:00:16. > :00:20.Tonight we are in Dewsbury and welcome to Question Time.
:00:20. > :00:24.On our panel tonight the Conservative MP who challenged John
:00:24. > :00:29.Major for the leadership of the party, skwrob Redwood. The shadow
:00:29. > :00:33.Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Rachel Reeves, the Liberal Democrat
:00:33. > :00:38.MP and parliamentary private Secretary to Nick Clegg, Jo Swinson,
:00:39. > :00:42.the historian David Starkey, and from the trade union with the
:00:42. > :00:46.highest paid membership in the country the chairman of the
:00:46. > :00:56.professional footballers association Clarke Carlisle.
:00:56. > :01:03.
:01:03. > :01:07.David Chandler has our first question. Should the Chancellor
:01:07. > :01:11.resist calls from business leaders and his own backbenchers to remove
:01:11. > :01:16.the 50% tax on high earners? There's been a big appeal today for
:01:16. > :01:19.this, in the next budget the 50% income tax is reduced. John Redwood,
:01:19. > :01:23.would you like to see the Chancellor do that? We do need to
:01:23. > :01:26.get more money from the rich, I agree with finding ways of taxing
:01:26. > :01:31.the rich more. The way to successfully tax the rich more
:01:31. > :01:36.would include taking the rate of tax back to the Labour level of 40%
:01:36. > :01:39.from 50%. We see in the January figures this year that income tax
:01:39. > :01:43.receipts are actually down from self-assessment compared with a
:01:43. > :01:47.year earlier, exactly what some of us said would happen if we
:01:47. > :01:51.persevered with this 50% tax rate. A lot of bright people are not
:01:51. > :01:53.working as hard, some are leaving the country, some are not setting
:01:54. > :01:58.up enterprises here, some are finding other clever ways of
:01:58. > :02:02.routing their monies elsewhere. So we are losing revenue. It's stupid
:02:02. > :02:06.to lose revenue when we need the rich to pay more. The top 1% of
:02:06. > :02:13.taxpayers do pay 30% of income tax already, I would like them to make
:02:13. > :02:16.a bigger contribution, the way to do it is cut the rate. What chance
:02:16. > :02:19.the Chancellor agreeing with you and doing it? I am sure he will
:02:19. > :02:23.hear my voice. I think getting him to agree is a little more difficult
:02:23. > :02:27.because he will be swayed perhaps by all those people who say this is
:02:27. > :02:31.not the time to give the rich a tax break. I am saying this is the time
:02:31. > :02:36.to get more off the rich, and I believe in pragmatic politics
:02:36. > :02:39.things that work. Rachel Reeves, do you agree? I think that the
:02:39. > :02:43.Government should prioritise not the 1%, the richest 1% in the
:02:44. > :02:47.country, but the other 99%, the people who are struggling with
:02:47. > :02:51.their household bills, with mortgage payments, rents, gas and
:02:51. > :02:56.electricity bills, petrol prices, all those things going up and yet
:02:56. > :03:00.ordinary families facing that huge squeeze with inflation rising at a
:03:00. > :03:04.higher rate than wages. So I don't think a priority now should be
:03:04. > :03:08.cutting taxes for the top 1%, the Conservatives obviously straining
:03:08. > :03:12.at the leash to get rid of this tax. I think that the Chancellor should
:03:12. > :03:18.put ordinary families first and Labour are prioritising a cut in
:03:18. > :03:21.VAT back down to 17.5%, which will put �450 in the pockets of an
:03:21. > :03:24.average family and a national insurance holiday for small
:03:24. > :03:27.businesses taking on new workers. I think that those are the priorities
:03:27. > :03:31.right now. Priorities that get money to ordinary families and
:03:31. > :03:40.businesses, not prioritising the very wealthiest 1% in this country.
:03:40. > :03:43.APPLAUSE. What do you make of the argument
:03:43. > :03:47.that was put that by cutting it from 50 to 40% you actually
:03:47. > :03:50.encourage growth in the economy, do you think that's just not true?
:03:50. > :03:54.Government have commissioned a review of the revenues and customs
:03:54. > :03:58.department to have a look at this to see how much money it's raising,
:03:58. > :04:04.but the latest predictions are that the increase in the top rate of tax
:04:04. > :04:07.from 40 to 50% for people earning more than �150,000 will bring in
:04:07. > :04:11.around �3 billion. That's not what I asked, I asked whether reducing
:04:11. > :04:15.it would stimulate the economy because people would be inclined,
:04:15. > :04:18.John Redwood said people weren't working. I am not convinced by that.
:04:18. > :04:22.What would stimulate the economy would be a cut in VAT that would
:04:23. > :04:26.help ordinary families and get money into our shops and retale
:04:27. > :04:30.sector -- retail sector and reduction in national insurance for
:04:30. > :04:34.small businesses struggling with a lack of lending and demand in the
:04:34. > :04:38.economy. The tax cut should go to ordinary people, not the very
:04:38. > :04:42.wealthiest 1%. I want a tax rise and the way to get it is set a rate
:04:42. > :04:45.that will pay. Your party party kept the rate of 40% for very good
:04:45. > :04:48.reasons because Mr Brown understood that was the maximum to maximise
:04:48. > :04:52.the revenue from this group of people. Now you are in opposition
:04:52. > :04:57.you want to destroy the tax revenue base, can you explain why income
:04:57. > :05:00.tax didn't go up in January this year? The budget deficit has got to
:05:00. > :05:02.be addressed and it's right that those people with the broadest
:05:02. > :05:07.shoulders should contribute something. That's what we agree
:05:07. > :05:10.about. It's why the top rate of tax for people earning more than
:05:10. > :05:13.�150,000, why their tax rate was increased, that's the right thing
:05:13. > :05:16.to do. It shouldn't just be ordinary families and businesses
:05:17. > :05:21.shouldering the burden. What's the Liberal Democrat line on this, are
:05:21. > :05:24.they in agreement, do you want to see it cut? You want to put
:05:24. > :05:27.pressure object the -- on the Chancellor. In answer to the
:05:27. > :05:30.question the Chancellor should resist these calls. You like the
:05:31. > :05:34.50% tax? Look, there's probably about 100 people in this room here,
:05:34. > :05:37.I think it would send a strange signal if the budget said the
:05:37. > :05:41.priority was to give the top earning person in this room a tax
:05:41. > :05:46.cut and not anybody else. That's really the situation that we are
:05:46. > :05:49.looking at. What he should be doing is helping hard working families
:05:49. > :05:53.and taxpayers and I have certainly proposed and so have my colleagues
:05:53. > :05:57.in the Liberal Democrats, that should be done by taking low and
:05:57. > :06:03.middle income earners out of paying tax altogether or giving them a tax
:06:03. > :06:06.cut of �60 a month by raising the threshold further and faster
:06:06. > :06:08.towards �10,000. That will also stimulate the economy and get
:06:08. > :06:15.people spending and money back in people's pockets when they're
:06:15. > :06:21.finding things difficult at the moment. David Starkey.
