportionate, this bill creates no safeguards that ensure


the regime is more targeted and we go back to being citizens and not


all of us suspects. Which is why the very short legislation makes it


clear that the Secretary of State will only have power to issue


necessary and proportionate interception warrants. The whole


proportion issue is very important. But if it is proportional and


everything elsewhere are you making some -- why are you making such a


fuss about the sunset clause. What will change two years down the line


that will suddenly suggest you won't continue to support? There is a big


debate about this issue, rightfully around the world. I will give you


one example, I'm a member of parliament in the constituency where


Damilola Taylor was killed. His killers were found because police


were able to track the communication patterns on phones. I don't think


there is any disagreement that we need to be able to track these data


patterns. If that is the case, when the European Court says the legal


infrastructure that you have is not valid what do we do? Do we stand


back and do nothing? You haven't been targeting enough, you have been


indiscriminate. Putting a holding operation in by law. A holding for


two years? That is a long hold. There is plenty of time to look at


what we want to do properly both in this parliament and after the


election. You have an opposition to this, but what you don't know


because you are not a technological expert is how quickly the technology


is moving. We know by various things happening with airport surveillance


that things are moving very quickly in technological terms. Presumably


we have to do everything we can to cover the waterfront on this? The


technology moves apace, but the law and politics has to keep up. Wait to


keep up is not... That is what it thinks it is doing? This is giving a


blank cheque to the executive to reverse court judgments. This is


contempt. Let me finish. It doesn't change the law. It is contempt for


the law because it doesn't reverse the court judgment or put in the


safeguards that the court required to make it more targeted. It is


contempt for parliament because they will pass it in three days next


week. Contempt for parliament, three days? If this was a proposal to


increase the powers of the state. You are reversing the court


judgment. When a court judges... Are you reversing the court judgment? We


are dealing with the fact that the regulations we have... Are you


responding to the court judgment? Of course, you know that. The regular


layses at the moment we have -- the regulations we have at the moment


won't stand the test. Do we leave it to be legally tested and have no


law? Of course not, we could be left with no legislation at all to make


sure that the security authorities kept the data which we need to keep


this country safe and parliament will be able to deal with it. Thank


you very much indeed. We have long days of fighting ahead of us, these


were the words of Israel's Defence Minister today as rocket attacks by


both Israel and Gaza showed no signs of abating. Israel has struck around


780 targets in which at least 78 Palestinians have been killed since


Tuesday, while Palestinian militants in Gaza fired more than 4020 rockets


towards Israel. The UN Security Council discussed the crisis and Ban


Ki-Moon says that Gaza is on a knife-edge and called for bold,


creative thinking to end the violence. Who has the power and


influence to pull both sides back from another Israeli-Palestinian


war. Here is our diplomatic editor, this film contains distressing


images. M this film contains distressing


there is mounting. More than 80 dead and 500 wounded since Israel stepped


up attacks against Palestinian groups. They have been pounding


homes, telling people to leave with a warning. Sometimes they call and


warn you, sometimes they hit the house directly with no warning


whatsoever. We have experienced this kind of things from Israeli


warplanes in the past two days. But the easy targets were hit in the


first few days, and, as in past onslaught, the scope for tragic


errors is increasing. Several Palestinians killed watching a World


Cup match in one place, extended families becoming casualties in


another. But this exchange is different from past ones, for three


reasons. Since the last exchange in 2012 the balance has altered. Hamas


has acquired more missiles and some with longer range. Locally procuesed


Kasam 4 rockets can reach 17kms. Even two years ago Hamas could hit


Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, with Iranian missiles. Now it has another type,


