19/01/2012 Question Time


19/01/2012

David Dimbleby chairs a debate in Shrewsbury. He is joined by a panel comprising of Sayeeda Warsi, Stephen Twigg MP, Caroline Lucas MP, Germaine Greer and Charles Moore.


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 19/01/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Tonight we are in Shrewsbury. Welcome to Question Time.

0:00:000:00:07

With me on the panel in Shrewsbury, from the Cabinet, the Conservative

0:00:070:00:13

Party co-chairman Sayeeda Warsi. The man who famously defeated

0:00:130:00:17

Portillo in 97 and is now a Shadow Education Secretary, Stephen Twigg.

0:00:170:00:21

Green MP and leader of her party, Caroline Lucas. Author and critic

0:00:210:00:24

Germaine Greer and the columnist who has edited the Spectator, the

0:00:240:00:34
0:00:340:00:39

Sunday Telegraph and the Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore.

0:00:390:00:46

Stephen Twigg. I slightly mispronounced your name. And on

0:00:460:00:52

that happy note, our first question from Roger Fildes. Should taking

0:00:520:00:56

away Sir Fred Goodwin's knighthood be the first step towards ethical

0:00:560:01:01

capitalism. Sir Fred Goodwin, who was knighted by Tony Blair in 2004,

0:01:010:01:06

I think. Stephen Twigg. Yes, he should lose his knighthood. There

0:01:060:01:10

is a wide public consensus and it would be a symbolic move. But we

0:01:100:01:14

need to do far more than that to deal with the very real crisis that

0:01:140:01:17

Ed Miliband and others have been speaking about in recent weeks,

0:01:170:01:21

where we see the scandal of the gap between the highest paid and the

0:01:210:01:24

average paid in our financial institutions getting to the level

0:01:240:01:28

that we have got to do something serious about this. It is

0:01:280:01:32

interesting, David, that when Ed Miliband spoke about this at the

0:01:320:01:35

Labour Party conference last year, he was derided by Conservatives and

0:01:350:01:38

media commentators. Now we see David Cameron and Nick Clegg

0:01:380:01:42

jumping on the bandwagon. Better late than never, because we have to

0:01:420:01:46

deal with this crisis. It strikes at the heart of the kind of society

0:01:460:01:50

we are, the kind of economy that we are for the future. We are living

0:01:500:01:54

through very difficult times with austerity, and it is vital that we

0:01:540:01:57

have fairness in the solutions. what grounds would you take away

0:01:570:02:03

the man's knighthood? Because of the scandal of what happened with

0:02:030:02:06

RBS and the amount of taxpayers' money that had to be used to bail

0:02:060:02:10

out this bank. I regret the fact that we gave him that honour. It

0:02:100:02:14

was the Labour government that did that. Let's have a cross-party,

0:02:140:02:24
0:02:240:02:24

cross-community consensus to take this knighthood from him. Do you

0:02:240:02:29

agree? I do, and the forfeiture committee does have the right to

0:02:290:02:33

forfeit an honour which was, especially if it was given for a

0:02:330:02:36

specific purpose. In this case, the Labour Government gave him a

0:02:360:02:39

knighthood for services to banking, and clearly that was the reason why

0:02:390:02:43

he should not have been given a knighthood. So there is a specific

0:02:430:02:47

condition which the forfeiture committee can look back. What Fred

0:02:470:02:50

Goodwin represented, and this is why people have so much anger

0:02:500:02:54

towards him as an individual, is because it showed an endemic and

0:02:540:03:00

rooted problem where over a period of time the link between hard work

0:03:000:03:04

and reward had been broken. And the link between success and reward had

0:03:040:03:08

been broken. We ended up with a culture, and banking was the worst

0:03:080:03:12

form, where a bank would fail but the executives would get huge

0:03:120:03:16

bonuses, where even if you look in other parts of society where people

0:03:160:03:19

who went out to work could not afford to live in houses equivalent

0:03:190:03:22

to those people who did not work and were may be on housing benefit.

0:03:220:03:27

That is the kind of culture we need to tackle. How do you do that?

0:03:270:03:31

First of all in relation to banking. You make sure banking is never

0:03:310:03:36

again put in a position where it cannot afford to fail. So would you,

0:03:360:03:40

as a first step, prevent Stephen Hester, the present RBS boss,

0:03:400:03:47

getting his bonus this year? Last year, we negotiated that nobody

0:03:470:03:51

should get more than 2000 cash bonus by effectively a state-owned

0:03:510:03:58

bank. According to the Financial Times, he is still going to get a

0:03:580:04:02

�1.3 million bonus in a bank that is largely owned by all of us. Are

0:04:020:04:08

you in favour of that? No. It is right for the Government to say,

0:04:080:04:11

where you have been bailed out, where taxpayers have had to bail

0:04:110:04:14

you out because of the risks he took, it is unacceptable for you to

0:04:140:04:18

be getting millions in bonuses when everybody else is having to pay the

0:04:180:04:24

price of you getting that. It is reported that the board of RBS is

0:04:240:04:27

reported as saying that they are unequivocal and unanimous that the

0:04:270:04:31

Chancellor of the Exchequer does not set a bonus for the chief

0:04:310:04:35

executive of RBS. In other words, you can go hang. Let's see what

0:04:350:04:41

happens. You think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a position

0:04:410:04:45

to say no? The Chancellor is in no position to say, because he manages

0:04:450:04:49

the finances, the tax that people around the country pay, to say it

0:04:490:04:52

is not acceptable, like we did last year, for people to be given

0:04:520:04:57

bonuses in excess of �2,000 cash. The question to start with was

0:04:570:05:00

whether he should have his knighthood taken away from him.

0:05:000:05:05

That makes me wonder what is the point of the honours system? Really,

0:05:050:05:11

what is the point of it? I think the question is slightly

0:05:110:05:15

wider than this because payee is set for boardrooms by remuneration

0:05:150:05:21

committees. -- pay is set. Remuneration committees are made up

0:05:210:05:24

of non-executives who go around supporting each other on the

0:05:240:05:27

remuneration committees. Until you sort out governance on that, we

0:05:270:05:33

will always have this problem. woman at the back. The scary thing

0:05:330:05:37

about bonuses of �1.3 million is not so much the argument between

0:05:370:05:41

work and reward, although I cannot see the connection, but it is what

0:05:410:05:45

is the value of �1.3 million? People paid this amount of money

0:05:450:05:49

have lost sight of what that means. In Shropshire we went through a

0:05:490:05:52

devastating period of looking at closing schools, some of which,

0:05:520:05:57

some fantastic schools, have closed, for a deficit in the county of

0:05:570:06:00

approximately �1 million. And you are talking about one person being

0:06:000:06:05

given a bonus, not a salary, but a bonus of more than the amount that

0:06:050:06:08

caused the closure of valuable schools in Shropshire. It is just

0:06:080:06:18
0:06:180:06:19

ridiculous. Charles Moore, do you share that view? Yes, but first of

0:06:190:06:24

all, we should be fair to Mr Hester. He was brought in to sort this out.

0:06:240:06:28

He has not been bailed out for his mistakes. He has been brought in to

0:06:280:06:32

set this bright. I think it is absolutely fair that if he does set

0:06:320:06:36

it right, he should get a reward. But the reward should come when

0:06:360:06:42

that has happened. What we are dealing with, effectively, with RBS

0:06:420:06:46

is a nationalised industry, 83% owned by the state. In those

0:06:460:06:49

circumstances I do think it is wrong for him to get that money.

