01/03/2012 Question Time

Tonight we are in Dewsbury and welcome to Question Time.

On our panel tonight the Conservative MP who challenged John

Major for the leadership of the party, skwrob Redwood. The shadow

Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Rachel Reeves, the Liberal Democrat

MP and parliamentary private Secretary to Nick Clegg, Jo Swinson,

the historian David Starkey, and from the trade union with the

highest paid membership in the country the chairman of the

professional footballers association Clarke Carlisle.

David Chandler has our first question. Should the Chancellor

resist calls from business leaders and his own backbenchers to remove

the 50% tax on high earners? There's been a big appeal today for

this, in the next budget the 50% income tax is reduced. John Redwood,

would you like to see the Chancellor do that? We do need to

get more money from the rich, I agree with finding ways of taxing

the rich more. The way to successfully tax the rich more

would include taking the rate of tax back to the Labour level of 40%

from 50%. We see in the January figures this year that income tax

receipts are actually down from self-assessment compared with a

year earlier, exactly what some of us said would happen if we

persevered with this 50% tax rate. A lot of bright people are not

working as hard, some are leaving the country, some are not setting

up enterprises here, some are finding other clever ways of

routing their monies elsewhere. So we are losing revenue. It's stupid

to lose revenue when we need the rich to pay more. The top 1% of

taxpayers do pay 30% of income tax already, I would like them to make

a bigger contribution, the way to do it is cut the rate. What chance

the Chancellor agreeing with you and doing it? I am sure he will

hear my voice. I think getting him to agree is a little more difficult

because he will be swayed perhaps by all those people who say this is

not the time to give the rich a tax break. I am saying this is the time

to get more off the rich, and I believe in pragmatic politics

things that work. Rachel Reeves, do you agree? I think that the

Government should prioritise not the 1%, the richest 1% in the

country, but the other 99%, the people who are struggling with

their household bills, with mortgage payments, rents, gas and

electricity bills, petrol prices, all those things going up and yet

ordinary families facing that huge squeeze with inflation rising at a

higher rate than wages. So I don't think a priority now should be

cutting taxes for the top 1%, the Conservatives obviously straining

at the leash to get rid of this tax. I think that the Chancellor should

put ordinary families first and Labour are prioritising a cut in

VAT back down to 17.5%, which will put �450 in the pockets of an

average family and a national insurance holiday for small

businesses taking on new workers. I think that those are the priorities

right now. Priorities that get money to ordinary families and

businesses, not prioritising the very wealthiest 1% in this country.

APPLAUSE. What do you make of the argument

that was put that by cutting it from 50 to 40% you actually

encourage growth in the economy, do you think that's just not true?

Government have commissioned a review of the revenues and customs

department to have a look at this to see how much money it's raising,

but the latest predictions are that the increase in the top rate of tax

from 40 to 50% for people earning more than �150,000 will bring in

around �3 billion. That's not what I asked, I asked whether reducing

it would stimulate the economy because people would be inclined,

John Redwood said people weren't working. I am not convinced by that.

What would stimulate the economy would be a cut in VAT that would

help ordinary families and get money into our shops and retale

sector -- retail sector and reduction in national insurance for

small businesses struggling with a lack of lending and demand in the

economy. The tax cut should go to ordinary people, not the very

wealthiest 1%. I want a tax rise and the way to get it is set a rate

that will pay. Your party party kept the rate of 40% for very good

reasons because Mr Brown understood that was the maximum to maximise

the revenue from this group of people. Now you are in opposition

you want to destroy the tax revenue base, can you explain why income

tax didn't go up in January this year? The budget deficit has got to

be addressed and it's right that those people with the broadest

shoulders should contribute something. That's what we agree

about. It's why the top rate of tax for people earning more than

�150,000, why their tax rate was increased, that's the right thing

to do. It shouldn't just be ordinary families and businesses

shouldering the burden. What's the Liberal Democrat line on this, are

they in agreement, do you want to see it cut? You want to put

pressure object the -- on the Chancellor. In answer to the

question the Chancellor should resist these calls. You like the

50% tax? Look, there's probably about 100 people in this room here,

I think it would send a strange signal if the budget said the

priority was to give the top earning person in this room a tax

cut and not anybody else. That's really the situation that we are

looking at. What he should be doing is helping hard working families

and taxpayers and I have certainly proposed and so have my colleagues

in the Liberal Democrats, that should be done by taking low and

middle income earners out of paying tax altogether or giving them a tax

cut of �60 a month by raising the threshold further and faster

towards �10,000. That will also stimulate the economy and get

people spending and money back in people's pockets when they're

finding things difficult at the moment. David Starkey.