:06:22. > :06:27.This is a fascinating instance of the war between heart and head. It
:06:27. > :06:33.is perfectly clear that to cut the 50% rate of tax at the moment looks
:06:33. > :06:37.wrong. Everybody with a heart which John - understands that and
:06:37. > :06:41.remember he was beamed in from outer space, so he's completely
:06:41. > :06:45.inhuman. On the other hand... don't have to insult a panellist in
:06:45. > :06:49.order to win an argument. I am flattering him. I regard... Please
:06:49. > :06:54.tell me when you are going to insult me! I regard the great
:06:54. > :06:58.problem of British politics as exemplyified by Labour and the Lib
:06:58. > :07:03.Dems as a mindless sentimentality that refuses to think. We are in a
:07:03. > :07:07.position because of the complete wreckage of the public stppbses --
:07:07. > :07:14.finances left by Labour that we have to increase tax revenue. There
:07:14. > :07:20.is no way around that. The issue is how we do it without destroying the
:07:20. > :07:23.economy and with also getting the economy moving again. It's not
:07:23. > :07:28.hreug posturing like somebody who should be ashamed she is shadow
:07:28. > :07:31.Chief Secretary to the Treasury of this cheep posturing. Sorry, David,
:07:31. > :07:35.there's nothing cheap about saying would you prioritise ordinary
:07:35. > :07:41.families over the top 1%, that's just making a realistic priority.
:07:41. > :07:44.No, it's not because - what you are doing you are proposing to reduce
:07:44. > :07:49.the tax by lifting those families and those little businesses out.
:07:49. > :07:52.Let us address the real question, which is how we increase it. We had
:07:52. > :07:59.a controlled experiment, the last long period of Labour Government in
:07:59. > :08:04.the country before New Labour took tax rates up to 98%. They were then
:08:04. > :08:10.cut by the great reforming Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, where
:08:10. > :08:15.upon the tax taken from the rich at times virtually doubled. Now sorry,
:08:15. > :08:25.this is the head, I know ladies like the heart, but John and I both
:08:25. > :08:33.heartless, can actually decide that the head must rule. APPLAUSE.
:08:33. > :08:39.The woman up there at the back. Putting aside your opinions on
:08:39. > :08:43.women,... Do, please! I can think of a good way that we can get more
:08:43. > :08:50.from tax without changing the rate, and that's to crackdown on tax
:08:50. > :08:56.avoidance by large companies. APPLAUSE. The man in the middle.
:08:56. > :09:00.Can we make an agreement at the outset, please, we leave the
:09:00. > :09:07.propaganda and party posturing about the ruination of the economy
:09:07. > :09:12.with the last Government at the door, not on the table. Why? Why?
:09:12. > :09:16.Bearing in mind... Because of that is exactly what it is. Propaganda.
:09:16. > :09:23.No, it's not. It's fact. If you can't recognise fact you should not
:09:23. > :09:26.be at a programme like this. APPLAUSE. You don't like the
:09:26. > :09:31.propaganda comment. Why do you have the insolicitorence to think your
:09:31. > :09:36.opinion is better than anybody else's? Why is yours? Why can't you
:09:36. > :09:40.argue a case? I argue a case. He is not doing. He is just sort of
:09:40. > :09:44.coming in, rather like a preacher, waving down the tablets of the law.
:09:44. > :09:48.I am bored of Moses. There are lots of Moses in this place. You are the
:09:48. > :09:54.one that's insulted half the women in the room and members of the
:09:54. > :09:59.panel. I was just doing a quick - both of you adopted the same view.
:09:59. > :10:02.David Starkey, he was simply saying that it's political posturing to go
:10:02. > :10:08.on about who is responsible. It's vital that we understand what's
:10:08. > :10:13.happened and what has to be done. Clarke Carlisle. Well, it's no
:10:13. > :10:20.secret to everyone that the majority of our membership will
:10:20. > :10:26.encounter the 50%... footballers. Yes, swre 3,000
:10:26. > :10:29.members. The most of those guys will fall under the 50% tax bracket.
:10:29. > :10:36.They are more than happy to contribute in any way they can to
:10:36. > :10:41.support the recovery of the economy. The sal kwrepbt point about this is
:10:41. > :10:45.defining an overt show of popular decision over actual rationale
:10:45. > :10:48.decisions. I think it's going to be a recurring theme of what I am
:10:48. > :10:52.going to say on topics tonight, is that the Government doesn't seem to
:10:52. > :10:55.be asking the right people about the decisions that it's making. Now
:10:55. > :10:58.when you are going to take decisions that affect businesses up
:10:58. > :11:04.and down the country you ask the people in those businesses and if
:11:04. > :11:08.those guys are telling you that raising the tax pwrabg tote 50% --
:11:08. > :11:13.bracket to 50% is driving top earners out of the country so they
:11:13. > :11:16.either pay their taxes elsewhere, or it reduces their chances of
:11:16. > :11:20.expanding the country to create more taxes, then surely they're the
:11:20. > :11:23.people who we should be listening to on this topic and not someone
:11:23. > :11:33.who's come up with an idea that will be very popular with the
:11:33. > :11:33.
:11:33. > :11:37.masses from Whitehall. OK. The woman up there.
:11:37. > :11:41.As a woman who most definitely thinks with her head and not her
:11:41. > :11:44.heart, surely it should be time to stop prioritising this tax cut and
:11:44. > :11:49.this tax cut and instead cut tax to a flat rate across the board and
:11:49. > :11:54.then cut the deficit by taking the revenue, the lower admittedly
:11:54. > :11:59.perhaps revenue but more likely to be higher due to the - and then use
:12:00. > :12:05.that to cut the deficit instead of stop taking money of money off rich
:12:05. > :12:09.people and poor people alike. you support that? Well, I support
:12:10. > :12:13.the argument that certain taxes become a problem if you put the
:12:13. > :12:16.rate too high. You can see that with income tax, with capital gains
:12:16. > :12:20.tax and I think at the moment we so desperately need the revenue, we
:12:20. > :12:25.have to opt mice the rates. Set the best rate for collecting the
:12:25. > :12:28.maximum revenue and that's head and heart, David. I care very much to
:12:28. > :12:33.reduce the tax burden on people on low pay and I don't think people,
:12:33. > :12:36.rich people deserve a tax cut, I just want to get more money out of
:12:36. > :12:39.them and the only way I can see of doing that is have a rate they will
:12:39. > :12:43.pay in Britain in a competitive world where they have other options
:12:43. > :12:47.and I am delighted that footballers want to make a bigger contribution.
:12:47. > :12:50.But a lot of footballers find all sorts of tax planning arrangements
:12:51. > :12:57.and offshore devices which enable them not to pay. I am sure that
:12:57. > :13:02.this is a topic that will come to later with what's going on with
:13:02. > :13:06.Barclays, but minimising tax liabilities is something that every
:13:06. > :13:10.business person in this country does, from greengrocers right up to
:13:10. > :13:14.the other end of the scale. To castigate one group of people for
:13:14. > :13:18.doing that in a legal way, is completely incorrects but the thing
:13:18. > :13:21.about Barclays is the fact they're actually in contravention to the
:13:21. > :13:24.banking code and that's why they should be held accountable for
:13:24. > :13:30.those decisions. The gentleman up there.
:13:30. > :13:33.Isn't the way to stop, to improve the tax intake to stop the
:13:33. > :13:38.loopholes such as individual setting themselves up as companies,
:13:38. > :13:44.as we have seen in Government recently? Can I come back on that.