0:06:490:06:52

Because this is something that we, the taxpayer, have had to take on

0:06:520:06:59

board. We have at least potentially lost an absolutely enormous sum of

0:06:590:07:03

money on it. And I do not really understand why Mr Hester should not

0:07:030:07:07

be treated like any other reasonably highly paid successful,

0:07:070:07:12

capable executive. What is still in the minds of these bankers is that

0:07:120:07:16

somehow this has not really happened. Therefore, they will keep

0:07:160:07:20

on saying, we have to pay very well to get the right people. But they

0:07:200:07:24

are, as it were, wearing a dunce's cap in the corner of the room, and

0:07:240:07:29

they do not seem to recognise that. I have no objection to people

0:07:290:07:34

making large sums of money, if they have taken the risk and the risk

0:07:340:07:38

has succeeded. What is scandalous and against the principles of free

0:07:380:07:45

markets is that people who took enormous risks, made a lot of money

0:07:450:07:47

in the good times, and then when all of their risks went wrong, we

0:07:470:07:52

have to go on giving them a lot of money in the bad times, and we have

0:07:520:07:55

to back the risk. I interviewed Mervyn King last year and he said,

0:07:550:08:01

a very good sentence, he said, there is no place in a market

0:08:010:08:05

economy for the concept of too big to fail. And that is what we are

0:08:050:08:15
0:08:150:08:17

really suffering from right now. you wrote recently that you were

0:08:170:08:22

starting to think that the Left might actually be correct about

0:08:220:08:27

capitalism, and that the system is reporting to advance the many and

0:08:270:08:34

his perverted to enrich the few. Briefly, is that still your view?

0:08:340:08:40

Yes. I believe very strongly in a free-market and the creation of

0:08:410:08:46

wealth in a free country. That all goes wrong if capitalism is grabbed

0:08:460:08:51

for themselves by the capitalists. It is for everybody. And the moment

0:08:510:08:55

it starts being grabbed, then we are losing, the whole point of it

0:08:550:08:59

has gone. We have heard a lot about fair capitalism and for

0:08:590:09:02

understandable reasons there has been a lot of focus on the banking

0:09:020:09:06

industry, but what about the supermarket industry? There is a

0:09:060:09:10

report out today which says that the big four are not paying all

0:09:100:09:13

staff the UK living wage. Does something need to be done about

0:09:130:09:19

that? I think it is important to understand what bankers are paid

0:09:190:09:22

for. There was fuss about not enough regulation of the banks, and

0:09:220:09:26

people seem to think if we brought in more regulation the banks might

0:09:260:09:29

behave better. They actually, it seems to me, misunderstand what

0:09:300:09:35

people get paid for in banks. They get paid for finding ways around

0:09:350:09:38

the regulation. The attitude towards the regulation is not one

0:09:390:09:42

of responsibility. That is one of, this is something we are going to

0:09:420:09:48

find a way around. We have always had knights errant, even at the

0:09:480:09:52

round table there were treacherous nights. I think it is quite

0:09:520:09:56

important that you realise what a knighthood really is. If you looked

0:09:560:10:01

at the list of people who have been knighted over my lifetime, about a

0:10:010:10:05

third of them were rogues and vagabonds. And we might just as

0:10:050:10:08

well know that, instead of imagining that it really is a kind

0:10:080:10:13

of kite mark of excellence. It is not. It is a kite mark of cronyism,

0:10:130:10:23
0:10:230:10:28

Caroline Lucas, the question was, would taking away Fred Goodwin's

0:10:280:10:32

knighthood be the first step towards ethical capitalism. I agree

0:10:320:10:35

that the knighthood should be taken away from him. It would be an

0:10:350:10:39

important symbolic act, but we must not let offering him as a

0:10:390:10:42

sacrificial lamb let people off thinking that is all we need to do,

0:10:420:10:46

as others have said. I think what we need to do is to have a far more

0:10:460:10:50

radical look at our economy and what it is there to do. We have

0:10:500:10:55

talked about RBS. That is a bank that we own. This �1.3 million is

0:10:550:10:58

our money that is going to the chief executive of that bank. That

0:10:580:11:01

is simply wrong. If we genuinely owned the bank, we should take

0:11:010:11:06

control of it, break it up and make it into a proper People's Bank. We

0:11:060:11:09

should make sure that money goes to the small businesses that are

0:11:090:11:13

crying out for proper loans so they can get going again. I think we

0:11:130:11:18

should have a whole raft of policies like the kind of proposals

0:11:180:11:22

that were in the High Pay Commission. We need to be looking

0:11:220:11:25

at the grotesque profits that get paid. The supermarkets were

0:11:250:11:30

mentioned a moment ago. The supermarkets are the largest

0:11:300:11:34

employers after the NHS. Their bosses are getting in the region of

0:11:340:11:38

�3 million at the same time as they are not paying their own workers

0:11:380:11:42

even a decent living wage. That means those workers are having to

0:11:420:11:47

basically get tax credits. That means the taxpayer is essentially

0:11:470:11:49

propping up and subsidising the chief executives who are getting

0:11:490:11:53

these big payouts. We need a complete overhaul of our economies.

0:11:530:11:57

We need to start by who controlled the banks. We need to break them up

0:11:570:12:01

into smaller areas. We need to look at the because report and separate

0:12:010:12:06

retail banking from Casino banking. Fred Goodwin's knighthood is just

0:12:060:12:15

the start. We will stick with the issue of the economy for a moment

0:12:150:12:25
0:12:250:12:32

for another question. If you are The question from Nicola Blakeway.

0:12:320:12:35

How can the Labour Party call themselves the opposition when they

0:12:350:12:40

are not opposed to the Government's economic policies? We know this

0:12:400:12:44

week they have been falling over themselves to say it is not quite

0:12:440:12:49

clear what about Labour's cups. Nobody seems to quite follow it.

0:12:490:12:54

Stephen Twigg. We are opposed to the Government's economic policy

0:12:540:12:57

and we have said consistently since his Government was formed that they

0:12:570:13:01

are cutting too far, too fast, and the evidence is bearing up what Ed

0:13:010:13:05

Balls and Ed Miliband have been saying. But we are going to have to

0:13:050:13:10

keep the cuts, Ed Balls says. has talked about two things and we

0:13:100:13:15

reaffirm that we disagree with the Government's economic policy. It is

0:13:150:13:17

self-defeating because we are seeing borrowing rising despite the

0:13:170:13:21

cuts. But if we were to win the next election in 2015, of course we

0:13:220:13:25

would have to make a hard-headed assessment of what we would do. If

0:13:250:13:29

we were in power now, Caroline, we would not do the same thing, we

0:13:290:13:32

would not be cutting as they are cutting. We have set out our own

0:13:320:13:38

plan for jobs and growth. We talked about bankers, we would have kept

0:13:380:13:42

the banker's bonus tax that the Conservative Party got rid of that

0:13:420:13:45

raised �3.5 billion. That money could then have been used so we

0:13:450:13:48

would not have the rising unemployment we are facing. When

0:13:480:13:52

Labour left power in 2010, unemployment was falling and we had

0:13:520:13:56

economic growth. As a consequence of the scale and speed of the cuts

0:13:560:13:59

in the public sector, we see stagnant growth in this country,

0:14:000:14:03

rising unemployment and Government borrowing going up. It is not

0:14:040:14:10

working, it is hurting, we need a change of course. Do you agree with

0:14:100:14:14

Ed Balls, saying that all of Gordon Brown's talk about no more boom and

0:14:140:14:17

bust was a mistake and he should never have said it? Of course it

0:14:170:14:21

was a mistake. The Government cannot say we will abolish the

0:14:210:14:25

economic cycle. He said it year after year and nobody stopped him.

