:00:00. > :00:07.Here we go again, a deluge that leaves thousands of homes
:00:08. > :00:27.Ike a current to it. It was that fast and that quick coming in, I had
:00:28. > :00:30.no choice but to literally abandon it and take myself and my little one
:00:31. > :00:32.upstairs. We can't protect ourselves
:00:33. > :00:34.from everything the weather throws at us, but we'll ask
:00:35. > :00:37.if we're even close to rising to the And Finland, the land of
:00:38. > :00:40.Santa Claus, is pondering giving
:00:41. > :00:43.a monthly income to everybody. Tyson Fury and the petition to take
:00:44. > :00:52.him off the shortlist for Nature is a capricious beast
:00:53. > :01:09.and has struck again, The rain has not just topped some
:01:10. > :01:14.relatively new flood defences in that part of the country,
:01:15. > :01:19.but has also topped the records: 34 cm in a 24-hour period - a
:01:20. > :01:25.month's worth of rain in a day between Friday and Saturday
:01:26. > :01:27.in the county. And the Met Office have said
:01:28. > :01:35.a new record had been set for rainfall over a 48-hour period,
:01:36. > :01:38.with 41 mm falling in 38 hours It's a county wearily familiar
:01:39. > :01:40.with the consequences. The Prime Minister chaired a COBRA
:01:41. > :01:43.meeting this morning, What we did after the 2009 floods is
:01:44. > :01:48.spend millions of pounds building these barriers and they have
:01:49. > :01:51.prevented floods in Carlisle I think on two occasions, but they weren't
:01:52. > :01:54.enough on this occasion when we had But after every flood,
:01:55. > :02:00.the thing to do is sit down, look at the money you're spending,
:02:01. > :02:03.look at what you're building, look at what you're planning to build in
:02:04. > :02:06.the future and ask, is it enough? It's pretty inevitable that people
:02:07. > :02:12.will ask "are we doing enough" to prevent flooding, as they do
:02:13. > :02:18.after each episode like this. It may be rational to say,
:02:19. > :02:20.we're not going to bother defending against a flood that occurs only
:02:21. > :02:23.once every 100 years. But what if we keep having
:02:24. > :02:26.floods that are only meant The problem is that if some kind
:02:27. > :02:31.of climate change is occurring, it may be that the statistics relating
:02:32. > :02:34.to the last 100 years are hopeless Nick Hopkins has been looking
:02:35. > :02:54.at how much we spend on flood Flooded and fed up. For so many,
:02:55. > :02:58.Christmas will be spent crying out. Drying out. In the Commons today a
:02:59. > :03:03.pledge from the Government to everyone who needs help will get it.
:03:04. > :03:07.The Government will continue to ensure that all resources are made
:03:08. > :03:11.available to support recovery from this flooding. COBRA will continue
:03:12. > :03:15.to meet daily to oversee recovery efforts, and I will be travelling to
:03:16. > :03:19.Cumbria and Lancashire after this statement to continue to ensure we
:03:20. > :03:27.are doing all we can to help those affected. But as floodwaters recede,
:03:28. > :03:33.recriminations begin. Labour today accused the Government of breaking
:03:34. > :03:39.spending promises. The figures show spending on flood defences hit ?670
:03:40. > :03:43.million in 2010. Before it was slashed under the coalition
:03:44. > :03:48.Government. The winter floods of late 2013 and early 2014 prompted an
:03:49. > :03:56.emergency injection of Government cash. But spending this year will
:03:57. > :04:01.indeed dip. There is money to throw at the problem. Devastation two
:04:02. > :04:07.years ago prompted Ministers to pledge ?2.3 billion of new spending
:04:08. > :04:13.over the next six years. But experts warn cuts elsewhere could leave us
:04:14. > :04:19.vulnerable. I think the question there is, how have the various
:04:20. > :04:23.Spending Reviews affected all the other organisations that maintain
:04:24. > :04:28.our flood defences of different sorts, all different assets, be they
:04:29. > :04:33.highways, water companies and so on. Keswick in Cumbria. This is worse
:04:34. > :04:40.than the flooding seen here in 2009. That was meant to be a once in a
:04:41. > :04:44.century event. It wasn't. And that's no accident, say some. We need to
:04:45. > :04:49.have a long-term strategy. We definitely need to use the science
:04:50. > :04:53.that we are developing now, which indicate there is going to be a
:04:54. > :04:58.continuous change in extreme rainfall in flooding and we need to
:04:59. > :05:01.put that into policy to make sure our populations are resilient. So
:05:02. > :05:07.that policy doesn't exist at the moment? In some parts it does, but
:05:08. > :05:12.it could be improved. The threat of flooding is one thing. Ensuring
:05:13. > :05:17.against it another. Premiums of ?25,000 a year are not unheard of.