:13:44. > :13:48.Wraoefly -- briefly. Regardless of the sexism which I have to say does
:13:48. > :13:53.you no credit nor help your argument, actually I am arguing
:13:53. > :13:56.something to different... Again, I want to talk. What I am arguing is
:13:56. > :14:01.not for unfunded tax cuts like the Labour Party. The Liberal Democrats
:14:01. > :14:04.are saying cut taxes for hard working families, by increasing the
:14:04. > :14:14.taxes on the wealthiest in society and there are a range of ways of
:14:14. > :14:17.doing that. It's not the 50p rate is sacred. �2.5 billion from the
:14:17. > :14:21.banks. We need to look at other ways of doing this. The restraou
:14:21. > :14:24.see the best ways we can make sure the wealthiest in society pay their
:14:24. > :14:34.fair share is what we need to do. A fairer tax system is important so
:14:34. > :14:38.
:14:38. > :14:48.we help people on low incomes and If you have a comment on this, you
:14:48. > :14:55.
:14:55. > :14:59.Let's go on to a question from Hannah May. A motion by some Lib
:14:59. > :15:03.Dem members today described the Health and Social Care Bill as so
:15:03. > :15:09.deeply flawed that it is not possible to make it fit for purpose.
:15:09. > :15:13.Are they right? I make no apologies for going back to the NHS. It has
:15:13. > :15:16.been one of the top questions of the season. The Jo Swinson, you can
:15:16. > :15:20.answer first. You have a lot of members going to their conference
:15:20. > :15:24.and saying the whole Ho -- Health and Social Care Bill is deeply
:15:24. > :15:29.flawed and it is not possible to make it fit for purpose. Do you
:15:29. > :15:34.agree? If the Liberal Democrats at their conference vote for this,
:15:34. > :15:38.with your party say they will pull back and not supported any longer?
:15:38. > :15:41.Well, I disagree with the members who are putting this forward but I
:15:41. > :15:47.agree with their right as Democratic members of the party to
:15:47. > :15:51.put it forward and debated at the party conference. Party conferences
:15:51. > :15:55.have a reputation for having very frank and open debates, and it is
:15:55. > :16:01.very important that we listen to our members. But you do not take a
:16:01. > :16:05.blind bit of notice of what they say. That is not true. Legalise
:16:05. > :16:09.cannabis was one of them. Last spring conference, there was a
:16:09. > :16:14.motion about the NHS. The Liberal Democrats put forward a range of
:16:14. > :16:17.concerns, genuine concerns about the bill. Since then, over the last
:16:17. > :16:21.year, methodically within Parliament, the House of Commons,
:16:21. > :16:25.the House of Lords, my colleagues Paul Burstow, Shirley Williams and
:16:25. > :16:30.others have been working tirelessly to improve the Bill so that it is
:16:30. > :16:35.now a very different beast. Is it is deeply flawed or not? Is it a
:16:35. > :16:38.bill that you support? It is a bill that I support. There are further
:16:38. > :16:41.debates on issues of competition when Liberal Democrat colleagues
:16:41. > :16:44.are working with the Government about further safeguards to make
:16:44. > :16:48.sure that any private income that comes in is used for the good of
:16:48. > :16:52.NHS patients. Because that is the people that matter in all of this.
:16:52. > :16:56.It is about how to make sure we have a health service that delivers
:16:56. > :17:00.for the patients, so it is free at the point of use, but you go along
:17:00. > :17:04.and you will have a good service. And it is facing huge challenges.
:17:04. > :17:09.We had many years with a large investment, extra investment every
:17:09. > :17:13.year in the NHS which, when the times were good, was possible to do.
:17:13. > :17:17.The coalition Government has protected NHS spending, which the
:17:17. > :17:21.Labour Party were not going to do. But because the costs got so much
:17:21. > :17:26.each year, �600 million extra each year just on the drugs bill, for
:17:26. > :17:29.example, that feels grid difficult for the NHS. We need to get more
:17:29. > :17:33.efficient, cut-out middle- management, the decision-making in
:17:33. > :17:37.the hands of family doctors and other clinicians, and start to save
:17:37. > :17:45.�1.5 billion every year to go into providing NHS services for everyone
:17:45. > :17:49.to use. Rachel Reeves, do you agree with that analysis? I fundamentally
:17:49. > :17:53.disagree. David Cameron said there would be no more top down re
:17:53. > :17:56.organisation of the NHS. He said he would listen to doctors, nurses and
:17:56. > :18:00.people who use the National Health Service day-in, day-out. Over the
:18:00. > :18:06.last few weeks, despite the changes that Jo Swinson says the Liberal
:18:06. > :18:11.Democrats have made, doctors, GPS, surgeons, nurses, midwives,
:18:11. > :18:15.radiologists and psychiatrists have come out and criticised the Bill.
:18:15. > :18:20.Are you convinced, when you look at the figures, that a majority of
:18:20. > :18:24.those organisations are coming out? Or, as seems the case with some of
:18:24. > :18:29.them, only a small number of people replying. There will College of
:18:29. > :18:34.General Practitioners, 44,000 members, only 2600 answered the
:18:34. > :18:39.question. Physiotherapists, only 1100 answered, out of 50,000
:18:39. > :18:43.members. Are we getting a true picture in your view? I do not know
:18:43. > :18:47.if there are doctors and nurses, people from the health service in
:18:47. > :18:50.this audience, but the vast majority of people I talked to my
:18:50. > :18:53.constituency, doctors, nurses and patients of the National Health
:18:53. > :18:58.Service are also saying to the Government... I have more letters
:18:58. > :19:03.on this than anything else. But you do think it is a majority. When you
:19:03. > :19:07.look at the figures, it does not look like that. Well, I have not
:19:07. > :19:11.met a single doctor or nurse in my constituency who wants the
:19:11. > :19:15.Government to go ahead with this. Shall I tell you why? Because Jo
:19:15. > :19:20.Swinson says the NHS faces unprecedented pressures and she is
:19:20. > :19:26.right. But the way to address those is not to spend over �3 billion on
:19:26. > :19:29.top down re organisation. It is not �3 billion. There are fewer nurses
:19:29. > :19:33.than there were at the time of the general election and the Government
:19:33. > :19:36.say they will be fewer by the time of the next general election. Money
:19:37. > :19:42.is being ploughed into this reorganisation and taken away from
:19:42. > :19:46.the front line. There are more doctors and fewer administrators.
:19:47. > :19:51.am sure that doctors... Management had increased at three times the
:19:51. > :19:54.rate of nurses in the NHS. Hold on, we get the picture that you
:19:54. > :20:03.disagree, and we want to talk about whether the Bill is flawed and
:20:03. > :20:06.whether it should fail. You are not in the NHS? I confess that I have
:20:07. > :20:10.not read the Bill which is passing through Parliament currently, but
:20:10. > :20:16.my perception is that it is certainly moving in the right
:20:16. > :20:22.direction. Because it is aiming to devolve decision-making to doctors,
:20:22. > :20:27.nurses and other health professionals. It is taking it away
:20:27. > :20:32.from the expensive bureaucracy is that have hitherto done that.
:20:32. > :20:37.you an NHS...? I have worked in the NHS part time for almost 10 years.
:20:37. > :20:43.I was the chair of the Board managing the local hospital here,
:20:43. > :20:47.Dewsbury Health Care. Is that being abolished under this scheme?
:20:47. > :20:51.Devolving decision-making to the staff actually works. I can tell
:20:51. > :21:01.you from personal experience that a that is the case.
:21:01. > :21:02.
:21:02. > :21:07.If the Bill is so good, why has it taken so much parliamentary time to
:21:07. > :21:11.make it fit for purpose? Why is there so much improvement needed?