0:14:250:14:30

It was a mistake. One Government in one country cannot abolish the

0:14:300:14:33

economic cycle. As Chancellor, he achieved some good things but that

0:14:330:14:43
0:14:430:14:48

Baroness Warsi. I suppose they are in opposition in that sense.

0:14:480:14:52

Stephen, you are usually quite a reasonable part of the Labour Party,

0:14:520:14:57

and I'm therefore sad to hear you say this. What Ed Balls is

0:14:570:15:00

effectively saying is we will oppose any difficult decision that

0:15:000:15:08

you put forward, but not ever take the decision of reversing that

0:15:080:15:12

because we don't believe in what we are saying when we oppose, so it's

0:15:120:15:16

the worst form of politics. The whole point of this coalition

0:15:160:15:19

Government, when two parties came together to form the Government,

0:15:190:15:22

was because we heard what the public said, which is why can't you

0:15:220:15:26

guys just put your differences aside and deal with things in the

0:15:260:15:31

national interest? Things out there are too tough for you to be playing

0:15:310:15:35

party politics. Two came to do that, whether you agree or not with the

0:15:350:15:38

decisions, they are difficult ones that are taken in the national

0:15:380:15:43

interest. What saddens me is here was a great opportunity for Labour

0:15:430:15:48

to say, "Look, we were part of creating this mess and we were

0:15:480:15:53

responsible and we'll play our part." They play the worst form of

0:15:530:15:57

politics. What makes you think they are saying that on reversing the

0:15:570:16:07
0:16:070:16:08

cuts. Or the spending cuts and tough if you don't like it, said Ed

0:16:080:16:12

Miliband. I would like them to say we will stop opposing you and

0:16:120:16:15

holding up legislation, because ultimately they would be doing what

0:16:150:16:19

we are doing. Actually, they haven't got the guts to admit it.

0:16:190:16:27

It's weak. Would it be good if they stopped opposing you? No, it

0:16:270:16:30

wouldn't. The chairman of the Conservative Party says,

0:16:300:16:34

"Opposition, stop opposing us." would like them to be a good

0:16:340:16:39

opposition. The public at large do not want us to oppose for the sake.

0:16:390:16:42

The public at large don't want us to play politics, but sort the mess

0:16:420:16:47

out. We should work together to sort that mess out, especially when

0:16:470:16:57
0:16:570:17:00

you created most of it. How do you read Labour in this?, do you think

0:17:000:17:08

they are not opposing plorm? They are absolutely not opposing --

0:17:080:17:14

opposing properly? They are absolutely not opposing plorply.

0:17:140:17:21

Two Tories parties is -- properly. Two Tory parties is enough. I think

0:17:210:17:24

people who voted Labour would expect them to be opposing the cuts

0:17:250:17:32

and to say not only are they socially devastating, but also

0:17:320:17:35

economically illiterate, so you don't do it through more and more

0:17:350:17:39

austerity. I find it so depressing that the notion of economic

0:17:390:17:43

credibility has now been defined entirely as meaning more and more

0:17:430:17:47

austerity and there's now some kind of contest going on to see who can

0:17:470:17:50

cut in the most sharp and strong way, when what we should do is

0:17:500:17:54

invest in jobs and getting people back to work. That is where the

0:17:540:18:03

real crisis is. I think there is the false dichotomy that Ed Balls

0:18:030:18:06

is saying we have to have pay restraint otherwise there's not

0:18:060:18:14

going to be enough money to create more jobs. I would love there to

0:18:140:18:20

have pay restraints on huge amounts that the executives are earning.

0:18:200:18:26

Not on low-paid workers. You don't create other jobs in the economy.

0:18:260:18:29

If we are serious about having a genuine opposition, then what I

0:18:290:18:35

think they should do is calling for the roll-out of the living wage and

0:18:350:18:40

calling for proper taxation in terms of cracking down on tax

0:18:400:18:43

evasion, and cancelling Trident. There a whole range of things,

0:18:430:18:47

including quantitative easing and putting that money directly into

0:18:470:18:51

the economy into jobs, not cutting our throats by more and more

0:18:510:19:01
0:19:010:19:01

cutting on the poorest people. only it was that easy. Of course we

0:19:010:19:06

need to do more on tax evasion and avoidance. Ed Balls has been very,

0:19:060:19:11

very clear. He said that if there is to be pay restraint the higher

0:19:110:19:15

paid in the public sector should bear a bigger part of that pain.

0:19:150:19:19

He's rin to George Osborne to say that. On the -- written to George

0:19:200:19:23

Osborne to say that. On the immediate challenges, the

0:19:230:19:27

Government is borrowing for austerity. We think it should be to

0:19:270:19:31

create jobs and foster growth. It's a fundamental difference between us

0:19:310:19:37

and the Conservatives. The two criticisms can't both be true,

0:19:370:19:44

because you are completely opposite. If we were in power now we would

0:19:440:19:49

not cut in the way that the Government is cutting. We can't say

0:19:490:19:52

now what we would do in 2015, because we don't know what the

0:19:520:19:56

position would be. That's common sense. What I find surprising is

0:19:560:20:01

both of you are saying we should be spending more. We are in a debt

0:20:010:20:07

crisis. We are borrowing more because of you. How can you solve a

0:20:070:20:10

debt crisis by borrowing more? How do you deal with the credit card

0:20:100:20:16

debts by going out and getting more debts? It absolutely falls in the

0:20:160:20:24

wrong place. It means borrowing is going up. It's not strue, Stephen.

0:20:240:20:34
0:20:340:20:40

Germane -- it's not true. I wasn't listening to that last bit for this

0:20:400:20:45

reason - which is when a party loses it has a huge crisis and it

0:20:450:20:49

has a sort of nervous breakdown and consider the past record, which is

0:20:490:20:52

very unpopular. That happened to the Tories and now it is happening

0:20:530:20:55

to Labour. There is a period when nobody in the public is interested

0:20:550:20:58

in them and nobody believes what they say. In particular, the polls

0:20:580:21:03

that they are looking at say they've got no ecredibility on the

0:21:030:21:08

economy and that is -- got no credibility on the economy and that

0:21:080:21:18
0:21:180:21:18

is not surprising. I don't criticise Labour. I just think that

0:21:180:21:21

that's what they are trying to sort out. It's very difficult. I feel

0:21:210:21:24

sorry for them and I think we should pay no attention to them for

0:21:240:21:32

quite a long time. APPLAUSE

0:21:320:21:37

I just ram home that point by quoting Clement atly, when he had a

0:21:370:21:41

rebel Cabinet minister whom he was fed up with and he said, "A period

0:21:410:21:44

This is BBC News. The headlines: of silence from you for a long time

0:21:440:21:46

would be very welcome." The trade Jude Law and other victims of the

0:21:460:21:50

phone hacking scandal are paid unions are having a whale of a time.