This is a fascinating instance of the war between heart and head. It

is perfectly clear that to cut the 50% rate of tax at the moment looks

wrong. Everybody with a heart which John - understands that and

remember he was beamed in from outer space, so he's completely

inhuman. On the other hand... don't have to insult a panellist in

order to win an argument. I am flattering him. I regard... Please

tell me when you are going to insult me! I regard the great

problem of British politics as exemplyified by Labour and the Lib

Dems as a mindless sentimentality that refuses to think. We are in a

position because of the complete wreckage of the public stppbses --

finances left by Labour that we have to increase tax revenue. There

is no way around that. The issue is how we do it without destroying the

economy and with also getting the economy moving again. It's not

hreug posturing like somebody who should be ashamed she is shadow

Chief Secretary to the Treasury of this cheep posturing. Sorry, David,

there's nothing cheap about saying would you prioritise ordinary

families over the top 1%, that's just making a realistic priority.

No, it's not because - what you are doing you are proposing to reduce

the tax by lifting those families and those little businesses out.

Let us address the real question, which is how we increase it. We had

a controlled experiment, the last long period of Labour Government in

the country before New Labour took tax rates up to 98%. They were then

cut by the great reforming Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, where

upon the tax taken from the rich at times virtually doubled. Now sorry,

this is the head, I know ladies like the heart, but John and I both

heartless, can actually decide that the head must rule. APPLAUSE.

The woman up there at the back. Putting aside your opinions on

women,... Do, please! I can think of a good way that we can get more

from tax without changing the rate, and that's to crackdown on tax

avoidance by large companies. APPLAUSE. The man in the middle.

Can we make an agreement at the outset, please, we leave the

propaganda and party posturing about the ruination of the economy

with the last Government at the door, not on the table. Why? Why?

Bearing in mind... Because of that is exactly what it is. Propaganda.

No, it's not. It's fact. If you can't recognise fact you should not

be at a programme like this. APPLAUSE. You don't like the

propaganda comment. Why do you have the insolicitorence to think your

opinion is better than anybody else's? Why is yours? Why can't you

argue a case? I argue a case. He is not doing. He is just sort of

coming in, rather like a preacher, waving down the tablets of the law.

I am bored of Moses. There are lots of Moses in this place. You are the

one that's insulted half the women in the room and members of the

panel. I was just doing a quick - both of you adopted the same view.

David Starkey, he was simply saying that it's political posturing to go

on about who is responsible. It's vital that we understand what's

happened and what has to be done. Clarke Carlisle. Well, it's no

secret to everyone that the majority of our membership will

encounter the 50%... footballers. Yes, swre 3,000

members. The most of those guys will fall under the 50% tax bracket.

They are more than happy to contribute in any way they can to

support the recovery of the economy. The sal kwrepbt point about this is

defining an overt show of popular decision over actual rationale

decisions. I think it's going to be a recurring theme of what I am

going to say on topics tonight, is that the Government doesn't seem to

be asking the right people about the decisions that it's making. Now

when you are going to take decisions that affect businesses up

and down the country you ask the people in those businesses and if

those guys are telling you that raising the tax pwrabg tote 50% --

bracket to 50% is driving top earners out of the country so they

either pay their taxes elsewhere, or it reduces their chances of

expanding the country to create more taxes, then surely they're the

people who we should be listening to on this topic and not someone

who's come up with an idea that will be very popular with the

masses from Whitehall. OK. The woman up there.

As a woman who most definitely thinks with her head and not her

heart, surely it should be time to stop prioritising this tax cut and

this tax cut and instead cut tax to a flat rate across the board and

then cut the deficit by taking the revenue, the lower admittedly

perhaps revenue but more likely to be higher due to the - and then use

that to cut the deficit instead of stop taking money of money off rich

people and poor people alike. you support that? Well, I support

the argument that certain taxes become a problem if you put the

rate too high. You can see that with income tax, with capital gains

tax and I think at the moment we so desperately need the revenue, we

have to opt mice the rates. Set the best rate for collecting the

maximum revenue and that's head and heart, David. I care very much to

reduce the tax burden on people on low pay and I don't think people,

rich people deserve a tax cut, I just want to get more money out of

them and the only way I can see of doing that is have a rate they will

pay in Britain in a competitive world where they have other options

and I am delighted that footballers want to make a bigger contribution.

But a lot of footballers find all sorts of tax planning arrangements

and offshore devices which enable them not to pay. I am sure that

this is a topic that will come to later with what's going on with

Barclays, but minimising tax liabilities is something that every

business person in this country does, from greengrocers right up to

the other end of the scale. To castigate one group of people for

doing that in a legal way, is completely incorrects but the thing

about Barclays is the fact they're actually in contravention to the

banking code and that's why they should be held accountable for

those decisions. The gentleman up there.

Isn't the way to stop, to improve the tax intake to stop the

loopholes such as individual setting themselves up as companies,

as we have seen in Government recently? Can I come back on that.