:05:18. > :05:22.Insurers will club together next year to spread the risk, a scheme
:05:23. > :05:28.which should bring the bills down. I It will give people more access to
:05:29. > :05:34.insurance, but it is a partial fix. Which sits alongside our choice of
:05:35. > :05:42.where to build and our choice of how we build. Could extreme weather
:05:43. > :05:48.require extreme answers? As some areas, are some areas now too great
:05:49. > :05:55.a flood risk? I think it is realistic to that some places will
:05:56. > :06:00.be unsustainable in the future. Now people might choose hot to live in
:06:01. > :06:04.an area of flood risk. People who stay might have to consider flood
:06:05. > :06:09.proofing their house, raising it up or changing the sockets. You can do
:06:10. > :06:15.a lot of things, or learn to live with the flooding, which is another
:06:16. > :06:19.option. Many people do live with flooding quite happily. It is about
:06:20. > :06:24.a choice but we have to be able to support people in that choice. It is
:06:25. > :06:27.not that easy when you are actually flooded and your home has been
:06:28. > :06:32.destroyed to rationally think about whether you can stay in that area.
:06:33. > :06:42.These floods weren't the first. And they won't be the last. And they may
:06:43. > :06:47.get much worse. John Sweeney is in Carlisle in Cumbria and he joins us
:06:48. > :06:52.now. Give us some of the impressions you've been picking up today as
:06:53. > :06:57.you've been there. I've seen worse tragedies in my time, but it is grim
:06:58. > :07:03.up here. I've been speaking to a chap who was helping his name, who
:07:04. > :07:08.is 93, and it is her birthday today. Frankly she said to her neighbour,
:07:09. > :07:14.listen, I don't want to go home ever again. I've had enough of floods.
:07:15. > :07:19.She is worried the police might have knocked down her front door and that
:07:20. > :07:23.looters may have come in. I don't think it is a massive reality, but
:07:24. > :07:30.the it is a fear. How did this happen? In 2005 there was a big
:07:31. > :07:35.flood here. Flood defences were built and they were 23 feet height.
:07:36. > :07:41.The water came in over the weekend at 25 feet. The result is thousands
:07:42. > :07:45.of people have had their homes flooded, and many hundreds are
:07:46. > :07:50.industrial without power, including this area where we are now. It is a
:07:51. > :07:54.grim story and this is the film we've made about it, which we'll
:07:55. > :07:59.show now. Water, water, everywhere and not a drop to drink. The floods
:08:00. > :08:04.are not just a catastrophe, but the people here in Cumbria and the
:08:05. > :08:10.north-west of England they are bad news for the Government and the
:08:11. > :08:15.taxpayer too. Ten years ago a great flood happened here in Carlisle. It
:08:16. > :08:20.was described as a once in a 100 years event. The bad news, it has
:08:21. > :08:28.happened again. Not once in a century but twice in a decade. The
:08:29. > :08:33.great flood of 1853 set the record for flooding here in Carlisle. That
:08:34. > :08:40.level was toppeded in 2005 by half a metre. This weekend the water
:08:41. > :08:47.summered a further half a metre, higher again. After the 2005 floods,
:08:48. > :08:52.the Government spent ?38 million on new flood defences here. Some locals
:08:53. > :08:58.could be forgiven for wondering whether that money was poured down
:08:59. > :09:04.the drain. You could hear cracking. We thought the French patio doors
:09:05. > :09:12.had cracked, but it was the wooden flooring, it has risen up. Have you
:09:13. > :09:18.got kids? We've got a 1-year-old and a 17-year-old. They are my aunty's.
:09:19. > :09:24.And how were they? Milly is special needs. She was really scared. She
:09:25. > :09:30.ended up going out on a boat with the Life Guards yesterday afternoon.
:09:31. > :09:34.You can blame this flood on global warming, or say that it has got
:09:35. > :09:39.nothing whatsoever to do with it. There's a big argument about that
:09:40. > :09:46.happening in Paris right now. But people in Cumbria say the flood
:09:47. > :09:50.defences have let them down. Tonight the tally stands at 4,000 homes
:09:51. > :09:57.flooded. Many are still without electricity. For now, from here,
:09:58. > :10:00.Britain's flood defences don't look that great.