0:21:500:21:52

hundreds of thousands of pounds by Do you think Ed Miliband has

0:21:520:21:54

News International. deliberately set out to irritate

0:21:540:21:56

Figures reveal a big jump in the them in order to reposition Labour?

0:21:560:21:58

numbers of robberies. No, I think he's worried about the

0:21:580:22:01

An investigation has begun into the polls and he rushed into this and

0:22:010:22:04

deaths of two babies in a Belfast got frightened and he has had to

0:22:040:22:08

hospital. Then maybe to a links to an infectious disease.

0:22:080:22:10

pull back. How can Labour have any Two explosions have gone off in

0:22:110:22:14

Londonderry. There are no reports of injuries.

0:22:140:22:17

legitimacy when they have 13 years A crushing defeats for England in

0:22:170:22:20

on the control of the banks wrong cricket. A 10 wickets last against

0:22:200:22:27

and sold off all our gold. Mr Twig said if Labour get into power of --

0:22:270:22:33

in 20 15, well he will never get into power. The trade unions will

0:22:330:22:37

hold them to account for it. What words in particular are you

0:22:370:22:40

thinking of? Exactly what the question is about, saying are they

0:22:400:22:46

in opposition or not? The words today, this week that came from Mr

0:22:460:22:56
0:22:560:23:03

Miliband could have come from anyone in the Government. Then

0:23:030:23:08

Unite talking about the four horsemen of the apocalypse. You

0:23:080:23:12

look proud. No, I'm not. These are difficult issues. The reasons he

0:23:120:23:15

included me was that I made comments last week about the scale

0:23:160:23:21

of the Government's cuts to education. And how we could make

0:23:210:23:23

savings in school buildings, but without the scale of the cuts that

0:23:230:23:27

the Government is making. There is a very big difference between the

0:23:270:23:31

two. I think we didn't always get value for money, but it doesn't

0:23:310:23:35

mean I support cancelling the whole programme. Are you surprised to

0:23:350:23:38

have the trade unions as your enemy? I don't think they are.

0:23:380:23:43

That's what he was saying. doesn't think he is our enemy.

0:23:430:23:47

There is a long, long history of disagreements between trade union

0:23:470:23:50

leaders and the Labour Party leaders. It goes back decades as

0:23:500:23:58

I'm sure you will be aware. The unions have to stand up for their

0:23:580:24:02

members, but Ed has to stand up for the entire country. Houp of your

0:24:020:24:06

money comes from the trade -- how much of your money comes from the

0:24:060:24:13

trade unions? About half. Some say a great deal more. Germaine Greer?

0:24:130:24:17

The oddest thing is the timing. Why did he make it? If politics is the

0:24:170:24:20

art of the possible, he just destroyed it by doing something

0:24:200:24:26

extremely unwise. I couldn't see what the cue was for that statement

0:24:260:24:30

at the time. I have to think, being a Lib Dem myself, that the

0:24:300:24:35

opposition is probably in bed with the Prime Minister. That happens in

0:24:350:24:39

many marriages and the person who is fighting the Prime Minister is

0:24:390:24:47

Nick Clegg, in a rear-guard action, trying to hang on to rags of Lib

0:24:470:24:51

Dem policy and trying to insert imagination. This image is

0:24:510:24:54

terrible! LAUGHTER

0:24:540:24:58

It's a very common image when the coalition first began. We don't

0:24:580:25:02

understand coalition politics, so we talk about who is winning, when

0:25:020:25:07

the whole point of a coalition is it's an on-going negotiation. I

0:25:070:25:10

think that is something that English people have to learn to

0:25:100:25:14

understand, because it probably is the government of the future.

0:25:140:25:20

hugely important and it goes to the heart of why we are in such a mess,

0:25:200:25:25

because Baroness Warsi said we have a big deficit and we need to stop

0:25:250:25:28

spending. If you were a household you have to stop spending. If a

0:25:290:25:32

whole country starts to do that and the country stops spending that

0:25:320:25:35

means there is no way we are ever going to get out, because you throw

0:25:350:25:42

people out of work and you lose the money into the revenue and it means

0:25:420:25:46

you are paying for benefits. The way to get out is through

0:25:460:25:50

investment. Which country in Europe, or in the world has adopted the

0:25:500:25:53

policy you are describing? Why is it that the whole of Europe is

0:25:530:25:59

doing what this Government is doing? They are not doing what they

0:25:590:26:04

are suggesting. The United States is doing more than we are. Standard

0:26:040:26:08

& Poor's are saying that the reason the nine countries have been

0:26:080:26:11

downgraded because they have been pursuing an austerity agenda that

0:26:110:26:16

doesn't work. Think of this like a mortgage, if you do it that way you

0:26:160:26:21

pay bits off over a much longer period, rather than thinking of it

0:26:210:26:23

as a household budget that you have to cut down immediately, because it

0:26:230:26:33
0:26:330:26:34

doesn't work when you do that on a nation level.

0:26:340:26:37

APPLAUSE The politicians are asking us to take austerity measures.

0:26:370:26:40

Wouldn't it be nice if the politicians offered to take a cut

0:26:400:26:47

themselves? The point from you and then we must go on. There is a

0:26:470:26:50

criticism of Labour but we need to remember who is in Government.

0:26:500:26:54

Labour have a five-point plan for jobs. When will we hear something

0:26:540:26:57

if the Government on how they plan to create jobs in the country,

0:26:570:27:01

because the private sector jobs we were promised to replace the public

0:27:010:27:09

sector jobs being lost through cuts, are not materialising. And you

0:27:090:27:13

there. I respect the passion that Caroline Lucas shows on this point,

0:27:130:27:19

I want to ask the question, where she thinks the money would come

0:27:190:27:23

from? Who would continue to lend to us in circumstances where they see

0:27:230:27:26

spending out of control? They wouldn't see it out of control.

0:27:260:27:29

What they would see is investment in jobs and through that money

0:27:290:27:32

coming back into the economy. If you look at what Ireland has done

0:27:320:27:35

after the last few years, they have cut and cut and the deficit is

0:27:360:27:40

higher. It doesn't work. Last comment. On the pay cut for

0:27:400:27:43

politicians, you may be interested to know that Gordon Brown cut the

0:27:430:27:46

salary of the Prime Minister and he timed the cut so it came it only

0:27:460:27:50

just before he lost the election LAUGHTER

0:27:500:27:58

We must go onment another question. This from -- go on. Another

0:27:580:28:04

question. This from Nigel Molding. With the 30th anniversary of the

0:28:040:28:09

Falklands War looming, would this be the time to consider giving them

0:28:090:28:18

back to Argentina? Germaine Greer? I've never quite understood the

0:28:180:28:22

position of the Falklands, because as far as I understand it, we don't

0:28:220:28:32
0:28:320:28:34

do as the French do and have constituencies over seas so they

0:28:340:28:36

don't have Parliamentary existence at all and yet we somehow think

0:28:360:28:41

that they belong to us. I don't quite get that. We know they don't

0:28:410:28:45

want to belong to Argentina, as least as far as we can tell from

0:28:450:28:48

the sort of information that we get. That is probably the thing we have

0:28:480:28:53

to consider ultimately. They want to be a bit of Little Britain, so

0:28:530:28:58

it's either give them representation and let them join

0:28:580:29:03

the Great Britain in some form or another, or give them to Argentina.