the M 3 O2, with a 160km range that takes in pretty much all of Israel's


densely-populated coastal strip. Israel though has made the bigger


stride, its Iron Dome Defence System is performing better, knocking down


up to 90% of the in coming Palestinian missiles it is launched


at. A nationwide early warning and shelter system means that so far no


Israelis have been killed. And when it comes to striking back, sensors


and reaction times have been built to the point where a response to


rockets fired from Gaza can come in seconds. We are well instructed, we


do lots of drills, and all people need to do when they hear the siren


is to find the safest place around them, wait about ten minutes and


move on with your life. So it is not a big deal. The second thing that


has changed is Egypt. As a result of its volatile politics. When it was


run by the Muslim Brotherhood, President Mohammed Morsi smuggling


tunnels into Gaza proliferated and got big enough to take missiles


through. But under the General, many tunnels have been shut and Gaza has


been isolated. The Israelis have today released video of more of


these underground routes being bombed. But while Egypt's change of


Government might help Israel's security needs, it prevents Egypt


from playing the same role they did two years ago in mediating an end to


the fighting. Hamas still has ties with Qatar, where today its leader


was trying to mobilise support. TRANSLATION: I say to the American


Governments and the European countries, United Nationses and to


the brother in our neighbouring states of the Arabs, why the


Palestinian people supposed to be broken and surrender and die a slow


death? Here is another different factor, Israel has now started an


operation that could be hard to end. Hamas insists it will carry on


hitting back, and since Egypt is loathe to negotiate with the


Islamists, Israel has been left with the language of continued


escalation. The best help that the terrorists could get, the Hamas


movement could get is people that will explain to them that hitting


Israel does not pavement anybody that wants to explain that to the


Hamas movement is welcome to do that. Egypt, or anyone else in the


world. But the way that we would explain is that if you hit Israel


you will get hurt ten-times harder. The Palestinian Authority says than


Israeli ground operation into Gaza is imminent. Israel won't confirm or


deny that, but if the need not to be seen backing down sets the tanks


rolling, it could be a tragedy in the making.


Earlier this evening I spoke to Israel's minister of intelligence,


strategic affairs and international relations. Yesterday he repeated his


view that Israel needed to move into Gaza to eradicate Hamas. I began by


asking him if he thought Israel would launch that attack imminently?


Sooner other later we will have to go into Gaza to destroy the


terrorist army built by ham marks and maybe to enable the Palestinian


Authority to take control again of Gaza. If you went in as before, and


let's go back to 2009, when you went in there, 1400 Palestinians died, 13


Israelis died, that is a big disparity, but it does mean that


Israelis, you have got to prepare for Israeli fatalities? Yeah, look,


you describe the situation which is very complicated. But you know


despite many differences there are some similarities to what is going


on today in Iraq. The terrorist organisation, like Hamas or Al-Qaeda


or ISIS, with fanatical Islamic ideology is taking over the


territory, and again to attack other territories. But no Israelis have


been killed already, and we know that a substantial number of


Palestinians have been killed. Last night at a beach side cafe there was


an air strike and nine Palestinians watching the World Cup were killed


and 25 injured. How are they the enemy? It is very sad but you are


right. Hamas is launching rockets at our citizens. These were civilian,


you are accurate and can pinpoint your targets, how did you kill


football supporters in a cafe? Most of the casualties are Hamas, most


unfortunately when terrorists are shooting on our cities and towns we


have to protect our people. One of the reasons that there are no


casualties so far in Israel is because we managed to destroy


several thousand rockets before they were launched at our cities. Ban


Ki-Moon has called for bold, creative decisions, why not talk now


to Fatah, why not even talk to Hamas? Hamas don't want to talk with


us. Would you talk to them? Out of surprise one week ago, without any


reason, suddenly launches of hundreds of rockets into Israel.