:21:11. > :21:14.Why has it taken so long to get this through? Because Labour and
:21:14. > :21:20.some trade unions have decided to make this their big campaign to try
:21:20. > :21:23.to stop it. They have the attention of some in the media. I do not find,
:21:23. > :21:28.as Rachel does, that this is a matter of great controversy in my
:21:28. > :21:30.constituency. I have had very few letters and e-mails about this and
:21:31. > :21:34.my general practitioners and nurses are getting on with implementing it
:21:34. > :21:38.because they like it and want to make a success of it. It is about
:21:38. > :21:41.giving better treatment to patients, about spending more of the money on
:21:41. > :21:45.the treatment and the medical professionals and less on the
:21:45. > :21:49.bureaucracy. It is about giving GPs more power with their patients to
:21:49. > :21:54.choose the best treatment for them. I think those are all completely
:21:54. > :21:58.laudable aims. It is not in any sense about privatising, or about
:21:58. > :22:02.making profits out of people. This is free care that we all believe in
:22:02. > :22:09.through the NHS, and more of the money is going to be spent on the
:22:09. > :22:12.care. What is there to dislike? Under these proposals, John, 49% of
:22:12. > :22:16.beds in hospitals and theatre places can be taken by private
:22:16. > :22:21.patients. That is not the case at the moment. It is about undermining
:22:21. > :22:25.the values of the National Health Service. The man in the third row.
:22:25. > :22:29.I would like to see the cuts getting deeper. I was reading that
:22:29. > :22:33.a bag of gluten free pasta was costing the NHS �40 per bag and
:22:33. > :22:37.they were advising people to just go and buy it from the shop because
:22:37. > :22:42.it was cheaper. When they are tied to ridiculous contracts like that,
:22:43. > :22:48.that is when that �40 could be so many prescriptions. The woman in
:22:48. > :22:52.the third row. I am a public sector worker. I do not work for the NHS,
:22:52. > :22:56.but in terms of figures at the most of us are browbeaten and fed up
:22:56. > :23:00.with filling in forms. So the figures might be skewed, but if you
:23:01. > :23:06.speak to people on the ground you might get a truer picture. In your
:23:06. > :23:14.experience, are people behind these proposals? I think the majority are
:23:14. > :23:22.against. You, sir. Why was it not in the Tory manifesto before the
:23:22. > :23:28.election? It was. There were three pages setting out the need for
:23:28. > :23:31.choice and four GP empowerment. more. I think the majority of
:23:31. > :23:37.people would rather have extra practice nurses than a practice
:23:37. > :23:44.manager for the same amount of money. This will go back to
:23:44. > :23:48.something I mentioned before about asking the right people. Jo Swinson
:23:48. > :23:54.just said that they are going to listen to the party members at the
:23:54. > :23:58.conference. But I spent a couple of hours in my local Haematology Unit
:23:58. > :24:02.at Northampton General Hospital. It had just had an overhaul that it is
:24:02. > :24:05.still to pay for. They are trying to raise funds for it. It was two
:24:05. > :24:09.hours with the nurses and doctors, who selflessly give of themselves
:24:09. > :24:13.to try to make a difference to someone else's life. After two
:24:13. > :24:18.hours I know I could not do that job. It is not a job, it is a
:24:18. > :24:21.vocation, a calling. When these people are telling me the Reform
:24:21. > :24:25.Bill is not good and it will hinder their class -- their chances of
:24:25. > :24:30.providing a service, they are the people who should be listened to.
:24:30. > :24:35.Not the party members, who are not taking in the actual opinions of
:24:35. > :24:43.the people working on the ground. Second to that, it is going to cost
:24:43. > :24:47.�1.5 billion at least to make these changes. There is a young girl in
:24:47. > :24:51.Northampton who has got cancer, and she cannot get her treatment in
:24:51. > :24:55.this country. Her family are having to find hundreds of thousands of
:24:55. > :24:59.pounds to take her over to America to get treatment. Why don't we use
:24:59. > :25:02.this money to actually give treatments to people who are in
:25:02. > :25:06.desperate need, to save their lives in this country, instead of, I
:25:06. > :25:16.don't know, winning votes by doing something that might be popular to
:25:16. > :25:22.
:25:22. > :25:26.some but not the people actually Once again, I mentioned the words
:25:26. > :25:30.sentimentality. The NHS is the great sacred cow of British
:25:30. > :25:37.politics about which it is forbidden to think seriously under
:25:37. > :25:42.any circumstances whatever. Clark is a trade unionist. What we heard
:25:42. > :25:46.was trade union speaking unto trade union, particularly the BMA. We
:25:46. > :25:53.have this notion that we are introducing privatisation. Do you
:25:53. > :25:56.know what your GP is? Your GP is self-employed. He has bought into a
:25:56. > :26:03.partnership. He is running that business at as much profit as
:26:03. > :26:09.possible. The BMA negotiated much better than the footballers union
:26:09. > :26:13.with the Labour Government and they did this brilliant deal. They
:26:13. > :26:20.scrapped seeing you at tonight. Do you know what Labour was stupid
:26:20. > :26:23.enough to value that as? �10,000 a year. This is why we have a health
:26:23. > :26:29.service run for the convenience of the professionals, not for us. It
:26:29. > :26:34.is demented. With my own GP's practice, not my private one, but
:26:34. > :26:40.my NHS, it takes two days to get a prescription signed. They are
:26:40. > :26:44.closed promptly at 5:30pm on Friday night, and you try getting a peep
:26:44. > :26:49.out of them for the whole of the weekend. I am sorry. Do you know
:26:49. > :26:54.how much they are paid for this little caper? A minimum of �100,000
:26:54. > :26:58.of up to a quarter of a million. That is where private interest is.
:26:58. > :27:04.If you look in France, doctors are paid half what they are paid in
:27:04. > :27:07.England. So, is the legislation deeply flawed? I think the
:27:07. > :27:17.legislation is utterly irrelevant to the real problems of the NHS.
:27:17. > :27:22.
:27:22. > :27:28.Frankly, the private agonies of the I would like to ask where the
:27:28. > :27:32.Government got their statistics of how they see that passing budgets
:27:32. > :27:35.to GPS is more cost-effective. Where has that come from? John
:27:36. > :27:39.Redwood. They have done work on how much of the overhead they can
:27:39. > :27:42.reduce, and they have already got rid of several thousand posts from
:27:42. > :27:48.the bureaucratic overhead which will clearly save money, allowing
:27:48. > :27:51.it to be spent on patient care. Nick Clegg and David Cameron signed
:27:51. > :27:56.an important preface to the white paper in the summer of 2010, and it
:27:56. > :27:59.is a good, clear statement of what they are trying to do. They were
:27:59. > :28:02.always united on it, coming from the Liberal Democrat and
:28:02. > :28:05.Conservative manifestos. It is spending more of the money on the
:28:05. > :28:09.treatments that people want, and giving the patients more
:28:09. > :28:12.opportunity, with their GP, to choose the treatment. So if you
:28:12. > :28:15.think the treatment is better at a private hospital down the road and
:28:15. > :28:20.it has a contract with your GP, you can go to the private hospital and
:28:20. > :28:24.it will be paid for because you are an NHS patient. If your district
:28:24. > :28:31.general hospital is the best at that thing, you will obviously go
:28:31. > :28:34.there. But they can do that now. would like to say, you have to look
:28:34. > :28:41.at the hospital in Dewsbury as an example where the money is being
:28:41. > :28:45.wasted. About 10 years ago it was a five-star hospital. Now it is like
:28:45. > :28:51.a two star hospital. It is just full of debt. This happened when
:28:51. > :28:53.the Labour Government, our local MP said that he was going to get us
:28:53. > :28:57.money from Gordon Brown's government to clear the debt, but
:28:57. > :29:04.all that he did was to re finance the debt. And now all the services
:29:04. > :29:06.are moving to other hospitals in the area and it is just for old
:29:06. > :29:16.people to get to the hospital, they have to travel further just to get
:29:16. > :29:23.
:29:23. > :29:26.the services which they need and The man in the checked shirt.
:29:26. > :29:29.What's disgusting with the NHS are these trade union pilgrims paid
:29:29. > :29:34.millions some of them to do absolutely no work and fund the
:29:34. > :29:38.trade unions so why are we paying people to do absolutely no work?
:29:38. > :29:42.Clarke Carlisle? I don't understand what you mean by trade union
:29:42. > :29:47.pilgrims. Who are you referring to? Some of these people employed by
:29:47. > :29:54.the taxpayers with taxpayers' money meant to be doing nursing jobs, for
:29:54. > :29:57.example, but actually do full-time trade union work. Why are these
:29:57. > :30:02.people stop being funded by the Government and being funded by the
:30:02. > :30:06.trade unions? Definitely, I agree. If you can channel avenues of
:30:06. > :30:11.funding and actually make cuts that directly affect the people who work
:30:11. > :30:15.at the forefront of our NHS, instead of allowing like you said
:30:15. > :30:21.bureaucrats or pilgrims to wander around and do a job like that, I
:30:21. > :30:25.will be in complete and total agreement, even though I am a
:30:25. > :30:29.unionist myself. Voluntary, I add. I want to come back to David's
:30:29. > :30:34.statement saying this life for GPs, swanning around, clocking off at
:30:34. > :30:40.5.00, Wye defy you or I to spend a day in a GP's life and having to do
:30:40. > :30:44.the work he does or a doctor's life or nurse's life. Talking of pompous
:30:44. > :30:49.and inSolent comments, how can we talk about people who work
:30:49. > :30:54.themselves to the bone... They don't, they work a 9-5 comfortable
:30:54. > :30:57.job. What about the nurses and doctors? They work 9-5? I am
:30:57. > :31:01.talking of a GP's practice, not what goes on in the emergency room,
:31:01. > :31:05.I am not doing that. Sorry, I was extremely clear about what I said.
:31:05. > :31:10.And until we stop being sentimental and ask hard questions as the
:31:10. > :31:17.gentleman up there was doing over pilgrims, we start looking at the
:31:17. > :31:20.BMA as a totally - trade union. The founder of the NHS, the clue to all
:31:20. > :31:24.of this, and Bevan said the way he got doctors on board was by
:31:24. > :31:30.stopping their mouths with gold. That's been Labour policy ever
:31:30. > :31:37.since. We are going to move on. The next question affects Dewsbury in
:31:37. > :31:44.particular because of the racial mix-up of this town. Something like
:31:44. > :31:50.75% white, and about 22% or so people of Asian origin. The
:31:50. > :31:55.question is from Marek Hebda. it time we accepted in a number of
:31:55. > :31:59.cities in the UK racial segregation is a fact of life? When you say a
:31:59. > :32:03.fact of life you mean something that one might as well accept and
:32:03. > :32:11.that nothing should be done about or that an attempt should be made -
:32:11. > :32:15.what is your view? That it exists. Politicians try perhaps over
:32:15. > :32:20.decades have pretended that integration will work. Famously it
:32:20. > :32:24.was recently said that that's failed. Tonight, of course, there's
:32:24. > :32:30.a programme on Channel 4 exploring this in Bradford. The fact that we
:32:30. > :32:35.can't really deny it, it exists, and it's a fact of life. OK. The
:32:35. > :32:38.Prime Minister spoke about it, about a failure to integrate under
:32:38. > :32:44.state multiculturism. David Starkey, you have spoken about this before,
:32:44. > :32:50.what do you think? I think you are right, but I still think it's
:32:50. > :32:56.deplorable. A nation cannot exist without a common core of values. We
:32:56. > :32:59.are trying this extra ordinary experiment of being a nation
:32:59. > :33:04.without nationalism. It seems to me that it's not working. What do you
:33:04. > :33:06.mean by that? Literally what I said, David. When you look - well, if you
:33:06. > :33:09.look, for example, sorry I don't want to keep on going about the
:33:09. > :33:14.last Labour Government, but they did do a lot of things and
:33:14. > :33:17.especially... You will upset the gentleman in the middle there.
:33:17. > :33:21.quite happy with that. If you look at the Labour Government's attempts
:33:21. > :33:24.of defining Britishness, they set up a test. It doesn't consist of
:33:24. > :33:29.questions on history, British lifestyle t consists of questions
:33:29. > :33:33.like when are you entitled to benefits? In other words, it is
:33:33. > :33:36.absolutely outside any notion of nationhood, if you look at what the
:33:36. > :33:41.French set up as their equivalent, it's about the revolution, about
:33:41. > :33:46.notions of citizenship, and what ever. Now, the real problem I think
:33:46. > :33:52.is the way in which multiculturism has worked. The way multiculturism
:33:52. > :33:58.has worked and the Race Relations Acts and whatever are totally well
:33:58. > :34:01.intentioned. But what they've done is deliberately highlight division.
:34:01. > :34:08.Let me give you an example, which is very interesting one. You
:34:08. > :34:13.probably know I am gay, we had the case of a group of Islamic men who
:34:13. > :34:19.who I think were sentenced to jail for issuing propaganda which said
:34:19. > :34:27.the Koran says that gays should be executed which undoubtedly the
:34:27. > :34:34.Koran does, fine, as the whole Judae Christian Islamic Christian -
:34:34. > :34:38.if I as a homosexual then say I think Islam is vile and disgusting
:34:38. > :34:44.religion, which has no place in the modern democratic society, I will
:34:44. > :34:52.have a policeman fingering my neck and dragging me off to jail as well.
:34:52. > :34:56.This is absurd. A mature society would have an Islamic preacher or a
:34:56. > :34:59.radical Christian getting up and saying I think you, David, and I am
:34:59. > :35:03.sure the gentleman in the middle would agree, are a disgrace to
:35:03. > :35:07.humanity and should be strung up outside Dewsbury town hall and I
:35:07. > :35:11.would be able to argue I think you are a throwback to the middle ages
:35:11. > :35:13.and although I wouldn't execute you, I would jolly well make sure you
:35:13. > :35:19.had absolutely no rights as a citizen whatever, because you are
:35:19. > :35:22.not a fit member of a democratic liberal society. But unless we
:35:22. > :35:26.restore freedom of speech and engagement, what that Channel 4
:35:26. > :35:30.programme and I have seen some previews of it is about, is getting
:35:30. > :35:37.a group of people who have never talked to each other before, to
:35:37. > :35:47.talk to each other frankly and no holds barred. That's what we want.
:35:47. > :35:48.
:35:48. > :35:53.The person in the very back there. As a victim liaison officer and
:35:53. > :35:58.police volunteer I work within an area of hate crime and I think
:35:58. > :36:03.comments such as Mr Starkey's do not help the situation and all that
:36:03. > :36:08.these questions do is cause issues around racism and bigotry. I think
:36:08. > :36:13.we need to have a grownup discussion. In your opinion, is
:36:13. > :36:17.racial segregation a fact of life? No, it isn't. It's not a fact of
:36:17. > :36:20.life. What we tend to find is that when individuals are subjected to
:36:21. > :36:25.race hate they tend to live with individuals from their own
:36:25. > :36:31.background. I think we need to be more welcoming, more open within
:36:31. > :36:36.society. Clarke Carlisle? Yeah, this is a very pertinent topic for
:36:36. > :36:40.us as an industry because we had a few high profile cases of
:36:40. > :36:43.discrimination recently. Going back to the question, you have to
:36:43. > :36:46.differentiate between racial segregation in communities, and
:36:46. > :36:51.racial discrimination like the lady just talked about at the back. It
:36:51. > :36:56.is a fact of life that there is racial segregation in amongst our
:36:56. > :37:02.country. You can see by the way that there are strong communities,
:37:02. > :37:06.let's say in south hall, in London, a strong Asian community where the
:37:06. > :37:10.majority signs are in Asian languages, that's a fact, and like
:37:10. > :37:12.attracts like so if you were going to come to this country you would
:37:12. > :37:16.more likely go to where there is a dense population of people from
:37:16. > :37:21.your own background, that's fact. But that doesn't mean to say that
:37:21. > :37:25.we have to accept that racial discrimination or homophobic
:37:25. > :37:29.discrimination or faith discrimination of any kind should
:37:29. > :37:33.be acceptable within our society. There have been fantastic campaigns
:37:33. > :37:37.within football recently to try and break down those barriers but in
:37:37. > :37:41.light of recent events we have realised that we have become quite
:37:41. > :37:48.complacent. We do work hard at total inclusion. We do work hard at
:37:48. > :37:51.breaking down the barriers of racial separation or homophobic
:37:51. > :37:55.discrimination and we want everyone to feel they have a place within
:37:55. > :37:59.football. But football is reflective of society. We don't
:38:00. > :38:03.create ideas within our industry. We take players from local
:38:03. > :38:08.communities, so race and discrimination is a society problem
:38:08. > :38:11.that we have to tackle head on. There's a real reluctance to even
:38:11. > :38:20.acknowledge the elephant in the room and it's really getting on my
:38:20. > :38:25.nerves. APPLAUSE. To say that racial discrimination doesn't exist
:38:25. > :38:29.is a lie, it happens up and down the country on a daily basis. To
:38:29. > :38:32.say that discrimination due to religion or faith doesn't happen is
:38:32. > :38:37.a lie, it happens on a daily basis and the same with homophobia. What
:38:37. > :38:40.we have to attack is base level language use and opinion and that
:38:40. > :38:48.means you don't allow children in the playground to say that's so gay
:38:48. > :38:55.or you are a homo or you are Jewish this, Islamic that. We have to
:38:55. > :39:01.reeducate our youngsters so that they know what is acceptable. Let
:39:01. > :39:05.me say, also we have to engage our maturer members of society who
:39:05. > :39:09.might have preconceived ideas into discourse and interaction between
:39:09. > :39:12.the groups so that they can learn the similarities between one
:39:12. > :39:19.another and not focus on the differences. Thank you, Clarke. The
:39:19. > :39:23.woman here. Whilst appreciating the importance
:39:23. > :39:27.of common values, it just strikes me that why do those common values
:39:27. > :39:32.always have to be based on an abstract concept of Britishness
:39:32. > :39:35.rather than from the strength and diversity within our communities,
:39:35. > :39:39.because I feel the difference is something we should be celebrating
:39:39. > :39:44.whereas the Government seems to want to eradicate all different and
:39:44. > :39:48.diversity completely. What the Prime Minister said was under the
:39:48. > :39:52.doctrine of state multiculturism we have encouraged different cultures
:39:52. > :39:55.to live separate lives apart from each other and the mainstream. John
:39:55. > :39:58.Redwood, was he trite say that do you think -- right to say that do
:39:58. > :40:01.you think? Well, he is the Prime Minister so I am sure he had every
:40:02. > :40:05.right to say it. I didn't say he had the right, was he right to say
:40:05. > :40:09.it? Let me say what I would like to say about the subject. I loath
:40:09. > :40:14.racial abuse and racial tension and I think we all need to work
:40:14. > :40:19.endlessly to ensure that people do not use extreme language to inflame
:40:19. > :40:22.extreme opinions. Of course, David Starkey is right that a thriving
:40:22. > :40:27.democracy needs strong exchanges of opinions on things that matter and
:40:27. > :40:32.things we have to decide together. But if you allow that to stray into
:40:32. > :40:36.extreme language, trying to divide people, because of what what they
:40:37. > :40:40.look like or their creed or race, then I think you have evil on your
:40:40. > :40:43.doorstep and it's very difficult to control it. I am glad that there
:40:43. > :40:48.are other people in football who are trying to control it on the
:40:48. > :40:53.terraces, I think it looks dreadful. We are now a different country from
:40:53. > :40:56.the one we were 30 years ago. We should take strength from the many
:40:56. > :41:01.different people who have settled here and wish to be part of our
:41:01. > :41:05.community. I do agree with David Starkey that it is up to the
:41:05. > :41:09.cultural leaders and the political leaders to offer a story of our
:41:09. > :41:13.country that we can all unite behind. I am very proud of the
:41:13. > :41:16.story of these islands and the peoples who settled in them from
:41:16. > :41:20.previous centuries. David tells that story very well. But we need
:41:20. > :41:24.to recognise that the story has moved on in the last 40 years and
:41:24. > :41:30.we need to be proud of that part of the story as well. The man in the
:41:30. > :41:32.third row. I don't think there's anything
:41:32. > :41:35.arcaic about the idea of Britishness. I think being British
:41:35. > :41:41.has nothing to do with the colour of your skin, creed or anything.
:41:41. > :41:46.It's just the general idea. It might sound a bit of a stereotype,
:41:47. > :41:50.it's about fair play, about queuing, following rules. We shouldn't -
:41:50. > :41:58.celebrating differences is just the worst thing you can possibly do. We
:41:58. > :42:04.need a cohesive society. We need one nation. The question was that
:42:04. > :42:06.you have to accept that there is racial seg -- segregation in a
:42:06. > :42:10.number of cities and the Prime Minister says that the Government
:42:10. > :42:14.policy has led to people living apart from each other. In other
:42:14. > :42:17.words, that that's the effect of multiculturism, do you agree?
:42:17. > :42:23.There's certainly the case that in a number of cities there are parts
:42:23. > :42:26.of that city and neighbourhoods which have a predominance of a
:42:26. > :42:31.particular ethnic group living within them. I think we know that
:42:31. > :42:35.is the case and to deny that would be strange. But it's not perhaps -
:42:35. > :42:39.quite such a cause for pessimism as perhaps has been suggested because
:42:39. > :42:42.I think there's a lot of areas where despite people living in
:42:42. > :42:47.particular areas there's still a lot of integration. I think about
:42:47. > :42:51.Glasgow where I am from and there is a large and proud Scottish-Asian
:42:51. > :42:55.community that combines very much feeling Scottish with feeling Asian
:42:55. > :42:59.and there will be specific cultural and religious practices that are
:42:59. > :43:04.still respected, but at the same time when the Glasgow half marathon
:43:04. > :43:07.runs through the city you go through the area where a lot of
:43:07. > :43:11.Sikh people live and they celebrate and it's a joyous celebration. You
:43:11. > :43:15.can have a lot of that integration. A lot does happen in schools and
:43:15. > :43:18.that's where part of the difficulty can be where specific
:43:18. > :43:20.concentrations of particular populations means that schooling
:43:20. > :43:26.can become segregated and in fact children are born without these
:43:26. > :43:29.kind of prejudices and are very accepting and it's one of the best
:43:29. > :43:35.ways to break down barriers. I think sometimes the media doesn't
:43:35. > :43:38.always help because when I speak to Muslim friends there's often a real
:43:38. > :43:43.frustration that the very extreme characterisation that David has put
:43:43. > :43:47.forward about Islam is the one that carries favour as if that's what
:43:47. > :43:50.all Muslims think and actually the voice of mainstream moderate Islam
:43:50. > :43:55.is often not heard. We need to be careful in our debates not to go
:43:55. > :43:58.for that polarisation because often tensions are borne out of a fear of
:43:58. > :44:08.the unknown and if we can have perhaps a more informed and
:44:08. > :44:10.
:44:10. > :44:13.intelligent debate about it we can There is a minority of bad people
:44:13. > :44:18.in every community and a majority of good people. But like the lady
:44:18. > :44:24.said, the media is always sort of influencing on one culture, one
:44:24. > :44:28.community, and that makes the whole of the majority look bad. Like what
:44:28. > :44:33.David Starkey has said. He has picked an example of Islam. You can
:44:33. > :44:37.pick an example of Judaism or Christianity. Every religion has
:44:37. > :44:41.bias in it. You cannot always concentrate on one community. There
:44:41. > :44:46.will always be segregation because the media influences everyone in a
:44:46. > :44:51.big way to think this community is bad, so the communities to
:44:51. > :44:55.segregate. You cannot help it, even if you do live in Britain.
:44:55. > :45:01.totally agree. And I pay tribute to what Clarke has said, because he
:45:01. > :45:06.has given such a strong defence against discrimination and in
:45:06. > :45:11.favour of bringing people together. What about multiculturalism and
:45:11. > :45:17.what the Prime Minister said. me answer the question, do we have
:45:17. > :45:22.to accept it as a fact of life? In some places, it exists, segregation,
:45:22. > :45:27.but as the lady said, it does not have to be like that. In my own
:45:27. > :45:30.constituency just up the road in Leeds, the church where I go, a
:45:30. > :45:34.year-and-a-half ago raised money with a concert for the victims of
:45:34. > :45:38.the floods in Pakistan. This weekend on Sunday I am going to a
:45:38. > :45:41.mosque in my constituency which has opened to the whole community to
:45:41. > :45:45.share the culture they have. The Muslim community, the Sikh
:45:45. > :45:49.community, the Christian community and people of no faith come
:45:49. > :45:52.together, and I think that is a fantastic example of where racial
:45:52. > :45:59.segregation does not exist and actually people celebrate together
:45:59. > :46:03.what binds us, rather than what divides us. So the Prime Minister
:46:03. > :46:08.was wrong to say we have failed to provide a vision of a society which
:46:08. > :46:11.people feel they can belong? As I said, he is right that in some
:46:11. > :46:15.places racial segregation does exist, but it does not have to be
:46:15. > :46:18.like that. I think there is more that binds us together and it is
:46:18. > :46:23.better when we celebrate together what makes us British and what
:46:23. > :46:27.brings us together. I see that in my community. Jo Swinson has spoken
:46:27. > :46:35.powerfully about what she sees in Glasgow. That is where we are
:46:35. > :46:39.stronger. We will go on to another question. Christopher Ferguson.
:46:39. > :46:43.the situation in Syria reached the point where Britain and her allies
:46:43. > :46:52.ought to intervene by force, regardless of approval by the
:46:52. > :46:55.Security Council? Clarke Carlisle. This situation in Syria has two
:46:55. > :47:00.strands for me. There is the humanitarian element, where you do
:47:00. > :47:03.not want to see any other nation and the population of any other
:47:03. > :47:08.nation undergo the tyranny and awful events that are going on
:47:08. > :47:12.there. And if as a country we can support humanitarian aid, which
:47:12. > :47:16.does not mean we give money to their government to utilise how
:47:16. > :47:20.they want, and we actually give it to the charities who we know are
:47:20. > :47:25.directly giving humanitarian aid on the ground, I would be all for that.
:47:25. > :47:29.In answer to your question, should we going with physical support, I
:47:29. > :47:36.spoke last time I was on about my cousin who is serving for our armed
:47:36. > :47:40.forces. He is currently on tour again. And they are out there with
:47:41. > :47:46.terrible supplies, with equipment that is not in full working order.
:47:46. > :47:49.He is in Afghanistan? He is actually in Germany, between going
:47:49. > :47:55.back to Afghanistan. They have terrible supplies, equipment not in
:47:55. > :47:59.full working order, they feel understaffed and badly guided. And
:47:59. > :48:03.that is in the conflict they are already in. If we were going to try
:48:03. > :48:07.and put our troops into another conflict, and then maybe Argentina
:48:07. > :48:11.if that arises, under supported and under-equipped, I would say no,
:48:11. > :48:15.because we cannot put the lives of young men and women who are
:48:16. > :48:25.fighting on a daily basis for us about their at death's door without
:48:25. > :48:29.supplying them properly. -- at death's door. Know, we should not
:48:30. > :48:32.intervene militarily. The British Government is rightly trying to
:48:32. > :48:36.apply diplomatic pressure and the British Government rightly
:48:36. > :48:41.understands that the Arab nations should lead the pressure on Syria,
:48:42. > :48:46.as they have most opportunity and it is more likely the regime there
:48:46. > :48:51.would respond to them than to last. I am very pleased we are not
:48:51. > :48:54.suggesting military intervention. I think this Government would not
:48:54. > :48:58.undertake military intervention without a United Nations resolution
:48:58. > :49:03.as the bare minimum, and it looks as if Russia and China are not
:49:03. > :49:07.prepared to allow such a resolution, so the issue does not arise all the
:49:07. > :49:11.time that they block it. Diplomacy is about trying to get Russia and
:49:11. > :49:15.China, who have more influence with the regime in Syria, to move their
:49:15. > :49:19.position. There are signs tonight that that may be beginning to
:49:19. > :49:23.happen. They might have more chance, along with the Arab League, in
:49:23. > :49:28.trying to persuade the government in Syria to behave more reasonably
:49:29. > :49:32.towards its people. The scenes are devastating to see on our
:49:32. > :49:37.television. We all feel desperate about them. But not only is there
:49:37. > :49:42.not the legal framework, not only do we not have the diplomatic
:49:42. > :49:46.entree with Syria, but I am not sure it would be a feasible
:49:46. > :49:50.military task to set our hard- pressed armed forces. I guess that
:49:50. > :49:54.is the question. We intervened in Kosovo without approval because we
:49:54. > :50:00.recognise that sometimes we have to. So the question is, how many people
:50:00. > :50:04.do they need to kill before we are going to do something about it?
:50:04. > :50:12.Kosovo was a disaster. Kosovo and the Balkans are now United Nations
:50:12. > :50:16.protectorates, un-governable and un-sustainable as states.