0:29:030:29:10

You mean in a colonial status like other places do? Like where?

0:29:110:29:14

Gibraltar. Terrific. Along with - I'm not going through the whole

0:29:140:29:19

list. Along with the apes of Gibraltar of which one is called

0:29:190:29:24

Germane. I think we have to do something and either bring them

0:29:240:29:29

into political existence or we have to let them become Argentinean, but

0:29:290:29:32

it's something we immediate to talk about. We are sending Prince Harry,

0:29:320:29:42
0:29:420:29:51

so it's going to be fine. Prince Charles Moore, the Argentinians are

0:29:510:29:54

building the propaganda campaign as the 30th anniversary of the seizure

0:29:540:30:00

of the Falklands happens, and the Ministry of Defence are saying

0:30:000:30:03

there are contingency plans in place. Do you think we are building

0:30:030:30:07

up to a crisis, and what do you make of the point that we should

0:30:070:30:12

now get rid of Las Malvinas anyway? Jermaine said that we seem to think

0:30:120:30:18

they belong to ask. We don't. They do belong to us. But the crucial

0:30:180:30:22

point in this is what do the people of the Falkland Islands think. One

0:30:220:30:26

of the extraordinary things about Argentina is that it has laid claim

0:30:260:30:29

to this place for a long time and only about 10 Argentines have lived

0:30:290:30:33

there in the whole of its history. The people who live on the Falkland

0:30:330:30:37

Islands are overwhelmingly of British descent and overwhelmingly

0:30:370:30:41

pro-British. They do not want to be part of Britain in the sense that

0:30:410:30:44

Germaine Greer raises the question. They want to have the Falkland

0:30:440:30:48

Islands as what it is, a British dependency. Why should that not be

0:30:480:30:53

upheld? What reason was there before going back on that? Why I

0:30:530:30:56

think there is a bit of a crisis, the difference between now and 30

0:30:560:30:59

years ago is that we have 3000 service people down there because

0:30:590:31:06

we learnt the lesson. So you would really have to be even more insane

0:31:060:31:11

than the Argentine junta was 30 years ago to have a crack. This is

0:31:110:31:15

a bit expensive, but have the luxury. If it is a luxury, it is a

0:31:160:31:19

luxury that has been going on all this time. I think it is valuable

0:31:190:31:24

for all of the training. I think if we have dependencies and the people

0:31:240:31:27

there want to be part of us, then we have to defend that. We learnt

0:31:270:31:31

that 30 years ago. We did it successfully but at terrible cost.

0:31:310:31:37

We want to avoid that cost and go on defending them. Surely we should

0:31:370:31:40

treat the Falklands the same way as Scotland and give the people the

0:31:400:31:47

vote. They have the vote. They could vote. Let the people of the

0:31:470:31:52

Falklands choose where they want to be. I think we know the answer.

0:31:520:31:56

Isn't it much more about the fishing and mineral reserves that

0:31:560:32:01

exist around the Falkland Islands? The Argentinian club, or our

0:32:010:32:07

defence? Probably both. Caroline Lucas, where does the Green Party

0:32:070:32:10

stand on this? I would support the observation that the reason this is

0:32:100:32:14

back in the news is precisely because people are gearing up again

0:32:140:32:18

around the mineral Resources, up for oil and gas in the seas around

0:32:180:32:22

the area. I agree with the principle of people's right to

0:32:220:32:25

self-determination. That is an important principle. Having said

0:32:250:32:30

that, I think it is extremely strange that these islands so far

0:32:300:32:34

away still feel they want to be part of Britain, that we are paying

0:32:340:32:38

for 3000 service people to have a constant garrison there. I would

0:32:380:32:41

love it if we could find a way of negotiating with the Argentinians

0:32:410:32:48

so that we could... Ride roughshod over people's wishes? I said

0:32:480:32:53

negotiate. You started by saying self-determination. Yes, that is

0:32:530:32:57

the principle and that is where I stand. But I am also saying it

0:32:570:33:02

would be nice in some -- if in the future some way could be found so

0:33:020:33:05

that we do not have an anomalous situation, a throwback to ancient

0:33:050:33:09

times where we think we own a bit of rock because at one point many

0:33:090:33:14

years ago we put a flag there. spent six months in the Falkland

0:33:140:33:17

Islands shortly after the war and I never met a single Falkland

0:33:170:33:22

Islander that wanted to be under the control of Argentina. They were

0:33:220:33:27

passionate about being of British descent, a dependency. They have a

0:33:270:33:31

very different way of life than we can even imagine. It is not the

0:33:310:33:35

most attractive island. And if they want to keep it, we should help

0:33:350:33:44

them keep it. I think for those soldiers who died

0:33:440:33:48

in that conflict, British soldiers, it would be a disgrace just to hand

0:33:480:33:55

it back. Maybe we should frighten the

0:33:550:33:57

Argentinians by sending an aircraft carrier out there. Let's just hope

0:33:570:34:04

they have not found out we have not got any planes to go on them.

0:34:040:34:07

think this is an issue of self- determination. I do not think you

0:34:070:34:10

can qualify that, and clearly the people of the Falkland Islands want

0:34:100:34:13

the current status to remain. As long as that is the wish of the

0:34:130:34:17

people of the Falkland Islands we must make sure that continues. I

0:34:170:34:20

agree with the gentleman in the audience, that people gave their

0:34:200:34:24

lives in that war. I do not think there are options to be talking to

0:34:240:34:28

the Argentinians about shared sovereignty. Those conversations

0:34:280:34:31

happen before Falklands War. Argentina effectively made that an

0:34:310:34:35

impossible option because of what they did 30 years ago. So long as

0:34:350:34:38

the people of the Falkland Islands wished to remain British, they

0:34:380:34:41

should do and we should be prepared to spend the money so they remain

0:34:410:34:51

British. I completely agree with what Stephen has just said. I think

0:34:510:34:54

I would probably slightly disagree with the question in the sense that

0:34:540:34:58

it is not for us to give back the Falkland Islands, but it is for the

0:34:580:35:01

people of the Falkland Islands to decide what they want to do. It is

0:35:010:35:06

not ours to give back. What I find surprising and sad, Caroline, is

0:35:060:35:08

that you find it strange that the people of the Falkland Islands

0:35:080:35:12

would want to be a part of Britain which is thousands of miles away. I

0:35:120:35:16

think we should be deeply humbled by that. I feel really proud that

0:35:160:35:20

they want to be a part of us. Why would they want to be a part of

0:35:200:35:23

Argentina? I think we should be deeply proud of the fact that there

0:35:230:35:26

is this island and this group of people out there, many miles away

0:35:260:35:30

from us, who want to be part of this great nation and wants to be

0:35:300:35:35

part of our territories. If they want to be part of this nation in

0:35:350:35:39

that way, how are their views represented in any governance

0:35:390:35:44

structures, for example. It is an anomalous situation. But they want

0:35:440:35:48

to be one of our dependent territories. They want to have the

0:35:480:35:51

right to say and the right to choose to remain a part of the

0:35:510:35:57

United Kingdom. Why should we question that? What does it mean to

0:35:570:36:01

be part of the United Kingdom? does it mean when you are on the

0:36:010:36:04

other side of the world, not part of any government structures? It

0:36:040:36:07

means you get 3000 people there to defend you, but what does it

0:36:070:36:13

actually mean in terms of the future of our country? The reason

0:36:130:36:16

why you don't understand that, Caroline, is probably because I

0:36:160:36:18

come from a background where despite the fact that where my

0:36:180:36:21

parents originate from was a colony of the United Kingdom, they do not

0:36:220:36:26

feel any hostility towards that. They felt, to England was coming to

0:36:260:36:30

the motherland. Face felt a deep sense of affection, connection to

0:36:300:36:35

the values of this great island. -- they felt. That is why I completely

0:36:360:36:39

understand how the Falkland islanders move. I do not understand

0:36:390:36:45

why you can't. Because I thought we might have moored beyond

0:36:450:36:52

colonialism in the 21st century. -- moved beyond. It is wrong to couch

0:36:530:36:56

this in terms of colonialism. The attempt at colonialism was by a

0:36:560:37:03

fascist regime in Argentina 30 years ago, not by us. Do we have

0:37:030:37:09

the military assets to send a task force, like 30 years ago? I think

0:37:090:37:14

we would struggle now. We have no aircraft carrier, for starters.