Imagine that somebody would launch hundreds of rockets into Britain, in


London or Liverpool, and people would have to go underground. People


would have to go underground. Don't you have the opportunity to create a


laing peace and as Binyamin Netanyahu says, a two-state solution


now to avoid being drawn in and actually being vulnerable to the


wider problems in the Middle East. The creative solution surely is


finally to sit and you say Hamas won't talk to you, will you talk to


Hamas? We are talking to the Palestinian Authority, Hamas took


over from the Palestinian Authority, but you know what speaking about


peace, let me remind you again, we left Gaza, we uprooted all the


Jewish settlements in Gaza in order to promote peace. This happened nine


years ago. The Palestinians promised publicly that once we would go out


of Gaza there would be no hostility and rockets. 12,000 rockets were


launched from Gaza on our citizens, this is not the way to promote


peace, Gaza was supposed to be totally demilitarised, no rockets,


no missiles, that's a commitment we got from the Palestinians, and now


instead our people are under constant rocket fire every day,


going underground into shelters, no democratic Government would tolerate


such a situation and the Government of Israel is committed to defend


itself, exactly like the Government of Britain or the Government of the


United States or the Government of Italy and any other democratic


state. Thank you very much. Is there no chance of a reprobement between


the -- reproachment between the education workers and the Education


Secretary. They marched today and with the sharp words of Michael Gove


on Newsnight ringing in their ears. His blunt assessment of the teachers


who don't back his reforms. What is striking, I find, is that while I


can't put an absolute number on it, what I can tell you is that


outstanding teachers and outstanding head teachers are, I find,


overwhelmingly in favour. So it is the bad ones that don't get it? Yes.


Joining me now is Shaun Worth from the think-tank Policy Exchange, and


former adviser to David Cameron, and a teacher in a London comprehensive


school and author. Shaun Worth the bad ones don't get it, only bad


teachers out on strike today? It was one of the trade unions out on


strike today. But if you look at what they were striking about, which


was pay and performance. Let's talk about what Michael Gove was saying,


the bad teachers don't get it? I don't know about bad or good


teachers. The strike today was about pay, three-quarters of teachers


support pay reform and performance related pavement you have some trade


unions going out there and pretending there is massive


controversy over pay reform. But most agree with what was going on.


The teachers were out for a number of reasons, pay, pension, curriculum


changes and free schools, it was a general upset at the direction of


travel? What I would say about the politics of it, which is the root of


it, if you look at Tony Blair, you know, going back to anyone that has


reformed education, you know, you reform any of these big things run


by trade unions, you have a stand-up fist fight with them, gloves off and


that is tough. What he also said of course was the outstanding teachers


and the outstanding head teachers back him? I totally disagree with


this. Most teachers I encounter feel that Gove knows very little about


education and that most of his policies are extremely misguided.


The evidence is that things like going for academy schools and free


school, performance-related pay doesn't work. This is from the


Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, that


are saying that performance-related pay makes no significant difference


to pupils' outcomes. What we need to do is focus on what really works,


which is teachers co-operating, working together and supporting


teachers, giving them fair pay and giving them a chance to improve life


chances for individuals. Performance-related pay doesn't


undermine teams, it just means the OECD evidence is completely to the


contrary. It says some of the best education systems around the world


are attracting the brightest talent and teachers because of


performance-related pay. It is not about cash, it is about rewarding


people and valuing people. I would agree it is not about cash it is


about fair pay, and it is about encouraging teachers to co-operate


together. I know in my school we had a kind of performance-related basis


them in my school, until recently it didn't work, because it was very


high stakes and people were in their own little individual sigh locals.


We have got a new -- silos. Is Michael Gove not listening to the


evidence? He is not listening to the evidence. He would say that actually


the opposition is not necessarily what is happening in the classroom,


he says that it is an ideolgical opposition? It isn't, it is about


supporting what actually works. What works is when teachers co-operate,


they come together and are paid decently and you have an


evidence-based approach, like they have in perhaps New Zealand, where


they fund research that actually enables teachers to do a better job.


He has a duty obviously as Education Secretary, to do the best he can for


the majority of the pupils, and there is mixed outcomes. Does he not


need to take teachers with them? I'm a mild critic of his approach on


some sort of boring technical policy issues but also communications one.


Give me some boring then? Free schools and where you target them.


And let's target them in poorer communities because you will get


more political capital built up around that. What about


communication? Probably the same point. You know going into education


or health reform or any big public sector reform, you will have a


massive fight with the trade unionist and elitist establishment.


The way to win the political argument is to bring, not them with


you, probably but the public. He He has demonised us, I have had


Conservative, Conservative teachers complaining about him, he has


striped us of our pay for the last four years. He has cut our pay,


effectively, he has cut our pensions, I have had Tory teachers


who loathe what he's doing. None of his policies have worked. None of


them have worked. The academy system doesn't work. We know it doesn't


improve standards. You have had automatic pay progressions for 20


years. What works is fair pay, that is what teachers want. That is fair


pay. We are moving into a situation where people should be rewarded for


excellence, it is not a benchmark. We want a system that is fair, if


you have a system that backs up bullies and secretive siloism in


schools it won't work. That is what performance-related pay does. It is


unequal to women. You said there was a problem with communecation, it is


not going to get -- communication, it is not going to get any better,


will it? I think it will, the trick the Tory Party missed was not


putting it front and centre of the campaign from the start. It is the


most socially progressive policy we have, it helps poorest kids most. It


hasn't. It is not hard left it has been a disaster.


Sex and art have been the centre of Mr Greenaway's problems, for example


the Cook the Thief His wife and Her mother. His latest work explores sex


and eroticim and religious hypocrisy with works involving increst and


paedophilia taboos. The stories are staged in order to get a patron to


cough up for a revolutionary new printing press. I met him in the


National Gallery where it is being screened in front of the paper by


the paint -- of a painting by the painter himself. Really it is a film


about film making. Although he's a film make bitter repute, he really


existed, it is transpossession the activities of a film maker to a


print maker and he is me. In your film you choose difficult taboos,


are you trying to shock or entertain or inform I would like to think I


was honest enough to do all those things. Just to shock is not enough,


it produces sharp, quick and unnecessary returns. How did you


construct this, it is the most beautiful seas of tableau? I'm


trained as a painter. An Italian journalist asked me about starting


my career as a painter and now you are a film maker. My quick and


factitious replay was saying that I was always disappointed that


paintings didn't have soundtracks! This film has a constant soundtrack


and you have talked about cinema being too wordy? I really want to


make cinema that is cinema and not nothing else. You know we don't have


an image-based cinema we have a text-based cinema, every film you


have seen started life with text. I think we should prioritise the


image, the image, the image. I strive to make well wrought images.


The biblical creation of man and woman for painters, has always


presented problems. You start with the ultimate text, the Bible?


presented problems. You start with best seller of all time. Isn't that


a nice irony. And all those ironies are perpetuated. There are lots of


words on screen, but they are performing like images, it is Texas


image, in the beginning was the word. Did you want this film to be


erotic or was that just a by-product. I know you have railed


against the idea that it is pornography? Have I, I constantly


accuse in the dialogue of the painter being a pornographer, look,


is that pornography or eroticim. What is the difference between two


words. It is extreme piece of voyeurism, a woman totally displayed


for our voyeuristic gaze. I'm not sure if it is just a male gaze, I'm


sure women are just as interested in pornography as men, but there is a


way that it is blatantly obvious what the intent is meant to be. You


started as a painter and you have been making films, and in way you


are disparaging about certain elements of cinemas do you want to


be a painter again? Always, always, the painter in the film is me, full


of personal quirks and tropes and attitudes and self-reflections. What


kind of painter would you be? I grew up in the 60s, early David Hockney


always excited me. The list could go on and on and on. I think the first


four important film directors are Caravagio, Valasquez, here they are


again, Caravagio, and Rembrandt, and Valasquez, they are dealing in the


extraordinary business of artificial light, and what is cinema, no more


or no less than the manipulation of artificial light. A little while ago


you said when you reach the age of 80 you would kill yourself? I live


in Holland where euthanasia is not a dirty word. I cannot think of


anybody who has done anything really valuable after 80. Can you, tolls


toy d toll -- Tostoy only died at 82 but didn't do anything useful. I


think the old should move asides and let the enterprising young step


forward. I'm a good Darwinian, I have four children and passed on the


genetic material and I can't think of anything more important than


procreation. I'm engaged with film making enterprising and exciting,


but only filling in the time between now and death. Relaxed or


entrepeneurial or lazy, generation Y have come of age. Our reporter is


certainly in the demographic. When you think of political radical its,


you probably don't think of -- radical, you probably don't think of


generation Y, today's 18-30s, yet this generation might represent the


biggest this generation might represent the


the Second World War. A generation that redefines politics in our


society in its own image just as the great post-war generation did 70


years ago. We are not talking about technology tweeting or texting, we


are talking about a revolution in how we are thinking. They might not


know it, but if generation Y has a spiritual home then it is here, at


the economist tower, the home of the magazine which for centuries


espoused a form of political, social and economic liberalism, which is


precisely where my generation is at. They held a lot of views that


conventionally might be called right-wing, they are more likely to


support privatisation, and more instinctively comfortable with


business, and the role of the private sector, and less comfortable


with the role of the monolithic welfare state. On social issues they


are more conventionally left-wing, they are liberal on matters of


sexual and racial and other forms of cultural identity. They are a


mixture of both. But on economic matters they tend to the right. They


are more individualistic than previous generations were at the


same points in their lives. This is more than just an age effect as


sociologists call it, it is a generational effect. Data from Ipsos


mori confirms this view, for example, when asked whether taxes


should go up to support increases in unemployment benefit, generation Y


were the least likely to think they should. Their parents of the same


age on the other hand were overwhelmingly in favour. Rather


than relying on pollsters and journalists in London, Newsnight


decided to test this in an unscientific way, going to a college


in Nottinghamshire to talk to some of the younger members of the


generation Y. Should jobseeker's allowance be time-limited? All of


you think yes. Why? I think it gives people Anne sentive that if they


have got a - -- an incentive, if they have a time limit they have to


work especially hard to get a job, and we need that incentive in


society now, too many people are relying on the benefits system to


give what they need, it is tough love. It would encourage people to


not spend essentially too much time or their entire lives, perhaps not


contributing to society, and I feel there is a ticking timebomb


situation perhaps motivating people to go and find a job. Even though


some have described them as the jilted generation, they don't seem


keen on robbing the rich to feed the young poor? Should the Government


have inheritance tax? It is just legalised grave robbing. If a person


their entire life has worked and tried to create something and they


want to pass it on to the next generation, I don't think the


Government should have any say or power in what happens to it. This


group didn't want the state support, they saw it as their responsibility


to get a jobs, thought they should pay their own tuition fees and


generally want to be self-reliant. The question is why has this shift


taken place. One man who thinks he knows the answer is Ryan Shorthouse,


who from his own front room in London runs his think-tank Bright


Blue, that lobbies for liberalism in the Conservative Party. I think it


is generation DIY, do it yourself. There has been a huge rise in the


number of young people who are self-played, a 55% -- self-employed,


a 55% rise. A lot of people have adopted Thatcher's views, a belief


in a small state and privatisation. Also political discourse is


dominated by ambition, opportunity, they are words that are often put


out there and have been adopted by both the Thatcher Government and the


new Labour Government. I think young people have really swallowed that.


Are we missing the bleeding obvious, this is the first generation to grow


up with the Internet as an ever-present force in their lives.


Brixton building here used to be John Major's father used to speak


but now it is a trendy pub. We all grew up in the age of the internet


which has given us a thirst for individualism and actually made us


quite competitive, documenting our lives competitively on social media.


With a social media generation and it is all me, me, me, that is kind


of good if you can harness it into a positive thing. The rise of this new


selfie generation poses huge questions, one of them is this, can


those born in an era of collectism, the welfare state, the BBC, maybe


the idea of a nation itself, survive the transition to my generation


where the individual is king. My guests join me to discuss this.