:10:01. > :10:03.Here with me now to discuss some of these issues is the Conservative MP,
:10:04. > :10:06.Neil Parish, who is chair of the Select Committee for Environment,
:10:07. > :10:09.Food and Rural Affairs and also has a farm in Somerset, which was struck
:10:10. > :10:21.Good evening to you. Just on the funding, and I don't want to get
:10:22. > :10:26.into pernickety argument about whether it is 1 periods up or 1%
:10:27. > :10:28.down, but is the settlement higher than previous Parliaments? It is
:10:29. > :10:32.about the same as previous Parliaments. I think the big
:10:33. > :10:38.argument now is, do we need to spend more? My heart goes out to the
:10:39. > :10:44.people of Cumbria. We were flooded in 1981 with sea floods with where I
:10:45. > :10:53.farm and that was really bad. Lost a lot of sheep and the house was
:10:54. > :10:56.flooded. Are we spending enough of our resource to defend ourselves
:10:57. > :11:00.from the sea and from Inland Regional Centre flooding? That's my
:11:01. > :11:09.question to you. Are we spending enough? More or less. We are saying
:11:10. > :11:13.we are doing well because we are keeping spending higher than it was
:11:14. > :11:19.in the 1990s, but is it remotely enough? Figures show that for every
:11:20. > :11:23.?1 we spend on flood protection, it is worth ?4 to ?9 for the local
:11:24. > :11:27.economy. Therefore I would argue we need to spend more. We need to
:11:28. > :11:32.defend our holes against floods, and we need to defend our coast against
:11:33. > :11:36.floods. I think whether it is global warming, whether it is patterns,
:11:37. > :11:40.what wherever it is, what we can't do is allow our homes to be flooded,
:11:41. > :11:45.nor should we allow our country to be flooded. It is not just with
:11:46. > :11:50.these floods now. I've been on about this for many years. In Somerset we
:11:51. > :11:53.suffer floods a lot of the time by its very nature. You've got to
:11:54. > :11:58.accept that some areas will flood. This flood that happened now,
:11:59. > :12:02.probably if you get a month's rain in a day, you are going to have
:12:03. > :12:07.problems. But we still have to face up to this. These are one in 100
:12:08. > :12:13.events, but these are happening every five years. If you are on a
:12:14. > :12:17.trajectory that's going up, it is obviously going to happen more than
:12:18. > :12:23.once every 100 years. Run that figure by me again. For every ?1 you
:12:24. > :12:29.invest there are ?4 of benefit? Yes. Are there schemes that we are not
:12:30. > :12:36.doing, not taking up, where that kind of benefit to cost ratio
:12:37. > :12:42.exists? Yes, we need more money. So hang on. Before you move on, how do
:12:43. > :12:49.we justify to ourselves that there are schemes where we honey believe
:12:50. > :12:54.for ?1 we spent we get ?4 of benefit and we say, can't be bothered to do
:12:55. > :12:58.it? We'll have the Permanent Secretary of Defra in front of us in
:12:59. > :13:03.January, along with the Secretary of State. That's precisely the
:13:04. > :13:11.questions we'll be asking. And he will say incidentally. She will say.
:13:12. > :13:17.Sorry. She'll say that they don't have the money. The Chancellor will
:13:18. > :13:20.say for infrastructure, there's never been a better time to do it
:13:21. > :13:23.because interest rates are low. So therefore we have to look at flood
:13:24. > :13:28.and sea defence, because in the end we have to defend our country. You
:13:29. > :13:33.only have to spend the Netherlands, who spend a fortune on it, or they
:13:34. > :13:37.wouldn't have a country, we don't spend enough. We'll probably have to
:13:38. > :13:40.persuade the Chancellor, whether a Conservative or Labour Chancellor,
:13:41. > :13:46.but we've got to face up to the fact we need to spend more money. Some of
:13:47. > :13:51.the benefits come not just next year but in 50 years' time or possibly
:13:52. > :13:58.100ees' time. Do you think Government in this country is well
:13:59. > :14:03.tuned to thinking about the 50 to 100 years' time? We'll need to,
:14:04. > :14:07.because the insurance companies will need to reinsure these properties,
:14:08. > :14:12.so they've got to have some confidence. We have to make sure
:14:13. > :14:16.people can afford their premiums and don't have huge excesses. We are
:14:17. > :14:25.going to have to be much longer thinking on this issue. You have
:14:26. > :14:28.been very honest, one of the government's ideas is through the
:14:29. > :14:33.private sector, maybe localities, to put more money in themselves to
:14:34. > :14:38.their own flood defence. It frankly hasn't been working, has it? There
:14:39. > :14:45.has been some money coming in but not as much as we would like to see.
:14:46. > :14:50.If it is not going to come from the private sector, they will need to be
:14:51. > :14:52.more public sector support, but I think it is right to get the private
:14:53. > :14:55.sector to contribute, but we don't want that stopping schemes, we have
:14:56. > :15:07.to let them go forward. This evening Donald Trump has
:15:08. > :15:13.generated a great deal of interest. The first is that the latest polls
:15:14. > :15:17.show his lead solder fine -- solidifying in I/O outcome of the
:15:18. > :15:21.first state in next year but Mac primary season, at a rather
:15:22. > :15:25.unassailable looking 33%. The second is yet another round of very
:15:26. > :15:30.controversial comments on Muslims in the United States. Donald Trump is
:15:31. > :15:35.proposing a total ban on Muslims coming into America. He did so in
:15:36. > :15:40.this press release. It dropped into our inboxes an hour ago, many people
:15:41. > :15:46.thought it was a fake, a parody but it is for real. It says Donald Trump
:15:47. > :15:49.is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the
:15:50. > :15:54.United States and tell our country's representatives can figure out what
:15:55. > :15:59.is going on. Now, we have spoken to his spokespeople, they have been
:16:00. > :16:02.saying that this man would -- this ban would apply to tourist train to
:16:03. > :16:07.come into America and also Muslim immigrants seeking entry as well.
:16:08. > :16:12.Quite how they would find out the fate of people entering America is,
:16:13. > :16:16.they are not sure on that detail, and not sure if it would apply to
:16:17. > :16:20.American Muslims who leave the country and want to come back but it
:16:21. > :16:27.has been fiercely condemned by the White House less than 24 hours after
:16:28. > :16:33.President Obama made a plea for racial tolerance. Saying this is
:16:34. > :16:45.contrary to American values, and it has been said by Jeb Bush to be
:16:46. > :16:50.unhinged. Donald Trump has been saying so much in this campaign,
:16:51. > :16:55.trashed a war hero, made sexist remarks about a journalist, imitated
:16:56. > :16:58.a person with a disability. One wonders what else the guy is going
:16:59. > :17:02.to do to court controversy. Will this make a difference, is this the
:17:03. > :17:05.one where people will say we're not going to vote for the guy now, or
:17:06. > :17:12.will it carry on adding to his own momentum? We have been asking that
:17:13. > :17:16.question ever since he started insulting people and is not must
:17:17. > :17:20.have gone up. What has propelled his candidacy, not just the celeb take
:17:21. > :17:25.his money, his hardline stance on immigration. It was set out in that
:17:26. > :17:30.very first press conference in Trump Tower when he called Mexican
:17:31. > :17:34.immigrants rate this and criminals and vowed to build a wall between
:17:35. > :17:38.Mexico and America. Recently he called for a registry of American
:17:39. > :17:43.Muslims, yet every time he has made what many people would think of as
:17:44. > :17:47.racist comments, his poll numbers have gone up. I should add there has
:17:48. > :17:52.been a very strong condemnation from Muslim groups in America this
:17:53. > :17:55.evening. One group has said we are now entering the realm of the
:17:56. > :17:59.fascist. Whether this disqualified him from the presidency, who knows?
:18:00. > :18:03.Every time he had said something outrageous in the past, as I have
:18:04. > :18:06.said, his poll numbers have tended to go up.
:18:07. > :18:09.We learned today that sometimes government happens more slowly
:18:10. > :18:13.The final decision on a third runway at Heathrow was kicked into this
:18:14. > :18:16.parliament from the last one, and then when we got the verdict of
:18:17. > :18:18.the Davies commission, was kicked into December from the summer.
:18:19. > :18:21.And guess what - today we learned that it has now reportedly been
:18:22. > :18:26.But laugh as we might at the endless obfuscation, that is not the only
:18:27. > :18:32.Hopes of wrapping it all up for Christmas have gone.
:18:33. > :18:34.The President of the EU Council, Donald Tusk,
:18:35. > :18:48.What did we learn today? He gave us this new goal of February, he said
:18:49. > :18:53.he wants it done and dusted by then. He suggested that dithering so far
:18:54. > :18:56.over Britain's renegotiation had caused instability across Europe.
:18:57. > :19:01.There will be some relief for British Conservatives. They were
:19:02. > :19:09.worried it would be a never-ending referendum. They would go on and on.
:19:10. > :19:12.Now you could have a deal in February and conceivably have the
:19:13. > :19:16.referendum done by mid-to-late June. It is really tough. It would require
:19:17. > :19:22.everything to fall into place like clockwork but is still slightly
:19:23. > :19:27.possible. If it is going to be February, the agreement, it requires
:19:28. > :19:30.a lot of work to be done. The actual exercise Donald Tusk has done is he
:19:31. > :19:33.has gone round the other a youth member state and says what do you
:19:34. > :19:40.reckon about what Britain is asking for? A massive fact-finding mission,
:19:41. > :19:44.and he has found, what a surprise, the problem is the tax credits
:19:45. > :19:47.issue. David Cameron, they would like to say the new migrants coming
:19:48. > :19:50.to Britain in the future, you would have to wait four years before you
:19:51. > :19:55.could get in work benefits. We have reported that Jeremy Hayward has
:19:56. > :19:59.told the Prime Minister you are not going to get that, it would be
:20:00. > :20:03.illegal, you might get six months. Task is coming back essentially
:20:04. > :20:07.saying what we sort of knew already, just at a more formal level, that it
:20:08. > :20:10.is looking pretty tricky. David Cameron has some good news in that
:20:11. > :20:14.the Tories really don't want this to dominate the next parliament, but
:20:15. > :20:18.equally there is no way, no clear way through on tax credits yet.
:20:19. > :20:21.It's an idea that's been around for decades, but few countries have
:20:22. > :20:24.been brave enough - or perhaps stupid enough - to adopt it.
:20:25. > :20:27.The idea is to scrap welfare as we know it, and instead to offer every
:20:28. > :20:31.So step forward Finland, because the Prime Minister there
:20:32. > :20:43.Everybody would be given 800 euros a month - ?600 or so to keep.
:20:44. > :20:46.It has enormous appeal, but does it work?