0:37:140:37:17

It might be interesting if we asked the people of the Falkland Islands

0:37:170:37:21

if they wanted the right for some kind of governments about what goes

0:37:210:37:25

on here, because I am not sure they would. They want to carry on being

0:37:250:37:29

what they are. When you give people the right to governments, it

0:37:290:37:32

implies that they want to have a bit of a say in what happens here.

0:37:320:37:39

I am not sure about that. They govern themselves, effectively.

0:37:390:37:42

could probably send the entire royal family in a taxpayer-funded

0:37:420:37:45

new royal yacht, accompanied by Boris Johnson's flotilla, because

0:37:450:37:53

we do not have a Royal Navy to do it. I was going to keep this

0:37:530:37:58

question until the end, but since you have raised it, Jane Lloyd.

0:37:580:38:01

Would private sponsorship of the new royal yacht devalue the brand

0:38:010:38:05

of the monarchy? This is the proposal which it seems the Prime

0:38:050:38:09

Minister is in favour of, to have a new royal yacht to mark the Jubilee,

0:38:090:38:14

but not paid for by the taxpayer but paid for by who knows who?

0:38:140:38:19

Would it devalue the royal yacht, the monarchy, rather, the brand of

0:38:190:38:23

the monarchy, and his -- is it a good idea anyway? Germaine Greer,

0:38:230:38:28

what do you think of royal yachts and how they should be paid for?

0:38:280:38:33

Are you a Republican or a monarchist? I am a republican. If

0:38:330:38:36

we are going to ask the Fulton does what they want, perhaps we ought to

0:38:360:38:41

ask the Queen what she wants. I am sure she does not want a yacht

0:38:410:38:51
0:38:510:38:53

courtesy of Marmite. I am wondering, actually, I wish that, listening to

0:38:530:38:58

all of this, I am trying to imagine what look is on the Queen's face. I

0:38:580:39:02

am wandering, at what point does she come out and say, look, my

0:39:020:39:06

people are suffering, the last thing I need is another flaming

0:39:060:39:16
0:39:160:39:19

What do you think? Labour backbencher Kate Hoey is in favour

0:39:190:39:25

of this. Are you with her? Germaine Greer makes a good point, this is a

0:39:250:39:28

time of austerity. Initially Michael Gove was proposing this

0:39:280:39:32

would be publicly funded. Initially the proposal was for �60 million of

0:39:320:39:35

public money. There is no way that could be justified. If people want

0:39:350:39:38

to club together and raise money and the Queen wants it, that is

0:39:380:39:42

fine, it becomes a private matter. But I think there are ways to

0:39:420:39:46

celebrate the Queen's Jubilee without having his enormous

0:39:460:39:51

expenditure in a time of austerity. It is too late anyway, miles too

0:39:510:39:55

late. If Michael Gove wants to pay for it out of taxpayers' money, is

0:39:550:39:59

he a suitable person to be in charge of children's education? If

0:39:590:40:03

we are getting free schools from Barclays Bank, surely we should be

0:40:030:40:08

spending taxpayers' money on schools.

0:40:080:40:15

Would Fergie be in charge of marketing? I think the problem here

0:40:150:40:20

comes down to the word "yacht". People think it is just the rich

0:40:200:40:24

man's luxury, but the Royal Yacht Britannia, if you called at the

0:40:240:40:27

Royal ship, or some other name, you would understand more clearly what

0:40:270:40:31

it was. Although of course it was able to keep the royal family in

0:40:310:40:35

comfort when they went on certain visits, it was already used a great

0:40:350:40:39

deal to promote Britain in all sorts of ways, culturally, in trade,

0:40:390:40:44

you could rent it for receptions and so on. And it was a very

0:40:440:40:48

beautiful and elegant affair which stood very well for this country.

0:40:480:40:53

And believe me, because I have seen it. I saw it in the handover in

0:40:530:40:57

Hong Kong. When people came on to that yacht, they were really

0:40:570:41:01

excited and honoured and had a good idea about Britain. And they

0:41:010:41:05

associate it, rightly, with the Queen. I think the only time the

0:41:050:41:08

Queen has been seen to cry in public was when the royal yacht was

0:41:080:41:12

got rid of, because she did understand its romance and the way

0:41:120:41:15

it symbolised something about a maritime nation, something the

0:41:150:41:19

royal family is very close to. So I believe it is a good idea to have

0:41:190:41:23

the royal yacht, but get rid of the word yacht if you like. I would be

0:41:230:41:26

in favour, if it came to it, of spending public money. But if

0:41:260:41:30

people are putting up private money, that is wonderful, because it is a

0:41:300:41:33

celebration of a great event for a great woman and something which is

0:41:330:41:40

great for Great Britain. I would be totally in favour of it. Surely,

0:41:400:41:44

the amount of air miles that Prince Andrew has drummed up over the

0:41:440:41:53

years would easily pay for it. late. Should we not just call it

0:41:530:42:00

the German boat? Isn't it about time we went the

0:42:000:42:10
0:42:100:42:10

whole way and had the whole lot of the monarchy privately-funded?

0:42:100:42:13

just having that image and seeing the logo as they might have on

0:42:130:42:18

their clothes! Fascinating. I do think the idea, when it was still

0:42:180:42:21

the idea of it being publicly funded, was quite grotesque and

0:42:210:42:24

suggested that Michael Gove spends an awful lot of time on another

0:42:240:42:29

planet. Because the idea that that is a good way of spending �60

0:42:290:42:32

million is very strange. In terms of it being privately funded, I go

0:42:320:42:36

back to what the others have said and I would say, as anybody asked

0:42:360:42:41

the Queen if she wants this? If she did not, it would be difficult to

0:42:410:42:44

flog it on eBay the next day, like you might with socks from your

0:42:440:42:47

Aunty Jane, because it would be difficult to move it again. So

0:42:470:42:51

let's find out what she thinks would be a fitting tribute for her

0:42:510:42:55

jubilee. Presumably she is capable of making it known if she does not

0:42:550:42:59

want it. She sees the Prime Minister once a week. She could say,

0:42:590:43:06

forget it. Let's hope she is able to say what she thinks. I am very

0:43:060:43:10

much in favour of having a royal yacht and very uneasy that it

0:43:100:43:16

should be purely through sponsorship and non public money.