:50:16. > :50:20.Humanitarian intervention is always disastrous. Let me give you an
:50:20. > :50:25.example, France. Britain and America liberated France. What
:50:25. > :50:29.thanks did we get? The friends who -- the French have spent the last
:50:29. > :50:36.40 years trying to obliterate the shame, by doing everything they can
:50:36. > :50:41.to damage Britain and America. no D-Day, you would have lifted to
:50:41. > :50:48.the Russians to slip across Europe? What are you saying? I am trying to
:50:48. > :50:52.illustrate that people do not like being freed. They mistake
:50:52. > :50:56.liberators for conquerors, which is exactly what has happened in
:50:56. > :51:01.Afghanistan, exactly what has happened in Iraq, which is a
:51:01. > :51:06.testament of shame to Britain and America, of utter disgrace. And it
:51:06. > :51:15.would be exactly what would happen in Syria. You going, you become the
:51:15. > :51:19.enemy. Only one person can make you free, it is yourself. Only a
:51:19. > :51:25.country can free itself. The French freed themselves in their
:51:25. > :51:29.revolution. We did not have humanitarian intervention. Are you
:51:29. > :51:34.seriously saying there should have been no Allied invasion of France
:51:34. > :51:39.to remove the Germans? We did not go into France to liberate France,
:51:39. > :51:42.but to destroy Nazi Germany. What I'm trying to do, if you will
:51:42. > :51:46.occasionally detach your mind from your prompt sheet and listen to
:51:47. > :51:51.what people are saying, I was saying people do not likely --
:51:51. > :51:55.being liberated. The French have to invent a myth of their own
:51:55. > :52:02.liberation. It is the same in Afghanistan and the same in Iraq.
:52:02. > :52:06.It is, thank God, we did it lightly enough in Libya. But I am sorry, we
:52:06. > :52:11.have this weird notion, exemplified above all by the divinely ordained
:52:11. > :52:16.Tony Blair, that you go and give people freedom. I think we have a
:52:16. > :52:21.point. Thank you very much. The man in the third row. The man in the
:52:21. > :52:26.blue pullover. If you are saying that, do you not think that the
:52:26. > :52:30.three people that died just to save one person who went into Homs to
:52:30. > :52:36.take pictures and do a job, do you not think those three people's
:52:36. > :52:39.families are going to suffer due to the fact of us rescuing one person?
:52:39. > :52:44.I think if you're going to intervene in Syria, we have to be
:52:44. > :52:47.pretty certain that we are going to be able to make a difference. And I
:52:47. > :52:50.am not convinced, as Clark said, that we would be able to make the
:52:50. > :52:54.difference for the better if we intervened in Syria for the reasons
:52:54. > :52:58.that he said. But also without the support of the United Nations,
:52:58. > :53:05.without the support of the Arab League and the region, I don't
:53:05. > :53:11.think that that will make the difference. And so, reluctantly, I
:53:11. > :53:14.don't think we can intervene militarily. But I think today the
:53:14. > :53:19.United Nations and the Red Cross have got access, and hopefully axis
:53:19. > :53:23.will come in the next few days for a humanitarian mission. And I hope
:53:23. > :53:26.that will start to make a difference and will start to get
:53:26. > :53:30.the support of the people in Homs that they desperately need. We have
:53:30. > :53:33.all seen the pictures on the television and it is devastating.
:53:33. > :53:38.If that can make some difference, hopefully it will make it better
:53:38. > :53:42.for the people there. Everybody will have been moved by the
:53:42. > :53:46.pictures they have seen. It is quite right, at least some good
:53:46. > :53:51.news that humanitarian aid might now be able to going, following the
:53:51. > :53:55.Security Council's resolution today. But I do not think we should
:53:55. > :54:00.intervene militarily, partly for the reasons that have been outlined
:54:00. > :54:02.by Clark. That is not something that you enter into lightly. And
:54:02. > :54:09.you have to be confident that you can improve things and make it
:54:09. > :54:13.better. I was a strong supporter of the action we took in Libya, where
:54:13. > :54:18.we had the key things that we had in place. We had the support of the
:54:18. > :54:22.population, the support of the Arab League, we had the United Nations
:54:22. > :54:26.resolution. We just need to look, as David alluded to, at the mess
:54:27. > :54:30.that we got into, the terrible mess of the folly of going into Iraq
:54:30. > :54:34.without the United Nations resolution. We should not be making
:54:34. > :54:38.that mistake again. What we can be doing, short of military action, as
:54:38. > :54:41.well as supporting a humanitarian effort, is to continue the work we
:54:41. > :54:47.are doing supporting the capacity building for the Syrian National
:54:47. > :54:49.Council, helping with training about how to make sure that
:54:50. > :54:54.documentation is taken of human rights abuses, so that hopefully at
:54:54. > :54:58.some point in the future, when there is a change in Syria and a
:54:58. > :55:02.transition can actually take place in a measured way, that the people
:55:02. > :55:06.that are responsible for these appalling and despicable acts can
:55:06. > :55:10.finally be brought to justice. I think that has to be the way that
:55:10. > :55:15.we move forward, rather than repeating the mistakes of the past.
:55:15. > :55:20.You on the left, sir. I fail to see the difference between Libya and
:55:20. > :55:24.Syria. We intervened in Libya, whereas in Syria there are the same
:55:24. > :55:29.problems. There is a dictator, breaches of human rights, and
:55:29. > :55:37.civilians are being killed. Why do we not to intervene there? The man
:55:37. > :55:41.in spectacles. Surely the answer is to put political and economic
:55:42. > :55:47.pressure on Russia and China, to make them agree with the United
:55:47. > :55:54.Nations. What an absurd remark. What pressure could we bring to
:55:54. > :55:57.bear on China?! Think, man, for God's sake. We are trying to deal
:55:57. > :56:02.with the previous point about the difference between Libya and Syria.
:56:02. > :56:04.In the case of Libya there was a United Nations resolution. There
:56:04. > :56:10.was a more formed and united opposition with some military
:56:10. > :56:13.prowess and ability. And third, it was more accessible and easy a
:56:13. > :56:17.militarily. There were three things that gave our forces a chance, and
:56:17. > :56:22.they did a very good job to support very brave people who were already
:56:22. > :56:26.there at a considerable scale as an opposition. Those conditions are
:56:26. > :56:29.not met, and in Syria we could make the thing a lot worse. We could
:56:29. > :56:36.kill a lot of people without managing to produce a great
:56:36. > :56:41.opposition movement. This man... Hold on, David. He raised the
:56:41. > :56:46.really important point. Let's try and answer it. Does the patient and
:56:46. > :56:52.wait! Isn't the danger that we try to impart our own ideology on these
:56:52. > :56:58.countries? Put bluntly, it does not work. David Starkey, briefly, if
:56:58. > :57:01.you can manage it. Two points. You are right, underpinning the absurd
:57:01. > :57:06.doctrine of humanitarian intervention is that everybody
:57:06. > :57:10.wants to be a writer on liberated man or woman, with a fag hanging
:57:10. > :57:13.out of one corner and a bottle swinging at another. The world is
:57:13. > :57:18.not like that. People want different things and we need to
:57:18. > :57:23.recognise it. The key difference between Syria and Libya is that in
:57:23. > :57:27.Syria you have a united regime with an extremely powerful and well-
:57:27. > :57:31.organised army and secret service. Gaddafi deliberately divided and
:57:31. > :57:35.rolled and had a very weak army. This is the key difference. You
:57:35. > :57:41.would face an entirely different level of military opposition in
:57:41. > :57:51.Syria. Time is up, I'm afraid. Apologies to those with your hands
:57:51. > :57:56.Next week, Guildford, with Eric Pickles, and the singer will young.
:57:56. > :58:00.The week after that, St Andrews. If you would like to come to Question
:58:00. > :58:07.Time, Guildford or St Andrews, you can go to the website, or you can