:20:47. > :20:49.We'll hear from a proponent in a moment,
:20:50. > :20:55.Should we replace the existing system of pensions, child payments,
:20:56. > :20:57.disability allowances, housing support and all the rest with what
:20:58. > :21:03.A simple flat tax-free payment to all adults that
:21:04. > :21:10.That notion may now be taking a step away from the seminar room
:21:11. > :21:16.and towards reality, with moves in Finland to start trials of the idea.
:21:17. > :21:18.The body that administers social security there has commissioned
:21:19. > :21:21.a new study, and the policy has support, according to
:21:22. > :21:28.But then who wouldn't like a tax free payment every month
:21:29. > :21:33.The Finnish proposal is to abolish existing benefits and replace them
:21:34. > :21:38.with a monthly payment of 800 euros to every adult.
:21:39. > :21:41.Paying every adult that would cost about 46 billion euros a year,
:21:42. > :21:44.about in line with current Finnish benefit spending.
:21:45. > :21:49.Counterintuitive as it might sound, the aim is to reduce unemployment.
:21:50. > :21:52.In theory, paying people a flat rate of cash regardless of whether they
:21:53. > :21:57.work or not should make it easier for people to move into work.
:21:58. > :22:01.They won't lose benefit as they earn more, reducing disincentives.
:22:02. > :22:08.Well, there are several, and some of them are pretty big.
:22:09. > :22:11.Any move towards a basic income would create lots of winners,
:22:12. > :22:14.amongst people who don't get much cash from the state at the moment.
:22:15. > :22:22.Basically people in decent paying work without children.
:22:23. > :22:23.But it what create serious losers too.
:22:24. > :22:26.Disabled people, for example, who often get larger payments from
:22:27. > :22:28.the social security system to help them cope with their conditions.
:22:29. > :22:30.People with children, especially those with larger families
:22:31. > :22:33.on lower income tax, who would lose out on child benefit payments.
:22:34. > :22:35.And people who currently get support with housing costs
:22:36. > :22:41.Of course, you could try and add in circumstances-specific top-up
:22:42. > :22:47.payments, but then you would be undermining the simplicity of the
:22:48. > :22:54.A basic income which doesn't cut the payments to the most vulnerable
:22:55. > :22:57.be more expensive than the current system and implies higher taxes.
:22:58. > :23:03.And that's the issue Finland will now have to face.
:23:04. > :23:12.Joining me to talk about basic incomes, Newell Lawson, chair of the
:23:13. > :23:17.left of centre campaigning group, Compass. He is an advocate of doing
:23:18. > :23:23.this in Britain. It is a live debate as you are concerned, you are doing
:23:24. > :23:29.a seminar on it tomorrow. Very live. What do you like about this scheme?
:23:30. > :23:35.Our Social Security system is broken, it was invented in 1945 and
:23:36. > :23:38.the world has moved on from working in factories. A new world is
:23:39. > :23:42.coming, where technology will displace lots of jobs actually, and
:23:43. > :23:46.there will be huge productivity gain from that. Unless we want food
:23:47. > :23:52.riots, we are going to have to find a way of paying people to spend
:23:53. > :23:55.money in the supermarkets. All the evidence suggests that people don't
:23:56. > :23:59.do nothing, actually what they do is they work, they become more
:24:00. > :24:02.entrepreneurial, they volunteer, they care for people, they do a
:24:03. > :24:08.whole load of things. Our social security system is built on
:24:09. > :24:13.believing the worst in people, and what a citizen's income does is it
:24:14. > :24:19.gives them the belief of the best in people. That is what it is about.
:24:20. > :24:23.Let's go through the basic problem with the basic income scheme, what
:24:24. > :24:28.Duncan mentioned, if it isn't very generous, basically it is not very
:24:29. > :24:33.nice to people who are in hardship, who can't but by going out to work
:24:34. > :24:37.for example. We are modelling this at the moment, and actually if you
:24:38. > :24:42.swapped to some kind of citizen's income in the UK where every adult
:24:43. > :24:46.was given ?75 and you kept housing benefit and child benefit, one or
:24:47. > :24:53.two other benefits, as a kind of way into it to begin to introduce it,
:24:54. > :24:58.now then, if we are right... ?75 a week? Gas, which is enough, it is
:24:59. > :25:03.not perfect, not as much as the Finns are doing it, and the Finns
:25:04. > :25:07.are doing it, why can't we? It begins to introduce the system and
:25:08. > :25:11.it puts a floor under people. If there are going to be huge
:25:12. > :25:15.productivity gains from new technology, the question is who
:25:16. > :25:18.gains from that? Does it just go to the tech companies or can we
:25:19. > :25:24.redistributed through a citizens income? ?75 which doesn't sound like
:25:25. > :25:27.a good enough wage. I wouldn't have thought somebody from the left would
:25:28. > :25:32.think that. As soon as you start topping it up with a disability
:25:33. > :25:36.premium, child benefit already in there, which I believe Finland isn't
:25:37. > :25:41.proposing to do, then you have made it all complicated, you have just
:25:42. > :25:44.reinvented universal credit with a lower withdrawal. You are treating
:25:45. > :25:50.everyone as a citizen and giving them worth, giving them some kind of
:25:51. > :25:55.floor under their feet. When you start giving people 70 something
:25:56. > :25:59.pounds a week, the unemployed move into employment, those who are
:26:00. > :26:04.taking very poorly paid jobs, refuse poorly paid jobs and go the better
:26:05. > :26:07.paid jobs. So it helps all round. You get rid of the competitive
:26:08. > :26:13.benefit system, the humiliation of means testing. You have got rid of
:26:14. > :26:17.means testing and the humiliation, but in order to give me ?75 a week,
:26:18. > :26:24.you have got to put up everybody's tax rate in order to find all those
:26:25. > :26:28.?75. So you have given everyone a lump sum all week but the basic
:26:29. > :26:33.income tax rate has to go up very substantially. No it doesn't, it can
:26:34. > :26:37.go up a bit. But look, every time we introduce something radically
:26:38. > :26:40.different and transformative, the NHS, the minimum wage, the Social
:26:41. > :26:47.Security system itself originally, everyone says it is not possible,
:26:48. > :26:51.right? It is possible, it is just whether it is attractive. Finland
:26:52. > :26:53.are showing it is possible and if this technology thing is happening,
:26:54. > :26:57.and if jobs are going to be displaced, then we have to find a
:26:58. > :27:02.way to pay people. There is no way out of this. It is why people on the
:27:03. > :27:06.left are supporting it, like me, but why people across the political
:27:07. > :27:09.spectrum from the RSA to the Adam Smith Institute all sorts of
:27:10. > :27:14.economists, and more than anything technologists, arriving at
:27:15. > :27:18.citizen's income is the policy issue of the 21st century. If Finland, who
:27:19. > :27:23.are considering it now, if they look at it, back away and say this isn't
:27:24. > :27:26.going to work, will it change mine? Everywhere it has happened, been
:27:27. > :27:29.tried, it has moved people into being productive and has helped
:27:30. > :27:34.people reach their potential and fulfil their potential. If it can do
:27:35. > :27:37.that, then it is a policy we ought to be looking at.
:27:38. > :27:42.The sports glitterati will gather at the SSE Arena in Belfast
:27:43. > :27:45.for the BBC Sports Personality of the Year event.
:27:46. > :27:48.They'll drag the show out for more than two hours, but the clue
:27:49. > :27:52.as to the bit you're meant to relish is in the title - the crowning of
:27:53. > :27:57.One winner out of twelve shortlisted contenders.
:27:58. > :28:00.But, this year, there is a petition against one name on that shortlist:
:28:01. > :28:02.boxer Tyson Fury, world heavyweight champion.
:28:03. > :28:04.His remarks likening homosexuality to paedophilia, and suggesting that
:28:05. > :28:07.the legalisation of homosexuality is a sign of the apocalypse have upset
:28:08. > :28:11.many, as have comments about fellow shortlistee, Jessica Ennis, who, he
:28:12. > :28:19.said "slaps up good" and "looks quite fit".
:28:20. > :28:22.Now, do his comments make him unsuitable as a winner?
:28:23. > :28:24.Or should those taking offence simply look
:28:25. > :28:29.I'm joined by the boxing promoter, Kellie Maloney, and the
:28:30. > :28:46.Good evening to you both. Good evening. Kellie, knowing what Tyson
:28:47. > :28:49.Fury has said, when you saw him box Klitschko, who were you rooting for?
:28:50. > :28:55.Obviously Tyson Fury, because he's British. It was one of the dull test
:28:56. > :28:58.heavyweight fights I have ever watched, but his achievement was
:28:59. > :29:02.unbelievable. He went into the lion's den against all odds. No-one
:29:03. > :29:06.picked him to win, including myself. And he came away with the title, so
:29:07. > :29:12.his sporting achievement is unbelievable. But? His comments
:29:13. > :29:15.leave a lot to be desired. I didn't really know about the comment until
:29:16. > :29:20.this morning people phoned me. At first I thought he should be taken
:29:21. > :29:24.off the list. But the more I've listened to it today, even to Tyson
:29:25. > :29:29.himself speaking, I think he should be left on the list and the British
:29:30. > :29:34.public should make that decision. Right, so has he ever said anything
:29:35. > :29:40.about transagendaered boxing promoters? No, but he said a lot of
:29:41. > :29:46.things about Frank Maloney. He's been up before the board of control
:29:47. > :29:51.before and has been fined for derogatory remarks against boxers
:29:52. > :29:57.and their families and women before. It is not the first time Tyson has
:29:58. > :30:05.let steam off. Do you think sports people owe a duty to be a role
:30:06. > :30:10.model, upholding civic values and not making subtling remarks or
:30:11. > :30:14.should they say what they think and be done with it Of course it would
:30:15. > :30:19.be nice to think that all sports people should be role models, but
:30:20. > :30:24.that's an unrealistic expectation to put on people. Sports people come
:30:25. > :30:28.from all walks of life. To me it is like saying everyone in society
:30:29. > :30:32.should be a role model and act in a certain way. We have different types
:30:33. > :30:37.of people from different social, economic, academic backgrounds. Not
:30:38. > :30:40.everyone is going to be able to uphold and put their best foot
:30:41. > :30:47.forward. It is the same for sports people. Of course it would be nice
:30:48. > :30:50.but unrealistic. With expectation there is's disappointment and that's
:30:51. > :30:56.what happens. Let's talk about specific cases. Glenn Hoddle, an
:30:57. > :30:59.English football manager, made remarks about karma and people with
:31:00. > :31:03.disabilitiesment basically he lost his job as a result. Do you think
:31:04. > :31:09.that was the right thing, Kellie? Not really. He should be judged on
:31:10. > :31:14.what he does for sport. It seems there's some rules for certain
:31:15. > :31:25.people in sports and some rules for others. If he had been winning he
:31:26. > :31:29.would have... Kept his job. For me, and this is a little controversial,
:31:30. > :31:36.I feel the media also have a responsibility. If you think about
:31:37. > :31:41.it, the media love to give column inches and TV time to controversial
:31:42. > :31:50.figures in sport. They love the give all that attention. So we entice the
:31:51. > :31:55.comments? Exactly. We talk about, the media talk about people should
:31:56. > :31:59.be role models, but think about it. If you gave them limelight and
:32:00. > :32:04.glorified the great sports people in society that are doing the great
:32:05. > :32:08.work, being great role models and stopped giving it to the
:32:09. > :32:15.controversial, maybe it would inspire the controversial ones to be
:32:16. > :32:20.better role models. Supposing he said something about black athletes,
:32:21. > :32:25.would it change your view on this? Would you be more angry than you are
:32:26. > :32:29.exhibiting at the moment? A lot of the time he's speaking about his way
:32:30. > :32:34.of life. His community, how they are. Of course it is not we as a
:32:35. > :32:39.whole society think, but at the same time it is what they do and they are
:32:40. > :32:43.happy with it. But if they were happy with racist views, for
:32:44. > :32:50.example, would you it is OK for him to be on a personality sports list?
:32:51. > :32:54.It is not a winner's roster. But the public do decide, so the public make
:32:55. > :32:56.that decision. If the public, I think he's, I think his remarks are
:32:57. > :33:05.wrong and they are very very think he's, I think his remarks are
:33:06. > :33:10.wrong and they are very a certain section of society. But he's a human
:33:11. > :33:15.being, you have to understand where he is coming from. He is from a
:33:16. > :33:20.closed community. Trained by his uncle. They don't have any
:33:21. > :33:24.outsiders, they live in their own world. And we are talking about
:33:25. > :33:28.sports personality of the year. Certain things, with what he said,
:33:29. > :33:32.there's two different things we are talking about here. Sports
:33:33. > :33:36.Personality of the Year, what are the the criteria? If they are about
:33:37. > :33:40.your sporting prowess and what every achieved in your sporting field,
:33:41. > :33:45.that's one thing, which I think it is. If some of the criteria are that
:33:46. > :33:49.you have to be a role model and you can't do this and this... You
:33:50. > :33:55.wouldn't have him there? Absolutely not, because it is not in the rules.
:33:56. > :34:01.Maybe the BBC needs to change the rules and then he can't be in, but
:34:02. > :34:07.for now let him in and allow people to vote. You think he should be in?
:34:08. > :34:17.I do now, for what he has achieved in sport. Who would you vote for?
:34:18. > :34:22.Jessica Ennis hill? I think Andy Murray for the Davis Cup. I think
:34:23. > :34:26.Jessica Ennis, obviously. Thank you both.
:34:27. > :34:29.Ten years ago, we could have done a piece on how coffee shops are
:34:30. > :34:34.If we had, some of us would have said the growth of Starbucks
:34:35. > :34:37.We would have made puns about there being too much froth
:34:38. > :34:41.Coffee bars have continued to proliferate.
:34:42. > :34:44.It's a lesson that sometimes you can extrapolate an unsustainable
:34:45. > :34:48.So what is the success of coffee telling us?
:34:49. > :34:58.At home the British may still be a nation of tea drinkers, but on the
:34:59. > :35:04.Coffee shops, branded and independent, are spreading.
:35:05. > :35:08.The idea of spending ?2, ?3 or even more pounds on a cup
:35:09. > :35:10.of coffee no longer seems entirely alien to everyone.
:35:11. > :35:15.Some have even spoken about a flat white economy.
:35:16. > :35:18.If I'm honest I don't know what a flat white is
:35:19. > :35:22.and I'm quite suspicious of the kind of people that order them.
:35:23. > :35:25.But what I do know is that one of the fastest growing bits
:35:26. > :35:29.Despite severe recession, despite a big squeeze
:35:30. > :35:38.in household incomes, if you go back six years, about one in nine
:35:39. > :35:42.Last year though, it was one in five.