0:43:160:43:20

What about the chance for us, as a people, to show our appreciation of

0:43:200:43:24

the Queen's 60 years? I thought Cameron was quite wrong to come out

0:43:240:43:28

and immediately dismiss any public money because what about the

0:43:280:43:32

Commonwealth? Why haven't they been consulted? She is not just Queen of

0:43:320:43:35

the UK, she is head of the Commonwealth. I think it would have

0:43:350:43:39

been courteous to ask them if they would also like to fund this

0:43:390:43:42

wonderful project. I would like to see the boat and I am very uneasy

0:43:420:43:47

about, as I think I read the other day, having names on the tops of

0:43:470:43:53

cabins - this is the McDonald's cabin, the Virgin Atlantic cabin.

0:43:530:44:02

How naff is that? Poor Queen. you are chairman of the

0:44:020:44:06

Conservative Party, what on earth is going on? The Prime Minister

0:44:060:44:09

says he is in favour and then does not want public money spent. What

0:44:090:44:14

is the position? Give us what the Cabinet decided, which you sit and

0:44:140:44:24
0:44:240:44:25

When Charles said that the word that is kind of got everyone

0:44:250:44:29

excited is yacht and I think it's Michael Gove. What people don't

0:44:290:44:33

realise is that this project which quaz initially called the

0:44:330:44:43
0:44:430:44:45

university of the oceans what started in late 1999 when Brit Tana

0:44:450:44:49

was decommissioned. A Rear Admiral had to decide what would replace it.

0:44:490:44:53

Their idea was to have a ship that could be used as a learning tool

0:44:530:44:58

and scientific endeavour, which could be used as a trade tool and

0:44:580:45:03

used as a beacon to promote Britain and also used as a place for the

0:45:030:45:11

Royal Family to use when they were on their travels. What about

0:45:110:45:14

Michael Gove? The reason why this became a press story is because

0:45:140:45:17

this particular letter was leaked to the guard guard and they

0:45:170:45:20

therefore leaked it back to Michael Gove and he was the Cabinet

0:45:200:45:25

minister and everyone pulled this all out. What she is trying to say

0:45:250:45:29

is that it was leaked by a fellow Cabinet minister, Chris Huhne.

0:45:290:45:37

never said that. Charles, don't you get me into trouble. Who was trying

0:45:370:45:42

to make a point. The Lib Dems are against this. Are the Conservatives

0:45:420:45:51

in favour? As chairman of the party, I - you talked about the

0:45:510:45:55

Commonwealth. The first private donation has been pledged from

0:45:550:45:58

Canada, apparently 10 million, so therefore we have 10 million there

0:45:580:46:03

already. I think this, funded by private donations, not in the tacky

0:46:030:46:07

way, but actually funded by generous private donations, which

0:46:070:46:11

will be a great advert. We talk about increasing Britishness and

0:46:110:46:14

selling more and growing as a economy. We are not going to sell

0:46:140:46:18

to the US and the EU. We are going to be selling around the

0:46:180:46:22

Commonwealth and selling to places around the world like India, like

0:46:220:46:25

Pakistan, like the African nations, like Brazil and a ship like this,

0:46:250:46:30

which can be a great example of how Great Britain can be, would be a

0:46:300:46:36

great asset for us to help grow economically as well. Before we go

0:46:360:46:40

on, can you clarify one point - are you saying no taxpayers' money will

0:46:400:46:43

be spent on this at in time? Is that the Prime Minister's point,

0:46:430:46:47

that it has to be private? Prime Minister's point is it should

0:46:470:46:52

be funded privately. We need 80 million for the ship to be ready to

0:46:530:46:57

go. If you can't get the money privately it wouldn't happen?

0:46:570:47:02

It has to be funded privately. We can't say we are making difficult

0:47:020:47:06

decisions in relation to welfare, education and other areas, but then

0:47:060:47:11

say that we think this is a good amount of money to be spent for a

0:47:110:47:19

ship. I'll take one more point. wonder about the focus on the

0:47:190:47:23

monarchy from the Government in a week of cuts and austerity. Is it a

0:47:230:47:26

way to promote national pride or does it mean anything?

0:47:260:47:30

Government didn't focus on it. The Government didn't wake up one day

0:47:300:47:36

and make an announcement it was a letter that was apparently leaked.

0:47:360:47:39

It was leaked to The Guardian apparently and they ran the story.

0:47:390:47:44

This is actually - if anybody is to blame for bringing this up, when

0:47:440:47:48

there are more important issues, speak to The Guardian. It's Chris

0:47:480:47:52

Huhne LAUGHTER

0:47:520:47:56

Another question from Jonathan highfield. Does London need another

0:47:560:48:03

airport? This again one of these things that has suddenly re-emerged

0:48:030:48:06

as an issue with the Conservatives saying they'll look at it, having

0:48:060:48:13

been the party that was vote blue, go green. Germaine Greer, does

0:48:130:48:20

London need another airport and looking at the estuary? Well, it

0:48:210:48:23

depends how you feel about air travel in general, whether you

0:48:230:48:28

think that London needs another airport. We do understand that the

0:48:280:48:32

Earth needs us to stop flying about for a while, at least until we have

0:48:320:48:37

less devastating ways of doing it. We have to reduce our carbon

0:48:370:48:40

footprint. Building more airports is not the way. The thing that

0:48:400:48:45

bothers me is we have been talking about the second runway at shairp,

0:48:450:48:50

which - because it's only half an airport -- Stansted Airport, which

0:48:500:48:55

- because it's only half an airport, so it seems odd to run a second

0:48:550:48:59

runway and let it turn into a proper airport, instead of a

0:48:590:49:08

holiday bus station. The idea of putting it in the estuary is so

0:49:080:49:12

unbelievably crazy. I don't understand why nobody has pointed

0:49:120:49:21

out that the estuary is a Ramsar site. Those are the wetlands that

0:49:210:49:26

are globally important and if we are going to just ignore an

0:49:260:49:29

international convention, which is to do with conservation, then we

0:49:290:49:33

can't really stop everybody else doing the same thing. We are very

0:49:330:49:38

good at hypocrisy. It is suddenly inconvenient that we signed the

0:49:380:49:43

convention. It also happens to be an EU special protection area under

0:49:430:49:49

the bird directive. Apparently what is going on in Europe is people are

0:49:490:49:52

getting impatient with the directives under the special

0:49:520:49:56

protection areas and there is a general move to just knock them

0:49:560:50:03

down and get rid of them. Ramsar? That is the town where the

0:50:030:50:12

convention was signed. Ignorance on my part. It's not your fault at all,

0:50:120:50:15

because people discussing the estuary proposal haven't even

0:50:150:50:20

mentioned the fact that it is in fact an area of very special

0:50:200:50:24

scientific interest. It is quite extraordinary. The poor old RSPCA

0:50:250:50:30

owns most of the land and they were tudly asked yesterday what they

0:50:300:50:34

thought and -- suddenly asked yesterday what they thought and

0:50:340:50:39

they said, "You might get bird strike." You probably will. It

0:50:390:50:44

looks as if these conventions have no legal clout. That is shocking,

0:50:440:50:54
0:50:540:50:55

isn't it? All right. Stephen Twigg, Labour wanted a third runway at

0:50:550:50:59

Heathrow Airport. Do you still want that? No, we don't. We have

0:50:590:51:03

accepted that's off the agenda. These are the sorts of issues which

0:51:030:51:09

are by their nature, long term and ideally taken forward on a cross-

0:51:090:51:13

party basis. You reminded us about the vote blue, go green and this is

0:51:130:51:19

a lot more to do with the may -- mayoral election in May. Before the

0:51:190:51:22

election the Tories were thinking about Kent, but now they are

0:51:220:51:26

thinking about what is best for Boris. There are a lot of

0:51:260:51:32

objections, including the ones set out. We have got to have a balanced

0:51:320:51:36

debate, because on the one hand, aviation does cause serious issues

0:51:360:51:39

around the environment and climate change. On the other hand, our

0:51:390:51:43

economic future and how we relate to other countries within Europe,

0:51:430:51:47

partly depends on the capacity on aviation. I don't think you can

0:51:470:51:54

entirely rule out expanding aviation, but you've got to do it

0:51:540:51:59

in an evidence-based way. It's not easy and best done on a cross-party

0:51:590:52:07

basis. I don't think the idea will take off, if you excuse the pun.