First of all, when Sarah was your age she was out on the streets


campaigning, that doesn't happen any more, have all the battles been won


or you just don't care? For me I look at the process that I have


seen, those on the Iraq War and on student finance, they have been lost


and I think young people are now thinking well we won't bother with


that, we will just really power on and try to do well for ourselves. Do


you think that is a healthy thing, do you think it is selfish? I don't


think it is selfish, I think actually we can take a real


positivity from that. I think self-responsibility is so important,


especially with finance. People really need to be taking personal


responsibility for their own finance. Rather than leaving it to


some kind of collective responsibility? As we heard on the


video they don't want to be falling back on the state. Do you think you


did the heavy lifting? We did the heavy lifting on social issues, and


we were very effective in doing it. And partly the irony we were


effective in doing it is not just because there was a lot of us but


because we grew up in a welfare state that made us more equal and


made us good at protesting because we had the safety net. Do you


recognise what generation Y seems to be, the kind of tenets of it now,


are they attuned to your daughters, not in a negative way, but you have


daughters, does it feel more individualistic or feel that


actually they are out for something that is a different thing, they are


not out for the general good? It feels like a generation under siege,


and not a generation under siege from social issues but economic


issues. Those economic issues are so big that it is very hard to know how


they can protest against them. What you are saying is they are so


desperate trying to get on to the jobs and housing ladder they haven't


got time to even talk about mainstream broad politics? It is not


even they haven't got time it is the issues are so big and when they go


to the Government the Government's attitude is what can we do about it


is too big for us. I agree with you, most of the people featured on the


video have no idea of the economic reality of their situation. What


they have been very exposed to are very negative conotations of people


who are on benefits, programmes like Benefits Street, projecting quite...


Does that mean they don't want to take part in the wider discourse in


society, that they are too busy, selfies, on-line, blaming the


baby-boomers for drinking the well try? This is a view of the


generation that older generations have created actually. What the


younger generation hasn't seen is a world that they have lived in


without the welfare state and the NHS. If they did see that and


experience that their views might change. It is interesting because we


are now in a situation where you know there is different priorities


for a generation Y, and there is an ageing population, and as Lewis


said, institutions like the NHS and so forth, they are not invested in


them. So what's going to happen when we're nearly shuffling off the


mortal coil, will anyone be looking after us? What I suspect is there is


one leftover social battle that the baby-boomers didn't fight and we


have yet to win, which is the right to die. I would actually suggest


that rather like your Peter Greenaway film, very few of us


actually want to be infirm and badly cared for with dementia. We would


actually like to make the final choice up until then. What we will


do is help generation Y by deciding when and where we go, and as long as


we sort out the inheritance tax, maybe we will hand on some money to


help them. Would you like that or actually would you like to think


that you have become more caring as you get older? It is not about lack


of care. Looking after the older generation or do they have to


literally get lost? I know pensions will get massively more expensive


for the taxpayer in the state pension and also the private


pensions that young people are receiving are absolute chicken feed


compared to what older generations have had. We are seeing older


generations retiring now and they are on the breadline. What will


happen to us, that is what we need to think about. We have to know what


we are attacking here, when generation Y talks so rudely about


the welfare state and benefits scroungers, we have to ask serious


questions, the welfare state didn't cause the recession we are in. You


are concerned about pensions and welfare and why aren't you out there


with placards? I'm making my career about writing about this and trying


to get older generations to see exactly what's going on. And you are


absolutely right, we managed to make protests work because we learned it


from the cradle to the grave. They have failed with two very important


protests so you can blame both political parties for that, Labour


with the Ir War and this one. We will be discussing this for time to


come. All we have time for tonight, good night.


come. All we have time for tonight, good night.


We saw 26 degrees in the sunshine, but also for eastern areas intense


rain which will continue overnight, finally petering out through Friday


morning. We think still some nasty conditions around for the rush hour,


sea fog near the east coast, the odd patch of fog will clear, and a good




Including surveillance through the back door, who can prevent war in Gaza, Michael Gove vs the NUT, Peter Greenaway interview and Conservative youth.

Download Subtitles