:35:43. > :35:44.In the last decade-and-a-half, the number of coffee outlets on
:35:45. > :35:49.In the noughties that was driven by the growth of the brand of chains,
:35:50. > :35:52.like Starbucks and Costa, but more recently there's been a pick-up
:35:53. > :35:56.And the market has been entered by non-specialists.
:35:57. > :36:02.Notably Gregg's the bakers and pub chain Wetherspoons.
:36:03. > :36:05.We began our research 18 years ago and we were told the market was
:36:06. > :36:07.already saturated then, there were enough coffee shops.
:36:08. > :36:09.Today we are looking at over 22,000 coffee shops,
:36:10. > :36:17.We think the market still has perhaps even double to go.
:36:18. > :36:21.The rise of out of town supermarkets and internet shopping has impacted
:36:22. > :36:26.on the high street, freeing up retail space and lowering rents.
:36:27. > :36:30.That's giving major opportunities for quality coffee shops,
:36:31. > :36:38.branded or nice quality independents to move in at affordable rents
:36:39. > :36:47.People flock to coffee shops to socialise and,ing inially, to work.
:36:48. > :36:50.People flock to coffee shops to socialise and to work.
:36:51. > :36:56.And it is a meeting place of I guess people that
:36:57. > :37:01.We have a lot of people that come in here and buy one coffee and sit
:37:02. > :37:04.Combining the leisurely graces of 17th century England with
:37:05. > :37:06.the colour, art and imagination of modern taste,
:37:07. > :37:09.coffee houses like this one in Kensington are having a new...
:37:10. > :37:11.The last decade wasn't Britain's first coffee shop boom.
:37:12. > :37:14.Tastes change over time and the 1960s saw something similar,
:37:15. > :37:23.But the first real coffee boom was 300 years before.
:37:24. > :37:26.On the left we have something very exciting, a rather fetching blue
:37:27. > :37:35.plaque marking the site of London's first coffee house, opened in 1562,
:37:36. > :37:39.plaque marking the site of London's first coffee house, opened in 1652,
:37:40. > :37:42.and within a couple of weeks Londoners were flocking here in
:37:43. > :37:44.their hundreds to try out the bitter Mohammedan gruel,
:37:45. > :37:47.a 17th century term for coffee, but I'm surprised no hipster coffee
:37:48. > :37:51.Commerce was intrinsic to the coffee house experience.
:37:52. > :37:53.Some of the institutions in the City, like the insurance
:37:54. > :38:03.industry at Lloyds, and the stock markets, they all grew out of these
:38:04. > :38:04.smoky candlelit coffee houses.
:38:05. > :38:07.Until the arrival of coffee, most people were either slightly or
:38:08. > :38:10.very drunk all day long, because you couldn't drink the river
:38:11. > :38:14.So the arrival of coffee triggers the dawn of sobriety that lays the
:38:15. > :38:17.foundation for spectacular economic growth in the decades that followed,
:38:18. > :38:19.partly because people are thinking clearly for the first time.
:38:20. > :38:21.Of course, 17th century coffee was very different.
:38:22. > :38:23.Matthew Green still prepares it in the same way
:38:24. > :38:28.It was routinely compared to oil, ink, soot, mud,
:38:29. > :38:47.Coffee's relationship to the wider economy continues today.
:38:48. > :38:49.Some people are using coffee shops as indicators of gentrification
:38:50. > :38:56.I looked at coffee shops in an area and the number of chicken
:38:57. > :39:01.My theory was if you find a place that has a high density
:39:02. > :39:04.of coffee shops and low density of chicken shops and low house prices,
:39:05. > :39:09.The presence of coffee shops might tell us if coffee prices in
:39:10. > :39:14.But coffee doesn't tell us much about the state of the wider
:39:15. > :39:17.economy, because this is a market that seems to keep on growing
:39:18. > :39:31.The reason is because it is a narcotic and once we've started we
:39:32. > :39:34.need evermore to keep us going. Before we go, we thought we should
:39:35. > :39:37.mark the occasion of David Cameron's 10th anniversary as leader
:39:38. > :39:45.of the Conservative Party. In that decade he left his daughter
:39:46. > :39:49.in a pub and won a couple of elections. So here are some
:39:50. > :40:03.of his highlights and low points. I want to talk about the future. He
:40:04. > :40:08.was the future once. There is such a thing as society. It's just not the
:40:09. > :40:13.same thing as the state. It is now formally a hung Parliament. I want
:40:14. > :40:14.to make a big, open and comprehensive offer to the Liberal
:40:15. > :40:30.Democrats. Calm down, dear, calm down. Of
:40:31. > :40:36.course I would rather you supported West Ham. I'm a Villa fan.
:40:37. > :40:43.REPORTER: Do you choose West Ham or Villa? Sorry, I had, these things
:40:44. > :40:48.sometimes happen when you're on the stump. Together, together, together.
:40:49. > :40:55.Let's pull together. Let's come together. Let's work together.
:40:56. > :41:05.Together, together, together, together, and together. Too many
:41:06. > :41:11.twits might make a twit. Hello there. Sunny spells and scattered
:41:12. > :41:12.showers for Tuesday. We've got early