Wraoefly -- briefly. Regardless of the sexism which I have to say does

you no credit nor help your argument, actually I am arguing

something to different... Again, I want to talk. What I am arguing is

not for unfunded tax cuts like the Labour Party. The Liberal Democrats

are saying cut taxes for hard working families, by increasing the

taxes on the wealthiest in society and there are a range of ways of

doing that. It's not the 50p rate is sacred. �2.5 billion from the

banks. We need to look at other ways of doing this. The restraou

see the best ways we can make sure the wealthiest in society pay their

fair share is what we need to do. A fairer tax system is important so

we help people on low incomes and If you have a comment on this, you

Let's go on to a question from Hannah May. A motion by some Lib

Dem members today described the Health and Social Care Bill as so

deeply flawed that it is not possible to make it fit for purpose.

Are they right? I make no apologies for going back to the NHS. It has

been one of the top questions of the season. The Jo Swinson, you can

answer first. You have a lot of members going to their conference

and saying the whole Ho -- Health and Social Care Bill is deeply

flawed and it is not possible to make it fit for purpose. Do you

agree? If the Liberal Democrats at their conference vote for this,

with your party say they will pull back and not supported any longer?

Well, I disagree with the members who are putting this forward but I

agree with their right as Democratic members of the party to

put it forward and debated at the party conference. Party conferences

have a reputation for having very frank and open debates, and it is

very important that we listen to our members. But you do not take a

blind bit of notice of what they say. That is not true. Legalise

cannabis was one of them. Last spring conference, there was a

motion about the NHS. The Liberal Democrats put forward a range of

concerns, genuine concerns about the bill. Since then, over the last

year, methodically within Parliament, the House of Commons,

the House of Lords, my colleagues Paul Burstow, Shirley Williams and

others have been working tirelessly to improve the Bill so that it is

now a very different beast. Is it is deeply flawed or not? Is it a

bill that you support? It is a bill that I support. There are further

debates on issues of competition when Liberal Democrat colleagues

are working with the Government about further safeguards to make

sure that any private income that comes in is used for the good of

NHS patients. Because that is the people that matter in all of this.

It is about how to make sure we have a health service that delivers

for the patients, so it is free at the point of use, but you go along

and you will have a good service. And it is facing huge challenges.

We had many years with a large investment, extra investment every

year in the NHS which, when the times were good, was possible to do.

The coalition Government has protected NHS spending, which the

Labour Party were not going to do. But because the costs got so much

each year, �600 million extra each year just on the drugs bill, for

example, that feels grid difficult for the NHS. We need to get more

efficient, cut-out middle- management, the decision-making in

the hands of family doctors and other clinicians, and start to save

�1.5 billion every year to go into providing NHS services for everyone

to use. Rachel Reeves, do you agree with that analysis? I fundamentally

disagree. David Cameron said there would be no more top down re

organisation of the NHS. He said he would listen to doctors, nurses and

people who use the National Health Service day-in, day-out. Over the

last few weeks, despite the changes that Jo Swinson says the Liberal

Democrats have made, doctors, GPS, surgeons, nurses, midwives,

radiologists and psychiatrists have come out and criticised the Bill.

Are you convinced, when you look at the figures, that a majority of

those organisations are coming out? Or, as seems the case with some of

them, only a small number of people replying. There will College of

General Practitioners, 44,000 members, only 2600 answered the

question. Physiotherapists, only 1100 answered, out of 50,000

members. Are we getting a true picture in your view? I do not know

if there are doctors and nurses, people from the health service in

this audience, but the vast majority of people I talked to my

constituency, doctors, nurses and patients of the National Health

Service are also saying to the Government... I have more letters

on this than anything else. But you do think it is a majority. When you

look at the figures, it does not look like that. Well, I have not

met a single doctor or nurse in my constituency who wants the

Government to go ahead with this. Shall I tell you why? Because Jo

Swinson says the NHS faces unprecedented pressures and she is

right. But the way to address those is not to spend over �3 billion on

top down re organisation. It is not �3 billion. There are fewer nurses

than there were at the time of the general election and the Government

say they will be fewer by the time of the next general election. Money

is being ploughed into this reorganisation and taken away from

the front line. There are more doctors and fewer administrators.

am sure that doctors... Management had increased at three times the

rate of nurses in the NHS. Hold on, we get the picture that you

disagree, and we want to talk about whether the Bill is flawed and

whether it should fail. You are not in the NHS? I confess that I have

not read the Bill which is passing through Parliament currently, but

my perception is that it is certainly moving in the right

direction. Because it is aiming to devolve decision-making to doctors,

nurses and other health professionals. It is taking it away

from the expensive bureaucracy is that have hitherto done that.

you an NHS...? I have worked in the NHS part time for almost 10 years.

I was the chair of the Board managing the local hospital here,

Dewsbury Health Care. Is that being abolished under this scheme?

Devolving decision-making to the staff actually works. I can tell

you from personal experience that a that is the case.

If the Bill is so good, why has it taken so much parliamentary time to

make it fit for purpose? Why is there so much improvement needed?

Why has it taken so long to get this through? Because Labour and

some trade unions have decided to make this their big campaign to try

to stop it. They have the attention of some in the media. I do not find,

as Rachel does, that this is a matter of great controversy in my

constituency. I have had very few letters and e-mails about this and

my general practitioners and nurses are getting on with implementing it

because they like it and want to make a success of it. It is about

giving better treatment to patients, about spending more of the money on

the treatment and the medical professionals and less on the

bureaucracy. It is about giving GPs more power with their patients to

choose the best treatment for them. I think those are all completely

laudable aims. It is not in any sense about privatising, or about

making profits out of people. This is free care that we all believe in

through the NHS, and more of the money is going to be spent on the

care. What is there to dislike? Under these proposals, John, 49% of

beds in hospitals and theatre places can be taken by private

patients. That is not the case at the moment. It is about undermining

the values of the National Health Service. The man in the third row.

I would like to see the cuts getting deeper. I was reading that

a bag of gluten free pasta was costing the NHS �40 per bag and

they were advising people to just go and buy it from the shop because

it was cheaper. When they are tied to ridiculous contracts like that,

that is when that �40 could be so many prescriptions. The woman in

the third row. I am a public sector worker. I do not work for the NHS,

but in terms of figures at the most of us are browbeaten and fed up

with filling in forms. So the figures might be skewed, but if you

speak to people on the ground you might get a truer picture. In your

experience, are people behind these proposals? I think the majority are

against. You, sir. Why was it not in the Tory manifesto before the

election? It was. There were three pages setting out the need for

choice and four GP empowerment. more. I think the majority of

people would rather have extra practice nurses than a practice

manager for the same amount of money. This will go back to

something I mentioned before about asking the right people. Jo Swinson

just said that they are going to listen to the party members at the

conference. But I spent a couple of hours in my local Haematology Unit

at Northampton General Hospital. It had just had an overhaul that it is

still to pay for. They are trying to raise funds for it. It was two

hours with the nurses and doctors, who selflessly give of themselves

to try to make a difference to someone else's life. After two

hours I know I could not do that job. It is not a job, it is a

vocation, a calling. When these people are telling me the Reform

Bill is not good and it will hinder their class -- their chances of

providing a service, they are the people who should be listened to.

Not the party members, who are not taking in the actual opinions of

the people working on the ground. Second to that, it is going to cost

�1.5 billion at least to make these changes. There is a young girl in

Northampton who has got cancer, and she cannot get her treatment in

this country. Her family are having to find hundreds of thousands of

pounds to take her over to America to get treatment. Why don't we use

this money to actually give treatments to people who are in

desperate need, to save their lives in this country, instead of, I

don't know, winning votes by doing something that might be popular to

some but not the people actually Once again, I mentioned the words

sentimentality. The NHS is the great sacred cow of British

politics about which it is forbidden to think seriously under

any circumstances whatever. Clark is a trade unionist. What we heard

was trade union speaking unto trade union, particularly the BMA. We

have this notion that we are introducing privatisation. Do you

know what your GP is? Your GP is self-employed. He has bought into a

partnership. He is running that business at as much profit as

possible. The BMA negotiated much better than the footballers union

with the Labour Government and they did this brilliant deal. They

scrapped seeing you at tonight. Do you know what Labour was stupid

enough to value that as? �10,000 a year. This is why we have a health

service run for the convenience of the professionals, not for us. It

is demented. With my own GP's practice, not my private one, but

my NHS, it takes two days to get a prescription signed. They are

closed promptly at 5:30pm on Friday night, and you try getting a peep

out of them for the whole of the weekend. I am sorry. Do you know

how much they are paid for this little caper? A minimum of �100,000

of up to a quarter of a million. That is where private interest is.

If you look in France, doctors are paid half what they are paid in

England. So, is the legislation deeply flawed? I think the

legislation is utterly irrelevant to the real problems of the NHS.

Frankly, the private agonies of the I would like to ask where the

Government got their statistics of how they see that passing budgets

to GPS is more cost-effective. Where has that come from? John

Redwood. They have done work on how much of the overhead they can

reduce, and they have already got rid of several thousand posts from

the bureaucratic overhead which will clearly save money, allowing

it to be spent on patient care. Nick Clegg and David Cameron signed

an important preface to the white paper in the summer of 2010, and it

is a good, clear statement of what they are trying to do. They were

always united on it, coming from the Liberal Democrat and

Conservative manifestos. It is spending more of the money on the

treatments that people want, and giving the patients more

opportunity, with their GP, to choose the treatment. So if you

think the treatment is better at a private hospital down the road and

it has a contract with your GP, you can go to the private hospital and

it will be paid for because you are an NHS patient. If your district

general hospital is the best at that thing, you will obviously go

there. But they can do that now. would like to say, you have to look

at the hospital in Dewsbury as an example where the money is being

wasted. About 10 years ago it was a five-star hospital. Now it is like

a two star hospital. It is just full of debt. This happened when

the Labour Government, our local MP said that he was going to get us

money from Gordon Brown's government to clear the debt, but

all that he did was to re finance the debt. And now all the services

are moving to other hospitals in the area and it is just for old

people to get to the hospital, they have to travel further just to get

the services which they need and The man in the checked shirt.

What's disgusting with the NHS are these trade union pilgrims paid

millions some of them to do absolutely no work and fund the

trade unions so why are we paying people to do absolutely no work?

Clarke Carlisle? I don't understand what you mean by trade union

pilgrims. Who are you referring to? Some of these people employed by

the taxpayers with taxpayers' money meant to be doing nursing jobs, for

example, but actually do full-time trade union work. Why are these

people stop being funded by the Government and being funded by the

trade unions? Definitely, I agree. If you can channel avenues of

funding and actually make cuts that directly affect the people who work

at the forefront of our NHS, instead of allowing like you said

bureaucrats or pilgrims to wander around and do a job like that, I

will be in complete and total agreement, even though I am a

unionist myself. Voluntary, I add. I want to come back to David's

statement saying this life for GPs, swanning around, clocking off at

5.00, Wye defy you or I to spend a day in a GP's life and having to do

the work he does or a doctor's life or nurse's life. Talking of pompous

and inSolent comments, how can we talk about people who work

themselves to the bone... They don't, they work a 9-5 comfortable

job. What about the nurses and doctors? They work 9-5? I am

talking of a GP's practice, not what goes on in the emergency room,

I am not doing that. Sorry, I was extremely clear about what I said.

And until we stop being sentimental and ask hard questions as the

gentleman up there was doing over pilgrims, we start looking at the

BMA as a totally - trade union. The founder of the NHS, the clue to all

of this, and Bevan said the way he got doctors on board was by

stopping their mouths with gold. That's been Labour policy ever

since. We are going to move on. The next question affects Dewsbury in

particular because of the racial mix-up of this town. Something like

75% white, and about 22% or so people of Asian origin. The

question is from Marek Hebda. it time we accepted in a number of

cities in the UK racial segregation is a fact of life? When you say a

fact of life you mean something that one might as well accept and

that nothing should be done about or that an attempt should be made -

what is your view? That it exists. Politicians try perhaps over

decades have pretended that integration will work. Famously it

was recently said that that's failed. Tonight, of course, there's

a programme on Channel 4 exploring this in Bradford. The fact that we

can't really deny it, it exists, and it's a fact of life. OK. The

Prime Minister spoke about it, about a failure to integrate under

state multiculturism. David Starkey, you have spoken about this before,

what do you think? I think you are right, but I still think it's

deplorable. A nation cannot exist without a common core of values. We

are trying this extra ordinary experiment of being a nation

without nationalism. It seems to me that it's not working. What do you

mean by that? Literally what I said, David. When you look - well, if you

look, for example, sorry I don't want to keep on going about the

last Labour Government, but they did do a lot of things and

especially... You will upset the gentleman in the middle there.

quite happy with that. If you look at the Labour Government's attempts

of defining Britishness, they set up a test. It doesn't consist of

questions on history, British lifestyle t consists of questions

like when are you entitled to benefits? In other words, it is

absolutely outside any notion of nationhood, if you look at what the

French set up as their equivalent, it's about the revolution, about

notions of citizenship, and what ever. Now, the real problem I think

is the way in which multiculturism has worked. The way multiculturism

has worked and the Race Relations Acts and whatever are totally well

intentioned. But what they've done is deliberately highlight division.

Let me give you an example, which is very interesting one. You

probably know I am gay, we had the case of a group of Islamic men who

who I think were sentenced to jail for issuing propaganda which said

the Koran says that gays should be executed which undoubtedly the

Koran does, fine, as the whole Judae Christian Islamic Christian -

if I as a homosexual then say I think Islam is vile and disgusting

religion, which has no place in the modern democratic society, I will

have a policeman fingering my neck and dragging me off to jail as well.

This is absurd. A mature society would have an Islamic preacher or a

radical Christian getting up and saying I think you, David, and I am

sure the gentleman in the middle would agree, are a disgrace to

humanity and should be strung up outside Dewsbury town hall and I

would be able to argue I think you are a throwback to the middle ages

and although I wouldn't execute you, I would jolly well make sure you

had absolutely no rights as a citizen whatever, because you are

not a fit member of a democratic liberal society. But unless we

restore freedom of speech and engagement, what that Channel 4

programme and I have seen some previews of it is about, is getting

a group of people who have never talked to each other before, to

talk to each other frankly and no holds barred. That's what we want.

The person in the very back there. As a victim liaison officer and

police volunteer I work within an area of hate crime and I think

comments such as Mr Starkey's do not help the situation and all that

these questions do is cause issues around racism and bigotry. I think

we need to have a grownup discussion. In your opinion, is

racial segregation a fact of life? No, it isn't. It's not a fact of

life. What we tend to find is that when individuals are subjected to

race hate they tend to live with individuals from their own

background. I think we need to be more welcoming, more open within

society. Clarke Carlisle? Yeah, this is a very pertinent topic for

us as an industry because we had a few high profile cases of

discrimination recently. Going back to the question, you have to

differentiate between racial segregation in communities, and

racial discrimination like the lady just talked about at the back. It

is a fact of life that there is racial segregation in amongst our

country. You can see by the way that there are strong communities,

let's say in south hall, in London, a strong Asian community where the

majority signs are in Asian languages, that's a fact, and like

attracts like so if you were going to come to this country you would

more likely go to where there is a dense population of people from

your own background, that's fact. But that doesn't mean to say that

we have to accept that racial discrimination or homophobic

discrimination or faith discrimination of any kind should

be acceptable within our society. There have been fantastic campaigns

within football recently to try and break down those barriers but in

light of recent events we have realised that we have become quite

complacent. We do work hard at total inclusion. We do work hard at

breaking down the barriers of racial separation or homophobic

discrimination and we want everyone to feel they have a place within

football. But football is reflective of society. We don't

create ideas within our industry. We take players from local

communities, so race and discrimination is a society problem

that we have to tackle head on. There's a real reluctance to even

acknowledge the elephant in the room and it's really getting on my

nerves. APPLAUSE. To say that racial discrimination doesn't exist

is a lie, it happens up and down the country on a daily basis. To

say that discrimination due to religion or faith doesn't happen is

a lie, it happens on a daily basis and the same with homophobia. What

we have to attack is base level language use and opinion and that

means you don't allow children in the playground to say that's so gay

or you are a homo or you are Jewish this, Islamic that. We have to

reeducate our youngsters so that they know what is acceptable. Let

me say, also we have to engage our maturer members of society who

might have preconceived ideas into discourse and interaction between

the groups so that they can learn the similarities between one

another and not focus on the differences. Thank you, Clarke. The

woman here. Whilst appreciating the importance

of common values, it just strikes me that why do those common values

always have to be based on an abstract concept of Britishness

rather than from the strength and diversity within our communities,

because I feel the difference is something we should be celebrating

whereas the Government seems to want to eradicate all different and

diversity completely. What the Prime Minister said was under the

doctrine of state multiculturism we have encouraged different cultures

to live separate lives apart from each other and the mainstream. John

Redwood, was he trite say that do you think -- right to say that do

you think? Well, he is the Prime Minister so I am sure he had every

right to say it. I didn't say he had the right, was he right to say

it? Let me say what I would like to say about the subject. I loath

racial abuse and racial tension and I think we all need to work

endlessly to ensure that people do not use extreme language to inflame

extreme opinions. Of course, David Starkey is right that a thriving

democracy needs strong exchanges of opinions on things that matter and

things we have to decide together. But if you allow that to stray into

extreme language, trying to divide people, because of what what they

look like or their creed or race, then I think you have evil on your

doorstep and it's very difficult to control it. I am glad that there

are other people in football who are trying to control it on the

terraces, I think it looks dreadful. We are now a different country from

the one we were 30 years ago. We should take strength from the many

different people who have settled here and wish to be part of our

community. I do agree with David Starkey that it is up to the

cultural leaders and the political leaders to offer a story of our

country that we can all unite behind. I am very proud of the

story of these islands and the peoples who settled in them from

previous centuries. David tells that story very well. But we need

to recognise that the story has moved on in the last 40 years and

we need to be proud of that part of the story as well. The man in the

third row. I don't think there's anything

arcaic about the idea of Britishness. I think being British

has nothing to do with the colour of your skin, creed or anything.

It's just the general idea. It might sound a bit of a stereotype,

it's about fair play, about queuing, following rules. We shouldn't -

celebrating differences is just the worst thing you can possibly do. We

need a cohesive society. We need one nation. The question was that

you have to accept that there is racial seg -- segregation in a

number of cities and the Prime Minister says that the Government

policy has led to people living apart from each other. In other

words, that that's the effect of multiculturism, do you agree?

There's certainly the case that in a number of cities there are parts

of that city and neighbourhoods which have a predominance of a

particular ethnic group living within them. I think we know that

is the case and to deny that would be strange. But it's not perhaps -

quite such a cause for pessimism as perhaps has been suggested because

I think there's a lot of areas where despite people living in

particular areas there's still a lot of integration. I think about

Glasgow where I am from and there is a large and proud Scottish-Asian

community that combines very much feeling Scottish with feeling Asian

and there will be specific cultural and religious practices that are

still respected, but at the same time when the Glasgow half marathon

runs through the city you go through the area where a lot of

Sikh people live and they celebrate and it's a joyous celebration. You

can have a lot of that integration. A lot does happen in schools and

that's where part of the difficulty can be where specific

concentrations of particular populations means that schooling

can become segregated and in fact children are born without these

kind of prejudices and are very accepting and it's one of the best

ways to break down barriers. I think sometimes the media doesn't

always help because when I speak to Muslim friends there's often a real

frustration that the very extreme characterisation that David has put

forward about Islam is the one that carries favour as if that's what

all Muslims think and actually the voice of mainstream moderate Islam

is often not heard. We need to be careful in our debates not to go

for that polarisation because often tensions are borne out of a fear of

the unknown and if we can have perhaps a more informed and

intelligent debate about it we can There is a minority of bad people

in every community and a majority of good people. But like the lady

said, the media is always sort of influencing on one culture, one

community, and that makes the whole of the majority look bad. Like what

David Starkey has said. He has picked an example of Islam. You can

pick an example of Judaism or Christianity. Every religion has

bias in it. You cannot always concentrate on one community. There

will always be segregation because the media influences everyone in a

big way to think this community is bad, so the communities to

segregate. You cannot help it, even if you do live in Britain.

totally agree. And I pay tribute to what Clarke has said, because he

has given such a strong defence against discrimination and in

favour of bringing people together. What about multiculturalism and

what the Prime Minister said. me answer the question, do we have

to accept it as a fact of life? In some places, it exists, segregation,

but as the lady said, it does not have to be like that. In my own

constituency just up the road in Leeds, the church where I go, a

year-and-a-half ago raised money with a concert for the victims of

the floods in Pakistan. This weekend on Sunday I am going to a

mosque in my constituency which has opened to the whole community to

share the culture they have. The Muslim community, the Sikh

community, the Christian community and people of no faith come

together, and I think that is a fantastic example of where racial

segregation does not exist and actually people celebrate together

what binds us, rather than what divides us. So the Prime Minister

was wrong to say we have failed to provide a vision of a society which

people feel they can belong? As I said, he is right that in some

places racial segregation does exist, but it does not have to be

like that. I think there is more that binds us together and it is

better when we celebrate together what makes us British and what

brings us together. I see that in my community. Jo Swinson has spoken

powerfully about what she sees in Glasgow. That is where we are

stronger. We will go on to another question. Christopher Ferguson.

the situation in Syria reached the point where Britain and her allies

ought to intervene by force, regardless of approval by the

Security Council? Clarke Carlisle. This situation in Syria has two

strands for me. There is the humanitarian element, where you do

not want to see any other nation and the population of any other

nation undergo the tyranny and awful events that are going on

there. And if as a country we can support humanitarian aid, which

does not mean we give money to their government to utilise how

they want, and we actually give it to the charities who we know are

directly giving humanitarian aid on the ground, I would be all for that.

In answer to your question, should we going with physical support, I

spoke last time I was on about my cousin who is serving for our armed

forces. He is currently on tour again. And they are out there with

terrible supplies, with equipment that is not in full working order.

He is in Afghanistan? He is actually in Germany, between going

back to Afghanistan. They have terrible supplies, equipment not in

full working order, they feel understaffed and badly guided. And

that is in the conflict they are already in. If we were going to try

and put our troops into another conflict, and then maybe Argentina

if that arises, under supported and under-equipped, I would say no,

because we cannot put the lives of young men and women who are

fighting on a daily basis for us about their at death's door without

supplying them properly. -- at death's door. Know, we should not

intervene militarily. The British Government is rightly trying to

apply diplomatic pressure and the British Government rightly

understands that the Arab nations should lead the pressure on Syria,

as they have most opportunity and it is more likely the regime there

would respond to them than to last. I am very pleased we are not

suggesting military intervention. I think this Government would not

undertake military intervention without a United Nations resolution

as the bare minimum, and it looks as if Russia and China are not

prepared to allow such a resolution, so the issue does not arise all the

time that they block it. Diplomacy is about trying to get Russia and

China, who have more influence with the regime in Syria, to move their

position. There are signs tonight that that may be beginning to

happen. They might have more chance, along with the Arab League, in

trying to persuade the government in Syria to behave more reasonably

towards its people. The scenes are devastating to see on our

television. We all feel desperate about them. But not only is there

not the legal framework, not only do we not have the diplomatic

entree with Syria, but I am not sure it would be a feasible

military task to set our hard- pressed armed forces. I guess that

is the question. We intervened in Kosovo without approval because we

recognise that sometimes we have to. So the question is, how many people

do they need to kill before we are going to do something about it?

Kosovo was a disaster. Kosovo and the Balkans are now United Nations

protectorates, un-governable and un-sustainable as states.

Humanitarian intervention is always disastrous. Let me give you an

example, France. Britain and America liberated France. What

thanks did we get? The friends who -- the French have spent the last

40 years trying to obliterate the shame, by doing everything they can

to damage Britain and America. no D-Day, you would have lifted to

the Russians to slip across Europe? What are you saying? I am trying to

illustrate that people do not like being freed. They mistake

liberators for conquerors, which is exactly what has happened in

Afghanistan, exactly what has happened in Iraq, which is a

testament of shame to Britain and America, of utter disgrace. And it

would be exactly what would happen in Syria. You going, you become the

enemy. Only one person can make you free, it is yourself. Only a

country can free itself. The French freed themselves in their

revolution. We did not have humanitarian intervention. Are you

seriously saying there should have been no Allied invasion of France

to remove the Germans? We did not go into France to liberate France,

but to destroy Nazi Germany. What I'm trying to do, if you will

occasionally detach your mind from your prompt sheet and listen to

what people are saying, I was saying people do not likely --

being liberated. The French have to invent a myth of their own

liberation. It is the same in Afghanistan and the same in Iraq.

It is, thank God, we did it lightly enough in Libya. But I am sorry, we

have this weird notion, exemplified above all by the divinely ordained

Tony Blair, that you go and give people freedom. I think we have a

point. Thank you very much. The man in the third row. The man in the

blue pullover. If you are saying that, do you not think that the

three people that died just to save one person who went into Homs to

take pictures and do a job, do you not think those three people's

families are going to suffer due to the fact of us rescuing one person?

I think if you're going to intervene in Syria, we have to be

pretty certain that we are going to be able to make a difference. And I

am not convinced, as Clark said, that we would be able to make the

difference for the better if we intervened in Syria for the reasons

that he said. But also without the support of the United Nations,

without the support of the Arab League and the region, I don't

think that that will make the difference. And so, reluctantly, I

don't think we can intervene militarily. But I think today the

United Nations and the Red Cross have got access, and hopefully axis

will come in the next few days for a humanitarian mission. And I hope

that will start to make a difference and will start to get

the support of the people in Homs that they desperately need. We have

all seen the pictures on the television and it is devastating.

If that can make some difference, hopefully it will make it better

for the people there. Everybody will have been moved by the

pictures they have seen. It is quite right, at least some good

news that humanitarian aid might now be able to going, following the

Security Council's resolution today. But I do not think we should

intervene militarily, partly for the reasons that have been outlined

by Clark. That is not something that you enter into lightly. And

you have to be confident that you can improve things and make it

better. I was a strong supporter of the action we took in Libya, where

we had the key things that we had in place. We had the support of the

population, the support of the Arab League, we had the United Nations

resolution. We just need to look, as David alluded to, at the mess

that we got into, the terrible mess of the folly of going into Iraq

without the United Nations resolution. We should not be making

that mistake again. What we can be doing, short of military action, as

well as supporting a humanitarian effort, is to continue the work we

are doing supporting the capacity building for the Syrian National

Council, helping with training about how to make sure that

documentation is taken of human rights abuses, so that hopefully at

some point in the future, when there is a change in Syria and a

transition can actually take place in a measured way, that the people

that are responsible for these appalling and despicable acts can

finally be brought to justice. I think that has to be the way that

we move forward, rather than repeating the mistakes of the past.

You on the left, sir. I fail to see the difference between Libya and

Syria. We intervened in Libya, whereas in Syria there are the same

problems. There is a dictator, breaches of human rights, and

civilians are being killed. Why do we not to intervene there? The man

in spectacles. Surely the answer is to put political and economic

pressure on Russia and China, to make them agree with the United

Nations. What an absurd remark. What pressure could we bring to

bear on China?! Think, man, for God's sake. We are trying to deal

with the previous point about the difference between Libya and Syria.

In the case of Libya there was a United Nations resolution. There

was a more formed and united opposition with some military

prowess and ability. And third, it was more accessible and easy a

militarily. There were three things that gave our forces a chance, and

they did a very good job to support very brave people who were already

there at a considerable scale as an opposition. Those conditions are

not met, and in Syria we could make the thing a lot worse. We could

kill a lot of people without managing to produce a great

opposition movement. This man... Hold on, David. He raised the

really important point. Let's try and answer it. Does the patient and

wait! Isn't the danger that we try to impart our own ideology on these

countries? Put bluntly, it does not work. David Starkey, briefly, if

you can manage it. Two points. You are right, underpinning the absurd

doctrine of humanitarian intervention is that everybody

wants to be a writer on liberated man or woman, with a fag hanging

out of one corner and a bottle swinging at another. The world is

not like that. People want different things and we need to

recognise it. The key difference between Syria and Libya is that in

Syria you have a united regime with an extremely powerful and well-

organised army and secret service. Gaddafi deliberately divided and

rolled and had a very weak army. This is the key difference. You

would face an entirely different level of military opposition in

Syria. Time is up, I'm afraid. Apologies to those with your hands

Next week, Guildford, with Eric Pickles, and the singer will young.

The week after that, St Andrews. If you would like to come to Question

Time, Guildford or St Andrews, you can go to the website, or you can