0:52:070:52:15

Not just because of the wild fowl in the area, but the head of

0:52:150:52:18

Ryanair said it was bonkers and the head of British Airways said it

0:52:180:52:23

would kill Heathrow Airport. I don't know who looks worse, Boris

0:52:230:52:27

Johnson or the Tory Party for allowing him to be this insane.

0:52:270:52:32

he always looks like that. Baroness Warsi. I agree with Stephen, when

0:52:320:52:38

he said we have to draw the balance and have a grown-up debate. The

0:52:380:52:41

reason why the third runway, why we were against it and we will not

0:52:420:52:46

build it, is because we felt that the environmental impact of it was

0:52:460:52:50

too great. We also have to remember and again this comes back to what

0:52:500:52:54

people talk about jobs and trade, my husband regularly flies to China

0:52:540:52:59

for work and he has to fly to Paris and then to China, because the

0:52:590:53:05

number of flights to China from the UK are 1,000 less a year from

0:53:050:53:10

somewhere like Paris. I don't want Paris. I don't want France to be

0:53:100:53:14

the hub of the economic driver for the EU. I want London to maintain

0:53:140:53:18

and grow the status as a hub for flights coming in and out of Europe

0:53:180:53:24

and where business will come in and out. What is your proposal? That we

0:53:240:53:27

have - the Government is saying it will look at all options, including

0:53:270:53:32

the one that Boris has spoken of. We'll send it out for consultation,

0:53:320:53:35

but some serious discussions, cross-party discussions, have to

0:53:350:53:40

take place, because I don't think anybody in this country wants us to

0:53:400:53:44

be a republic which is left behind and nobody wants to trade with us.

0:53:440:53:47

You are not against the estuary proposal that Boris put forward?

0:53:470:53:52

I'm not for or against it. I'm open for a serious debate on aviation. I

0:53:520:53:57

think we get side tracked by this project or that. What we need to

0:53:570:54:01

have is a grown-up discussion about does Britain want to have a future

0:54:010:54:05

as a serious economic player and if it does, it's going to have to let

0:54:050:54:09

planes come in or out, because we can't live an isolated life and

0:54:090:54:14

expect to grow. Surely if we need another one wouldn't it make more

0:54:140:54:21

sense to build it at Birmingham and we would have some point for the

0:54:210:54:31
0:54:310:54:33

wretched HST? Caroline Lucas? A serious debate. You know the

0:54:330:54:39

statistics, 140 million passengers a year in 2010, 400 million in 2050,

0:54:390:54:47

according to the GLA report. need to be clear, the same pressure

0:54:470:54:52

being brought to bear by people saying there will be a hub

0:54:520:54:58

elsewhere in Europe. The aviation industry is desperate to grow. I

0:54:580:55:03

want to have a grown-up debate and the debate would start from the

0:55:030:55:06

point of view that climate change is the greatest threat that we face

0:55:060:55:10

right now. It's running far ahead of our ability to control it and if

0:55:100:55:15

we were to sit back and say let's let aviation expand as much as we

0:55:150:55:20

like, we'll not meet any of our climate change targets and it won't

0:55:200:55:25

be a question of whether or not this is a country will grow, but

0:55:250:55:28

whether we have a liveable planet. Also, the economic debate. No-one

0:55:280:55:32

has mentioned yet this evening that aviation is actually subsidised in

0:55:320:55:37

this country to be tune of �10 billion every single year. Because

0:55:370:55:41

aviation doesn't pay tax on its fuel. It doesn't pay VAT on tickets.

0:55:410:55:45

If you were to make aviation pay its way, it wouldn't necessarily

0:55:450:55:50

look like this goose that laze golden eggs, but an expensive way

0:55:500:55:54

of investing money. Baroness Warsi's point of businessmen going

0:55:540:56:02

to China via pass ris, so you need to be able to reach other parts of

0:56:020:56:07

the -- Paris, so you need to be able to reach other parts of the

0:56:080:56:13

world like Paris. We have the biggest hub of any country in the

0:56:130:56:19

EU with Gatwick Airport and Luton Airport. In that same debate -

0:56:190:56:24

are nearly at the end, so Charles Moore. Why did Britain become a

0:56:240:56:30

great civilisation? A lot was to do with being sea-borne and river-

0:56:300:56:33

borne and London was the capital because of access to the sea and it

0:56:330:56:38

was important that people were able to come freely up and down and

0:56:380:56:42

trade. The modern equivalent of that is the airport. By the same

0:56:420:56:46

token, that's why Heathrow Airport is bursting at the seams. We

0:56:460:56:51

decided to build the airport in a very populated place, so that 25%

0:56:510:56:55

of all the air noise sufferers in the the whole of Europe are the

0:56:550:57:00

people around Heathrow Airport. But it is terribly important to

0:57:000:57:04

maintain that civilisational and economic and cultural advantage of

0:57:040:57:08

being this great centre. Therefore, I think it makes a lot of sense to

0:57:080:57:12

look at an airport which is near London, but does not intrude over

0:57:120:57:15

one million people, which is the problem with Heathrow Airport. I

0:57:150:57:19

think it's quite a visionary scheme. Clearly, there are difficulty, but

0:57:190:57:25

everybody says, oh, well, yes, maybe or let's think about it. In

0:57:250:57:29

the ten years since the cancellation of the third runway

0:57:300:57:34

China planned 52 new airports. All the time they are rushing ahead and

0:57:340:57:37

we are just sitting around going on about it. It's a visionary idea and

0:57:370:57:45

we should look at it fast. An end, because our time's up. That's it

0:57:450:57:50

for this week. Our hour is over. We are going to be in Plymouth next

0:57:500:57:54

week and the week after that we'll be in Southport, so if you would

0:57:540:57:58

like to come to the programme in Plymouth or Southport, I'm sure you

0:57:580:58:08
0:58:080:58:09

know what to do. My thanks to all of you on the panel and thank you

0:58:090:58:18

to everyone who came. I will never get it right with the pronouncation.

0:58:180:58:22

Question Time comes from Shrewsbury. David Dimbleby is joined by Sayeeda Warsi, co-chairman of the Conservative Party; Stephen Twigg MP, Labour's shadow education secretary; Green MP, Caroline Lucas; Germaine Greer, feminist writer and academic and Charles Moore, columnist and former editor at the Telegraph and the Spectator.


Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS