:00:16. > :00:21.We are in Portsmouth tonight. Welcome to Question Time. On the
:00:21. > :00:24.panel with me, the Children's Minister, Sarah Teather, Shadow
:00:24. > :00:28.Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander, former television
:00:28. > :00:33.presenter and lawyer, now Conservative MP, Anna Soubry.
:00:33. > :00:36.Columnist and chair of the National Trust, Simon Jenkins, and one of
:00:36. > :00:46.the original alternative comedians, now a novelist and journalist,
:00:46. > :00:56.
:00:56. > :00:59.Thank you very much. Let's have the first question, please. Who is
:00:59. > :01:05.responsible for the unjustified panic-buying at petrol stations
:01:05. > :01:07.today, the Government or the unions? Who is responsible for the
:01:07. > :01:14.panic buying. Petrol stations are closing all over the country,
:01:14. > :01:18.apparently. Who is responsible, the union or Government? Alexei Sayle.
:01:18. > :01:21.It is not me. I think it was Francis Maude. It was wonderful
:01:21. > :01:28.trying to see him back-pedal yesterday after he said we should
:01:28. > :01:34.fill our pockets with diesel. Looking at how this has developed,
:01:34. > :01:37.it seems like a ploy that has gone wrong, that the Government heard
:01:37. > :01:42.about the tanker drivers threatening to go on strike. They
:01:42. > :01:46.thought they could bang Labour with it by linking them to Unite. They
:01:46. > :01:50.highlighted the story. Unfortunately, the British people
:01:50. > :01:55.like a good old panic, and that is where we are. I am driving to
:01:55. > :02:03.Liverpool tomorrow in my enormous car. I will probably get as far as
:02:03. > :02:06.Stoke. That is a nice city! Well, the unions, basically, because it
:02:06. > :02:10.is the unions who have called this unjustified strike. We hope there
:02:10. > :02:15.will not be a strike and the Government is doing what it can to
:02:15. > :02:20.prevent that. Ed Davey, Energy Secretary, has asked a Cass macro
:02:20. > :02:24.to intervene and we hope this will not result in a strike. -- ACAS.
:02:24. > :02:28.The Government was trying to make the situation aware so that the
:02:28. > :02:32.British public could take sensible precautions. Was Francis Maude
:02:32. > :02:38.right to talk about at bit of extra fuel in a jury can, or was it a
:02:38. > :02:41.mistake by the cabinet minister? think Francis Maude would recognise
:02:41. > :02:46.that he did not use the most sensible words on that occasion.
:02:46. > :02:53.That is a generous way of putting it. I am a government minister,
:02:53. > :02:56.David. Is he responsible for the queuing? We need this in
:02:56. > :02:59.perspective. There is the possibility of a strike and the
:02:59. > :03:03.Government is trying to put information out there so that the
:03:03. > :03:07.public can take precautions. We are saying there is no rush. You do not
:03:07. > :03:11.need to rush out and fill your car with petrol. Yes, you do, because
:03:11. > :03:15.there are queues everywhere and they are running out of petrol.
:03:15. > :03:20.are trying to make sure that people are aware there is a possibility of
:03:20. > :03:23.a strike, which we hope to avoid. Had we not done this, and had there
:03:23. > :03:28.been a strike without that level of warning, it would have been a much
:03:28. > :03:31.worse situation. I must emphasise that even if there is a strike, the
:03:31. > :03:38.worst case scenario, they have to give seven days' notice, so there
:03:38. > :03:42.is no need to rush out. Simon Jenkins. I came in last night, and
:03:42. > :03:45.Pat -- I have a long journey this weekend and I turned on the
:03:45. > :03:49.television and there was a politician telling me not to panic.
:03:49. > :03:53.I panicked. It took me 30 seconds to get into the car, five minutes
:03:53. > :03:58.to get to the garage, joined the queue and fill my tank. It was
:03:58. > :04:01.completely rational, the sensible thing to do. Had the politician not
:04:01. > :04:06.told me not to panic, I would not have panicked. There was no reason
:04:06. > :04:10.for this. We could see there was going to be a strike, possibly.
:04:10. > :04:14.There is no strike announced. No one had to say anything and we
:04:14. > :04:23.could form our own judgment as to whether to fill the tank. When
:04:24. > :04:28.someone tells you not to panic, you panic. I agree with Simon. I take
:04:28. > :04:33.issue with Sarah. She seems to be giving conflicting statements. She
:04:33. > :04:37.says there was a strike and that is why we said you should fill up. But
:04:37. > :04:40.there is not a strike, and if there is, don't worry about it, but do
:04:41. > :04:48.worry about it now but not when it happens. What was the purpose of
:04:48. > :04:53.any of it, and should we panic, or not? Douglas Alexander. I tried to
:04:53. > :04:59.follow Sarah's answer, but this seems a self-inflicted shambles
:04:59. > :05:04.caused by the Government. Don't take my word for it, take the word
:05:04. > :05:08.of the AA chairman who said these were self-inflicted shortages. Look
:05:08. > :05:11.out of the chairman of the independent retailers for petroleum
:05:11. > :05:15.producers has said this afternoon, he said this crisis was caused by
:05:15. > :05:19.ministers. I take no pride in saying this, but they have given
:05:19. > :05:22.deeply conflicting signals. If you look at the evidence, if everybody
:05:22. > :05:27.who had a half filled petrol tank in the country at the moment filled
:05:27. > :05:32.up over the next 24 hours, there is a sevenfold increase in the amount
:05:32. > :05:38.of petrol consumed at the pump. The sums do not add up. Should Ed
:05:38. > :05:44.Miliband, given Labour's supported by Unite, tried to get the strike
:05:44. > :05:47.called off? It is an industrial dispute which may lead to a strike.
:05:47. > :05:51.There has been a ballot for industrial action. I welcome the
:05:51. > :05:56.fact that the arbitration service ACAS has said that they expect
:05:56. > :06:01.talks to begin on Monday. Hopefully we can avoid a strike. Ed Balls has
:06:01. > :06:05.been clear that he does not want this strike to happen. -- Ed
:06:05. > :06:08.Miliband. But we are in a situation where we were in a delicate
:06:08. > :06:13.situation that demanded a serious, considered response from the
:06:13. > :06:18.Government. I think it has been manipulated for political purposes.
:06:18. > :06:23.That is nonsense. On what grounds could that possibly have been
:06:23. > :06:27.political? That is ridiculous. know that the Government has not
:06:27. > :06:32.had the easiest week in terms of news management. They tried to
:06:32. > :06:37.change the story with alcohol pricing. I think that is beneath
:06:37. > :06:41.you. They have decided to ramp up the rhetoric. The Government's
:06:41. > :06:43.emergency committee was convened on this issue. I think the
:06:43. > :06:49.Government's crisis committee should be called for a national
:06:49. > :06:55.crisis, not a political crisis. The Government has been exposed as
:06:55. > :06:59.working to a party interest, rather than a national interest. You would
:06:59. > :07:03.have been the first to complain if the Government had not put out
:07:03. > :07:07.information, had not begun planning, had not begun proper planning for
:07:07. > :07:13.something that might be serious. What is the proper planning? Is it
:07:13. > :07:21.that we should fill tanks, or not? People lead to use their common
:07:21. > :07:25.sense. What does that mean? I think it is a helpful attitude by the
:07:25. > :07:29.Government. I am looking forward to what they say when the Fire
:07:29. > :07:36.Brigades Union strike. Will beat -- will we be advised to set fire to
:07:36. > :07:40.our homes to beat the rush? I am not sure that I follow. She is
:07:40. > :07:48.saying that to beat the rush before if firemen's strike, would we be
:07:48. > :07:58.advised to set fire to our homes. It is a joke. How would it help?
:07:58. > :08:00.
:08:00. > :08:04.is a joke! My query is, do we know what this strike is about, because
:08:04. > :08:12.the information I have read, it is about a health and safety issue
:08:12. > :08:17.with the fact that the potential strikers have a concern that the
:08:17. > :08:23.health and safety issues of their deliveries, their mode of operation
:08:23. > :08:30.with their companies is not as it should be? The question is, it has
:08:30. > :08:34.been hijacked by both sides of the fence into a political argument and
:08:34. > :08:41.it is being hidden, actually, that there is a danger about delivering
:08:41. > :08:48.petrol to garages. I am very much with Sarah on this. You might be
:08:48. > :08:51.surprised, but I am. What was the big government to do? If you follow
:08:51. > :08:54.what Douglas has said, the Government should have done nothing
:08:55. > :08:58.and said nothing. Quite rightly, the Government looked to the future.
:08:58. > :09:02.There are genuine concerns that there might be a strike and so they
:09:02. > :09:06.are quite properly taking measures to make sure that if there is a
:09:06. > :09:10.strike, we have enough petrol and the fuel supplies can continue to
:09:10. > :09:14.the garages. And the advice that the Government has given, and
:09:14. > :09:21.letting Sarah has said it very well, is to use your common sense. It was
:09:21. > :09:26.not. It was to use -- fill up your car. If it is half full, fill it up.
:09:26. > :09:29.As a result, fuel sales doubled yesterday in the whole of the UK.
:09:29. > :09:32.But the Government was right to say to people, this is something that
:09:32. > :09:38.could happen and you should be aware of that and take the
:09:38. > :09:41.necessary measures to make sure you have enough petrol. When I say, use
:09:41. > :09:45.common sense, if you are somebody who does not have to use your car
:09:45. > :09:50.very much, obviously you should not have as much beer as somebody who
:09:50. > :09:55.is not only using their card to get to work but may have to take a
:09:55. > :10:03.relative to hospital. -- you should not have as much goofier. They
:10:03. > :10:07.should make sure they have some petrol in a can. I think one of
:10:07. > :10:16.those things used for a petrol- driven lawnmower. There is nothing
:10:16. > :10:19.wrong with that. Sensible measures. This is the only country in a world
:10:19. > :10:22.where it requires a Government minister to go on television and
:10:22. > :10:26.tell people to use common sense. We could have done that without being
:10:26. > :10:30.told. If you did not know the dangers, if you were not alert to
:10:30. > :10:35.the possibilities, you would not have known. I can read the
:10:35. > :10:40.newspapers. I do not need to be told what to do. I would have read
:10:40. > :10:49.and worked out for myself when to fill up my car. We would have been
:10:49. > :10:55.damned if you do, damned if you don't. May be the reason that fuel
:10:55. > :10:58.is getting lower and lower is because people use their cars a
:10:58. > :11:05.little bit too much when they could walk or take a bike. Obviously not
:11:05. > :11:10.as far as Liverpool, but I have seen people driving to places they
:11:10. > :11:19.could easily have walked two in 10 minutes. At the moment, they are
:11:19. > :11:25.driving around looking for a petrol station! You are all talking about
:11:25. > :11:29.common sense. Is it more like rare sense? As Simon said, as soon as he
:11:29. > :11:34.heard on the news about a petrol strike, he went out to fill up his
:11:34. > :11:39.car. He was not using common sense, he was panicking. But he had to get
:11:39. > :11:45.somewhere, so he says. May be people who do not need to use their
:11:46. > :11:50.cars are not using common sense and we are talking about rare sense.
:11:50. > :11:53.I think because the unions have threatened to go on strike, once
:11:53. > :11:56.again the Labour Party is incapable of telling them not to go on strike
:11:56. > :12:00.because they are funded by them, you still have not said that maybe
:12:00. > :12:03.they should not go on strike but have given a load of waffle, as the
:12:03. > :12:07.Labour Party always does. You should actually be saying, you
:12:07. > :12:11.should not go on strike. If you did that, we would not have to be told
:12:11. > :12:17.that maybe you should fill up your car if you can. That is all you
:12:17. > :12:22.need to do, but you do not. I do not want to see the strike happen
:12:22. > :12:29.and I want it avoided at all costs. He says you should tell them.
:12:29. > :12:34.them, in front of all of us, tell them not to go on strike. I am
:12:34. > :12:39.happy to tell you that I do not want the strike to happen. Tell
:12:39. > :12:46.them not to do it. I want them to get round the negotiating table.
:12:46. > :12:50.ACAS have offered talks, and I hope and expect the union will be there.
:12:50. > :12:56.We need this issue resolved, rather than seeing a Government that is
:12:57. > :13:01.offering advice, to put petrol in two-way can which could affect
:13:01. > :13:07.people's insurance. When this was being said, your leader was
:13:07. > :13:14.pretending to be buying a Cornish pasty. Nobody can tell them not to
:13:14. > :13:18.strike. They are allowed to strike. Your leader was busy pretending to
:13:18. > :13:21.be buying a Cornish pasty and taking political means. You are
:13:21. > :13:29.doing things bullet -- for political gain, not doing anything
:13:29. > :13:39.for the country. If you want to join the debate from home, you can
:13:39. > :13:48.
:13:48. > :13:58.Another question, from Phil Barton. Does a �250,000 dinner with the
:13:58. > :14:00.
:14:00. > :14:04.Prime Minister influence Government This is a reference to Phil Cruddas.
:14:04. > :14:08.Does it actually influence Government policy in your opinion?
:14:08. > :14:13.It shouldn't. If I had given someone �1 million or �5 million or
:14:13. > :14:16.quarter of a million, I think I would like to meet them. I really
:14:16. > :14:20.do. If you are really financing political parties this way, the
:14:20. > :14:24.least you can do is say hello. If that has the slightest thing to do
:14:24. > :14:31.with policy it's irregular. That's the difference. Does it? Well, we
:14:31. > :14:34.are told that it does, in the Cruddas, careful what we say, he
:14:34. > :14:37.appeared to be promising that it would or at least you would be
:14:37. > :14:40.listened to. He may have been wrong but he said it. Having spent the
:14:40. > :14:43.last six months involved with a different campaign where fairly
:14:43. > :14:48.clearly people were listening to people giving money, it does have
:14:48. > :14:51.an effect. So, I think it's wrong. Sorry, what are you quoting as an
:14:51. > :14:55.example or lawyers preventing you speaking? They are slightly. The
:14:55. > :14:59.big planning dispute, a lot of money was being swivelled around,
:14:59. > :15:02.no doubt about that by lobbyists who were keen to get the planning
:15:02. > :15:05.law changed in their direction. I think that should not be a part of
:15:05. > :15:14.the funding of political parties in any remote sense.
:15:14. > :15:18.APPLAUSE. And in a Soubry -- and in a and
:15:18. > :15:22.Anna Soubry. The answer is no. This man said stuff he shouldn't have
:15:22. > :15:26.said. There is no foundation and basis to it. He has resigned which
:15:26. > :15:30.is the right thing to do. The party is holding an inquiry to make sure
:15:30. > :15:35.that we know exactly how we got into a position where by this man
:15:35. > :15:39.was saying thee things and there is no basis... You speak about this
:15:39. > :15:42.man as - he is your co-Treasury of the Tory Party. I don't know him
:15:42. > :15:45.and what he said was wrong. Do you think he was stupid? I do think he
:15:45. > :15:54.was stupid and it was the wrong thing to say. Stupid in the way he
:15:54. > :15:58.put it or not check check they weren't journalists. Stupid not to
:15:58. > :16:01.sus out they were journalists? combination of that and he didn't
:16:01. > :16:04.know the facts as well, the fact is there is no policy committee at
:16:04. > :16:09.Number 10 and if people are good enough to donate money to the
:16:09. > :16:13.Conservative Party, then whilst they can get a dinner with David
:16:13. > :16:16.Cameron, what they don't get is any extra influence over anybody else,
:16:16. > :16:19.because they have donated money and that's the way that we operate in
:16:20. > :16:23.the Tory Party. What did he mean when he said do you think when you
:16:23. > :16:28.see the Prime Minister, after your quarter of a million cheque
:16:28. > :16:35.presumably has not bounced,... do forgive me, there are strict
:16:35. > :16:39.criteria. 10,000, 100,000? Strict criteria - I know you are making
:16:39. > :16:43.lovely cheap jokes here, but can I be serious about this. Within the
:16:43. > :16:47.Tory Party and no doubt the same in the others as well, there are very
:16:47. > :16:51.strict compliance rules that have to be met and we have a department
:16:51. > :16:55.that absolutely looks at every potential donation and this
:16:55. > :16:59.donation - there was no money that ever passed hands in any event, and
:16:59. > :17:03.even if it had gone any further it would not have complied with any of
:17:03. > :17:06.our rules whatsoever. That's really important to understand how
:17:06. > :17:13.seriously we take donations. These are not cheap jokes, these are
:17:13. > :17:18.serious matters. The Prime Minister himself talked about lobbying, we
:17:18. > :17:21.know, pwr he came into lunches. We know how it works. It does seem and
:17:21. > :17:23.you have just said it, that you can get dinner with the Prime Minister
:17:23. > :17:26.if you give enough money to the Conservative Party. Apparently you
:17:26. > :17:30.can, I am certainly obviously not in that league and I don't know
:17:30. > :17:33.anybody who is. Do you think that's a good thing? The point Simon makes,
:17:33. > :17:38.people donated money to my campaign before I got elected into
:17:39. > :17:41.parliament, not on this scale, if only they had, but and out of
:17:41. > :17:45.courtesy one would want to meet with somebody who had been good
:17:45. > :17:48.enough to support your campaign financially and thank them but I
:17:48. > :17:52.can tell you if anybody had given money to my campaign, sought to
:17:52. > :17:55.think that they could find any favour as a result with me that
:17:55. > :18:01.they might change my mind on any subject, I would have given them
:18:01. > :18:06.their money back and sent them back -- packing. Certainly my party,
:18:07. > :18:11.that's exactly how we work. Does the union Unite get the ear of Ed
:18:11. > :18:19.Miliband as a result of funding huge amount of the Labour Party?
:18:19. > :18:24.Trade unions including Unit - there is a world of difference between
:18:24. > :18:30.dinner ladies donating �3 a year to a party that supports the the
:18:30. > :18:36.Labour Party and a �250,000 to dine with the Prime Minister in Downing
:18:36. > :18:42.Street. That's disingenuous. How much does Unite give to the Labour
:18:42. > :18:47.Party? How many millions of pounds do Unite? Ordinary people who work
:18:47. > :18:52.on factory floors, drive buses, that's different from Lord Ashcroft
:18:52. > :18:57.or from the people... How much did Bernie Ecclestone give to the
:18:57. > :19:00.Labour Party? That was a scandal... APPLAUSE. I think about �1 million.
:19:00. > :19:04.A million. First of all, all political parties have had these
:19:04. > :19:09.problems in the past. I think what we witnessed at the weekend was
:19:09. > :19:12.something which was deeply reprehensible. When the co-chair of
:19:12. > :19:18.the Conservative Party was promising cash for policies. I have
:19:18. > :19:23.to say, for good reasons Anna is judged a rising star, if they have
:19:23. > :19:25.nothing to hide why wasn't one of the 79 Conservative Ministers one
:19:25. > :19:28.of the 18 Conservative ministers in the cabinet willing to appear
:19:28. > :19:32.tonight in front of this audience and defend the Conservative Party's
:19:32. > :19:36.position. It's the same reason that David Cameron refused to come to
:19:36. > :19:39.the House of Commons this week and they promised an inquiry by the
:19:39. > :19:43.Conservative Party for the Conservative Party, into the
:19:43. > :19:46.Conservative Party. We deserve better. Let me just make one final
:19:46. > :19:48.point. I am in the for a moment suggesting the Labour Party, the
:19:48. > :19:52.Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, the Tories haven't
:19:52. > :19:55.all had difficulties with funding themselves over recent years. They
:19:55. > :19:59.have. I think there is a way this can be dealt with. There are three
:19:59. > :20:03.challenges. First of all, how do we get the big money out of politics?
:20:03. > :20:07.That is by reducing the spending limits on parties so that actually
:20:07. > :20:10.parties can't spend as much money when they campaign. Secondly, I do
:20:10. > :20:14.think that there should be a cap on individual donations and that
:20:14. > :20:18.should below below enough that it's fair for all the political parties.
:20:18. > :20:21.That would include the trade unions? Individual donations.
:20:21. > :20:25.on, right. Would that be trade unions? I agree with you, let's
:20:25. > :20:29.have a �50,000 cap and let it include the trade unions. Let's
:20:29. > :20:32.agree to that. A final point. There is an issue which is not, I believe
:20:32. > :20:34.Labour Party policy but I also think we have to confront, it's a
:20:34. > :20:38.difficult issue to confront in these tough times. I personally
:20:38. > :20:41.believe the recommendations that were set out in the last inquiry
:20:41. > :20:45.into party funding, saying that there should be a larger public
:20:45. > :20:48.contribution has to be part of this conversation because I think unless
:20:48. > :20:51.politicians are willing at least to have the conversation with the
:20:51. > :20:54.public about how to get a cleaner politics, then we are going to
:20:54. > :20:59.continue to see the kind of scandals that certainly don't do
:20:59. > :21:03.our party in the past that we saw re-emerge this weekend in the
:21:03. > :21:06.Conservative Party. The man in the second row from the back. Is it a
:21:06. > :21:14.coincidence that the sting operation was carried out by a
:21:14. > :21:17.Murdoch newspaper? Sarah Teather? am in the sure I can comment on
:21:17. > :21:22.that. I have no idea about that. I think what is good actually is that
:21:22. > :21:24.we are all agreed that it's time to reform party funding. I do agree
:21:25. > :21:28.with what others have said that in fact all parties have had their
:21:28. > :21:31.difficulties on this, we are none of us immune from it. This might
:21:31. > :21:35.have been the Conservatives, we have had previous issues with
:21:35. > :21:41.Labour as you pointed out. And you have had your troubles with Michael
:21:41. > :21:44.Brown, �2.4 million. We have had our own incidents frankly, but I am
:21:44. > :21:48.sure much rather forget. question is about influence, not
:21:48. > :21:50.moving forward. It's about whether it's possible to buy influence.
:21:50. > :21:52.This is BBC News. The headlines: Simon was saying in his opinion
:21:52. > :21:54.there was evidence that it was Petrol sales jump by more than 80%
:21:54. > :21:56.possible. I don't think it is in a day as ministers come under
:21:56. > :21:59.possible to buy influence. I would fire for their handling of the fuel
:21:59. > :22:04.like us to reform... Why was he on behalf of the Conservative Party
:22:04. > :22:05.suggesting it could be done? tanker drivers' dispute.
:22:05. > :22:06.Blackberry's smartphone manufacturer announces it's
:22:06. > :22:09.withdrawing from the consumer He was raising money for the
:22:09. > :22:12.Conservative Party. What I can say, however, is that if we are going to
:22:12. > :22:15.market after a big drop in sales. A warning that the solution used to
:22:15. > :22:23.preserve donor organs in the UK could be contaminated with bacteria.
:22:23. > :22:29.Health officials say there's no cause for alarm. There are
:22:29. > :22:39.effective antibiotics against it. And now everybody is warned to look
:22:39. > :22:41.
:22:41. > :22:43.ou ouection. -- infection. The government's nuclear power
:22:43. > :22:50.strategy suffers a setback as two major energy companies abandon
:22:50. > :22:54.plans to build power plants in the There is much we can do to reform
:22:54. > :22:56.the situation so we don't see this UK. The government is accused of
:22:56. > :22:59.kind of crisis happening again. causing panic at the pumps as long
:22:59. > :23:03.queues have continued to form at petrol stations after ministers
:23:03. > :23:04.advised motorists to stock up on fuel. Sales at the pumps yesterday
:23:04. > :23:10.I am I am not sure about party soared by 80%, with some stations
:23:10. > :23:13.running out of fuel altogether. Labour has blamed the government
:23:13. > :23:16.Large interests make their for causing a crisis. The
:23:16. > :23:18.government is blaming the unions interests felt in all kinds in
:23:18. > :23:20.and so far a strike by tanker teacher ways. Why else did we bail
:23:20. > :23:25.drivers hasn't even been called yet. out the banks? Why else did we
:23:25. > :23:30.buy... APPLAUSE. Thank you comrades!
:23:30. > :23:35.Why do we pay �85 million for a croppy Eurofighter typhoon? It
:23:35. > :23:40.condition be because they're not any good. It can only be because
:23:40. > :23:48.like 97 of the last Labour defence Ministers now work for British
:23:48. > :23:53.Aerospace. It's either the promise of a rephaoupl rative directorship
:23:53. > :23:57.further down the line. Like Prescott's Pathfinder initiative
:23:57. > :24:01.which had the finger prints of the giant building companies all over
:24:01. > :24:05.it where they were knocking down perfectly decent houses all over
:24:05. > :24:11.the north and either, now because the money's run out leaving them
:24:11. > :24:15.empty or building up these throwing up foul little boxes, you know,
:24:15. > :24:20.hideous boxes but built by the five big building companies. Why did
:24:20. > :24:24.that happen, if it's not - there's no sense to it. There's no national
:24:24. > :24:34.good to it. All that it benefits is the big building companies, how
:24:34. > :24:35.
:24:35. > :24:39.The man at the back. Sarah Teather just said that we now is not the
:24:39. > :24:44.time for an increased role of state funding in political parties. But
:24:44. > :24:48.the recent review suggested about �3 per voter. I think voters are
:24:48. > :24:51.quite intelligent and the average taxpayer pays hundreds of pounds a
:24:51. > :24:54.year. The three main parties seriously telling me if their
:24:54. > :24:59.leadership didn't lead the debate on party funding, that we can
:24:59. > :25:03.persuade a lot more people to be in favour of paying �3 towards
:25:03. > :25:07.political parties if it meant - I think they absolutely would be if
:25:07. > :25:11.it meant removing the influence of the unions, dodgy dinners with Dave,
:25:11. > :25:18.the odd Lib Dem shady background, I think a lot of voters would be in
:25:18. > :25:23.favour of that, yeah. You, Sir at the back. I think it's
:25:23. > :25:29.coming back down to the Tories, the rich landed people, we saw it last
:25:29. > :25:35.week with the 50p tax rate and now we are seeing �250,000 donations. I
:25:35. > :25:39.agree with Douglas, I would rather have the money of the working man,
:25:39. > :25:44.the teachers, dinner ladies, rather than somebody off some person who
:25:44. > :25:48.just inherited millions of pounds. You Sir here. I would also agree
:25:48. > :25:51.with the point Douglas made at the end, I think actually given the
:25:51. > :25:54.hundreds of billions the Government spends on our behalf it's important
:25:54. > :25:58.they should get on with that job and the opposition should be there
:25:58. > :26:02.to hold them to account. It's a small price to pay. Simon Jenkins.
:26:02. > :26:06.I really don't mind if complete idiots want to give huge amount of
:26:06. > :26:10.money to other idiots. That's their business. The thing that matters to
:26:10. > :26:13.me is how the country is governored. The only way of handling this is
:26:13. > :26:16.for everybody who has access to power, to the Prime Minister and
:26:16. > :26:22.members of the cabinet, cabinet Ministers, has to disclose that
:26:23. > :26:25.fact. I would like to know how many times British aowe space meets the
:26:25. > :26:28.Ministry of Defence, who sees who when. Nothing to do with money.
:26:28. > :26:32.Government already does publish details quarterly about meetings
:26:32. > :26:37.they have. This Government is the first Government to do that. So we
:26:37. > :26:46.are actually - already doing that. Even Dave's disclosing his dinner
:26:46. > :26:50.guests as well. We have a list of people we would like to see who saw
:26:50. > :26:56.who when. It's commendable, no doubt it will spill over to future
:26:56. > :26:59.generations. I very much opposed to any form of taxpayers money going
:26:59. > :27:03.into the funding of politics. There's already too much state
:27:03. > :27:08.funding of politics. What I agree with Douglas on is we should reduce
:27:08. > :27:10.the cost of politics. It's bonkers how much all the political parties
:27:10. > :27:20.now pay in order to keep their party political organisations up
:27:20. > :27:24.and running. OK. Another question, Annabel Cyril. Was the 56-day
:27:24. > :27:28.sentence for Liam Stacey, following his racially abusive tweets about
:27:28. > :27:31.the footballer Fabrice Muamba excessive? This is all about the
:27:31. > :27:37.social network, of course, and Liam Stacey who pleaded guilty to the
:27:37. > :27:42.use of racially aggravated words, but is appealing against his his
:27:42. > :27:47.sentence. Was the 56 days excessive? I thought it was
:27:47. > :27:52.ridiculous. I have a file on my desk of what I call silly sentences.
:27:52. > :27:59.They are people who fail to pay their dog licence, whatever it is,
:27:59. > :28:04.they've failed to pay a TV licence. They've slipped up on something.
:28:04. > :28:08.Sending people to prison at the drop of a hat is absurd. It's more
:28:08. > :28:13.preuf leapt than anyone else in Europe. In what I call free speech,
:28:13. > :28:20.but not nice free speech, if we can't tolerate people coming out of
:28:20. > :28:24.line like that, I hope I -- I think it was unjust and hope he wins an
:28:24. > :28:28.appeal. APPLAUSE. Yeah, I mean I agree with Simon. It's absolutely
:28:28. > :28:32.absurd. There is a sort of weird thing about the internet about
:28:32. > :28:37.tweeting and all that. People have always had these kind of black
:28:37. > :28:41.thoughts haven't they, but now they can get them out and they're
:28:41. > :28:46.solidified. I wonder whether it makes people - whether it makes
:28:46. > :28:51.people worse. You know, that you express this kind of darkness in
:28:51. > :28:56.your brain, if it goes out into the world... Even though you had your
:28:56. > :28:59.face on there, it's an anonymous thing you are doing and you are so
:28:59. > :29:02.far removed from the rest of society you get this feeling you
:29:02. > :29:07.can say and do whatever you want to do, and not be held accountable for
:29:07. > :29:12.it. Do you think that makes you feel weirder? There was a study,
:29:12. > :29:16.there is a statistical for studied name for it, but it gives you this
:29:16. > :29:19.feeling of anonymity. When you write for a paper one of the things
:29:19. > :29:25.when you get comments, always drives me mad, when people post and
:29:25. > :29:35.they say things as if you didn't know what you were writing. So,
:29:35. > :29:43.
:29:43. > :29:48.this is rubbish, yeah, that's what I am sorry, I thought I was doing
:29:48. > :29:52.stand-up for a minute! But then, surely if someone is allowed to get
:29:52. > :29:58.away with making racist comments on Twitter, wouldn't that encourage
:29:58. > :30:03.someone else to be racist in public or in other places, or on other
:30:03. > :30:08.social network websites? thought the sentence was justified?
:30:08. > :30:12.Yes, I did. The comments were appalling and deserve condemnation,
:30:12. > :30:19.not least because the very small number is an extraordinary player
:30:19. > :30:23.and the footballing community did an extraordinary job in uniting
:30:23. > :30:27.behind Fabrice Muamba. There is no justification for these comments,
:30:27. > :30:30.but that being said, I did not understand the basis on which this
:30:30. > :30:34.sentence was handed down by the judge and I was left with the sense
:30:34. > :30:38.that maybe they had not been a full appreciation of what Twitter
:30:38. > :30:41.actually involves. It is a pretty new media that is half a
:30:41. > :30:45.conversation with a friend and half a publication on the internet that
:30:45. > :30:49.can go round the world. A few politicians have found themselves
:30:49. > :30:55.in difficulty because of this media. It needs to be the case that we
:30:55. > :30:59.should be resolute in rejecting racism wherever it appears, online
:30:59. > :31:04.or off-line. But we need people to understand that everybody, even
:31:04. > :31:07.idiots posting horrible, racist remarks are having to come to terms
:31:07. > :31:12.with wholly different forms of conversation and media than we have
:31:12. > :31:18.seen in the past. I was just wondering, if the appeal is not
:31:18. > :31:24.overturned, will anyone get arrested for racist comments on
:31:24. > :31:33.Lynn? If someone makes a racist comment on Twitter, or if someone
:31:33. > :31:37.brings racial abuse in to it, will they be arrested? Foul and racist
:31:37. > :31:44.language should not be tolerated. Should you be jailed for using it?
:31:44. > :31:47.He was rightly prosecuted. I think sometimes we forget that perhaps by
:31:47. > :31:51.prosecuting somebody and there for them having a criminal record is in
:31:51. > :31:55.itself quite a sentence, because you have to go to court. You will
:31:55. > :32:00.have it on your history for the rest of your life and in this case
:32:00. > :32:02.rightly so. I was surprised that the sentence. I think it is
:32:02. > :32:06.excessive and there have the appeal is successful but I hope he has
:32:06. > :32:09.learned his lesson. And I hope other people have learned their
:32:09. > :32:13.lesson. I don't know whether you know this, David, but after
:32:14. > :32:20.programmes like this there is a lot of tweeting that goes on. I have
:32:20. > :32:25.seen it, after appearing on the show last year. People will be
:32:25. > :32:32.tweeting about you at this moment. Some of it is extremely unpleasant.
:32:32. > :32:38.Is it? Very personal. Some people do all right from it. Some analysts
:32:38. > :32:41.come off and are delighted with it. It can be extremely unpleasant. It
:32:42. > :32:45.should not be tolerated. But there is a message that goes out to
:32:45. > :32:54.everybody which is that it is wrong to use racist language like this
:32:54. > :33:00.and we do not want to tolerated in our society. -- to tolerate it.
:33:00. > :33:03.Sarah Teather, can we stick with the 56 days sentence. He will be
:33:03. > :33:08.able to make his case in appeal about whether or not it was
:33:08. > :33:12.excessive. I am not sure I quite agree with Douglas about the nature
:33:12. > :33:16.of Twitter and whether or not you should treat that as different to
:33:17. > :33:19.publishing anywhere else. Picking up the. The gentleman made from the
:33:20. > :33:24.audience, people are treating the ensnare as if it somehow doesn't
:33:24. > :33:28.matter, as if it is a private conversation. You would not say
:33:28. > :33:33.most of these things in front of your friends, but you are prepared
:33:33. > :33:37.to publish it to the world. It causes enormous upset. I think
:33:37. > :33:42.there is a nasty trend. If you are prepared to say it there, it
:33:42. > :33:46.gradually changes will becomes acceptable. So I have some sympathy
:33:46. > :33:52.with the idea that there should be treated in the same way as
:33:52. > :33:56.publishing anywhere else. It is up to him to make the case in the
:33:56. > :33:59.Court of Appeal. Do you think the judge made the case for the
:34:00. > :34:04.sentence? As a Government minister I am not sure I should comment. It
:34:04. > :34:08.is up to him to make the case in the appeal. It has been said you do
:34:08. > :34:13.not agree with the sentence, but you want him to learn the lesson.
:34:13. > :34:16.How can he be expected to learn the lesson if he does and says, I do
:34:16. > :34:21.not agree with the sentence, and it gets overturned? How is that
:34:21. > :34:26.punishing him? Maybe it is excessive, but if we say we will
:34:26. > :34:32.punish you but when you appeal you will get away with it... He did
:34:32. > :34:39.plead guilty. I know. He has pleaded guilty, but he does not
:34:40. > :34:43.agree with the sentence. So every time someone disagrees with a
:34:43. > :34:50.sentence and they say, I did it but I do not want that sentence, is
:34:50. > :34:53.that going to say to people that, I will appeal and get away with it?
:34:53. > :34:58.There are dozens of ways of coping with things we disliked before
:34:58. > :35:01.sending someone to prison. I object to the obsession with sending two
:35:01. > :35:08.people to prison which we do like no other country except America and
:35:08. > :35:11.China. There has to be a better way of coping with people who misbehave.
:35:11. > :35:17.You say we do not tolerate something, but what you mean by
:35:17. > :35:20.tolerate? The point that the gentleman makes in the green T-
:35:20. > :35:24.shirt is that you do not appeal against the sentence because you do
:35:24. > :35:28.not like it, but because the legal advice is that it is excessive. I
:35:28. > :35:33.do not know the details of this case. It struck me as excessive.
:35:33. > :35:39.There are other ways to punish him. He could be punished within the
:35:39. > :35:43.community as effectively, in my view, as a custodial sentence. Pre-
:35:43. > :35:48.by not having tough sentences, does it not stop other people from
:35:48. > :35:55.thinking that they can take it a next step further. Why not -
:35:55. > :36:02.someone up on the street? You think it was reasonable? It is a great
:36:02. > :36:05.example. Otherwise people will think they can get away with it.
:36:05. > :36:11.That is the opinion that I have because many people with that
:36:11. > :36:15.mentality will continue to do it. He did not beat anyone up. But I am
:36:15. > :36:20.saying people will take it another step further. It is like lighting a
:36:21. > :36:25.fire with fuel. How can it be right that a man gets
:36:25. > :36:35.a 56 days sentence for tweeting but yet a person can abuse a child and
:36:35. > :36:36.
:36:36. > :36:41.get a community sentence? How is We will move on that to the
:36:41. > :36:51.question from James Leigh. In light of taxing pasties but not caviar,
:36:51. > :36:56.are we still all in this together? I do not expect you were expecting
:36:56. > :37:01.this, Sarah Teather. You have a lot of notes about it. Are we still in
:37:01. > :37:05.this together, in light of pasties being taxed? The problem with the
:37:05. > :37:09.issue about pasties at the moment is that you can have a situation
:37:10. > :37:14.where a large business is able to sell hot food without paying VAT.
:37:14. > :37:21.And yet the family run chip shop down the road is having to pay VAT.
:37:21. > :37:26.That is not fair. We are trying to make a level playing field. So you
:37:26. > :37:30.are behind it 100%. It is a straightforward, simple matter of a
:37:30. > :37:34.level playing field. There is a funny situation where we assume
:37:34. > :37:39.that a large business, Tesco or critics, is somehow the underdog,
:37:39. > :37:43.as opposed to the family run Chinese or chip shop or takeaway.
:37:43. > :37:50.They have been undercut by large businesses on the High Street for a
:37:50. > :37:55.period of time. That from Sarah Teather, with Anna Soubry agreeing.
:37:55. > :37:59.Douglas Alexander. I can understand why people do not to -- do not
:37:59. > :38:02.believe that we are in this together. We had the spectacle of
:38:02. > :38:06.David Cameron telling us that his household is so hard up the has to
:38:06. > :38:11.borrow somebody else's horse. George Osborne has admitted to not
:38:11. > :38:15.knowing one end of a pasty from the other. The Prime Minister invited
:38:15. > :38:20.cameras into the garden in Downing Street to show he was in touch by
:38:20. > :38:26.playing badminton in his suit. Ridiculous. Rather like Tony Blair.
:38:26. > :38:30.Is that not rather what Tony Blair did? Actually, this was a proposal
:38:30. > :38:35.considered under Tony Blair and rejected. And he did not play
:38:35. > :38:38.badminton. He played football but that is a separate issue. The issue
:38:38. > :38:42.in terms of pasties is that sometimes a story like this tells
:38:42. > :38:45.the deeper truth. We did not suddenly discover they are
:38:45. > :38:49.millionaires around the Cabinet table, and I do not care what they
:38:49. > :38:53.eat around their kitchen table. I care about the decisions they reach
:38:53. > :38:57.around the Cabinet table. We would not have this story this week if we
:38:57. > :39:01.had not seen last week a Budget that decided its priority was to
:39:01. > :39:05.give a tax break to millionaires in the country paid for by pensioners.
:39:05. > :39:09.Last week, a Budget for millionaires, and next Friday we
:39:09. > :39:15.will have a situation where families earning �20,000 in this
:39:15. > :39:20.country are going to find themselves up �253 worse off every
:39:20. > :39:24.year as a direct result of the removal of tax credits. 2 million
:39:24. > :39:27.of the lowest paid people will be taken out of tax altogether. That
:39:27. > :39:33.is because of decisions this Government has taken, decisions
:39:33. > :39:37.that I, as a Liberal Democrats, argued for. The You are acting as a
:39:37. > :39:44.human shield for the Government on this one. There are going to be
:39:44. > :39:53.families that earned �20,000 who will be more than �250 worse off.
:39:53. > :39:56.What would you have done? I am dying to here. It would be the
:39:56. > :40:01.first time we have heard any proposals from Labour about
:40:01. > :40:04.cleaning up the mess they left. would not have a Budget that takes
:40:04. > :40:08.more money from families than from the banks. I would impose a tax on
:40:08. > :40:12.profits from the banks in particular. And I would use the
:40:12. > :40:18.money to put young people in my constituency back to work. It is
:40:18. > :40:23.the wrong values and the wrong priorities. He is asking, why
:40:23. > :40:28.didn't you, if you had the chance? Over 10 years, we had sustained
:40:28. > :40:33.economic growth and higher levels of employment. When we left office,
:40:33. > :40:39.unemployment was falling and growth was rising. We now have a situation
:40:39. > :40:42.where the economy has flatlined, confirmed by the OECD today,
:40:42. > :40:52.unemployment is rising, more than 1 million young people are without
:40:52. > :40:52.
:40:52. > :41:00.jobs. You are part of that. I will talk about pasties in a minute.
:41:00. > :41:07.Start on pasties. I like pasties, very nice. Should they have a VAT
:41:07. > :41:10.on them? Absolutely. Why did the Labour Party not vote against the
:41:10. > :41:16.reduction to 45 pence in the tax rate when you had the opportunity
:41:16. > :41:22.earlier this week in Parliament? Why did you not do that? We voted
:41:22. > :41:28.against the entire Budget. In those specifics, you did not do that. Did
:41:28. > :41:33.you vote against the change in VAT on hot takeaway food? We will vote
:41:33. > :41:39.against it when it comes to the house. If you win the next election,
:41:39. > :41:43.will you raise the top rate of tax up to 50p? If there was an election
:41:43. > :41:52.tomorrow we would not support the cut on the top rays of but the top
:41:52. > :41:59.They would carry on with the mess. I thought the question was about
:41:59. > :42:06.pasties! I agree with Sarah. There is a case for a level playing field
:42:06. > :42:11.on the taxation of takeaway hot food. What amazes me is that I
:42:11. > :42:13.imagine the briefing session at the Treasury. It is OK if the pasty is
:42:13. > :42:17.cold inside the shop and it gets colder outside but the temperature
:42:17. > :42:20.has to be the same as the ambient temperature on one side of the
:42:20. > :42:24.shock to the other side, and you can buy it cold and heated up and
:42:24. > :42:30.take it out. At a certain point, the shrewd politician would go,
:42:30. > :42:37.stop, this is a disaster area, and would leave it entirely alone. It
:42:37. > :42:47.is a metaphor, the ability to say stop, this is not going to be a
:42:47. > :42:48.
:42:48. > :42:58.happy experience for me. You have had your say for the moment.
:42:58. > :43:00.
:43:00. > :43:07.I didn't care about when the question was asked, and I care
:43:07. > :43:14.about it even less now. Having heard everybody else? 20 p on a
:43:14. > :43:19.pasty. How did we get from pasties to the OECD? I am with Alexei Sayle.
:43:19. > :43:23.I think it is utterly unimportant, but perhaps the reason it has
:43:23. > :43:28.generated so much debate is not a class issue of whether Tory
:43:28. > :43:34.ministers eat pasties. We would be surprised if they did. But perhaps
:43:35. > :43:38.we feel the political class is divorced from real life. Do you
:43:38. > :43:45.believe that? David Davies said today that the public think you are
:43:45. > :43:50.all toffs, well dressed, well turned out and in a different world.
:43:50. > :43:53.I do not think that is true but I understand why people think it. The
:43:54. > :43:56.thing I find most concerning is that the way that I have been
:43:56. > :44:02.brought up, and I think most sensible people have been brought
:44:02. > :44:06.up, is to be tolerant. I don't care what school people went to, how
:44:06. > :44:11.they speak, what their parents do, how much money they have inherited
:44:11. > :44:15.or not. I look at people and I judge them as they are today. Are
:44:15. > :44:19.they a good person, do they do the right things, bring up their kids
:44:19. > :44:22.properly, take responsibility, care about their neighbours, about their
:44:22. > :44:28.communities, what are their aspirations and dreams for the
:44:28. > :44:33.future? That is what I care about. I am slightly concerned about what
:44:33. > :44:37.strikes me - it upsets me - here we are in 2012 judging people on the
:44:37. > :44:47.basis of class. I went to a comprehensive school. Does anybody
:44:47. > :44:51.
:44:51. > :44:56.I am going to go to you, Sir. there is going to be a national
:44:56. > :45:06.shortage of Cornish pasties, could the Government Minister give us
:45:06. > :45:07.
:45:07. > :45:14.advice on how we are to cope with APPLAUSE. Use your common sense I
:45:14. > :45:17.would say! Start stacking them full of pasties now. A question from
:45:17. > :45:21.Sean Woodward Now. Should the Government allow new grammar
:45:21. > :45:24.schools? This is in the light of the decision announced today by
:45:24. > :45:27.Kent County Council they're going to build a grammar school in
:45:27. > :45:30.Sevenoaks, they've one in Tunbridge and Tunbridge Wells I think and
:45:30. > :45:33.they're saying it's possible because it's an extension of the
:45:33. > :45:36.other grammar schools and some people say this is getting around
:45:36. > :45:42.the law. The Government have always said they wouldn't allow new
:45:42. > :45:46.grammar schools. Douglas Alexander, should the Government step in and
:45:46. > :45:49.prevent the council doing this or is it is it something that's going
:45:49. > :45:53.to spread through the country? understand they've done the reverse,
:45:54. > :45:57.altered some of the regulations to allow the satellite campus to be
:45:57. > :46:00.established as it's called in Kent. I personally think there are much,
:46:00. > :46:03.of bigger and more important issues facing our schools in the country
:46:03. > :46:06.and if I had a criticism of the Conservatives in relation to what
:46:07. > :46:11.Michael Gove is doing on free schools, in particular, it's that
:46:11. > :46:14.so much effort and energy is being put in to a group of schools that
:46:14. > :46:18.will only ever be marginal to the vast number of schools in the
:46:18. > :46:22.country with where we want to see... I don't want to stop you saying
:46:22. > :46:25.what you want to say but this is in the a questionen sraoeuting you to
:46:25. > :46:28.give your education policy, it's a question about grammar schools in
:46:28. > :46:31.particular, what's your view about that? Our position has not changed.
:46:31. > :46:34.Where we were not convinced that the way forward was to establish
:46:34. > :46:36.further grammar schools when we were in office and that remains the
:46:36. > :46:43.position. Do you believe the Government should step in as Labour
:46:43. > :46:47.Party policy should should step in and preKent the council and other
:46:47. > :46:51.councils setting up new schools? don't support the expansion. That's
:46:51. > :46:55.not an answer. Would you vote against it, would you pressure the
:46:56. > :46:59.Government? That wouldn't be our policy if if in Government today.
:46:59. > :47:02.Sarah Teather? The Government doesn't want to see any new grammar
:47:02. > :47:07.schools and that's the Government's policy. It's always been possible
:47:07. > :47:11.to expand grammar school places, it it happened under Labour Party, it
:47:11. > :47:14.went up about 30,000 extra places when they were in office. What the
:47:14. > :47:19.Government has done is increase flexibility for all schools
:47:19. > :47:24.regardless of their teen f they're good schools thebgs ex-- they can
:47:24. > :47:31.expand in relation to demand. There shall be no new schools based on
:47:31. > :47:34.selection and... Isn't this to get around it? I am sure they will take
:47:34. > :47:37.serious account of the law of the land and look at that. What they
:47:37. > :47:39.haven't done at the moment is to publish the detail of their
:47:39. > :47:43.proposals, what they have said is they want to expand grammar schools
:47:43. > :47:47.in that area but haven't said which schools. There's yet no detail
:47:47. > :47:51.about exactly which school will be expanding where and I am sure that
:47:51. > :47:53.they will take account very clearly of the law of the land. If you
:47:53. > :47:58.thought it was Kent County Council trying to build a new grammar
:47:58. > :48:05.school in Sevenoaks and just using weasel words to do it you would say
:48:05. > :48:09.that was illegal? The law is clear. Simon Jenkins? Well, the particular
:48:09. > :48:13.case is problematic, if you have a selective system and a shortage in
:48:13. > :48:16.one area of places for people who have passed the the 11-Plus, you
:48:16. > :48:20.have been selected, nothing to do with parental choice, this is about
:48:20. > :48:23.being selected then you have a problem and this is an attempt to
:48:23. > :48:27.cure the problem. As a general principle, I think the ending of
:48:27. > :48:31.selection of children to different schools at 11 back in the 1960s was
:48:31. > :48:34.the one genuinely progressive thing we have done since the war and it
:48:34. > :48:39.would be a tragedy if we went back to that particular form of
:48:39. > :48:43.selection. It was inhuman. happens in the private system. You
:48:43. > :48:48.get into the top public school by exam and lesser public schools if
:48:49. > :48:53.you fail them. Usually at 13. It was the election at 11 which seemed
:48:53. > :49:02.-- selection at 11 which seemed an indecent age to do this to children.
:49:03. > :49:06.It's cruel. We all hear about kept grammar schools. And Anna Soubry.
:49:06. > :49:10.don't have anything to add to what Simon and Sarah said. Are you
:49:10. > :49:13.against grammar schools? I agree very much with what Simon says.
:49:13. > :49:16.Determining somebody's future which is largely what happened, I went to
:49:16. > :49:22.a comprehensive but a grammar school that went comprehensive
:49:22. > :49:27.after my second year. You did see, there's no doubt about it in my
:49:27. > :49:29.home town, children that didn't pass their Len plus that went to
:49:29. > :49:32.secondary modern schools, although some of them were good, many of
:49:33. > :49:35.those youngsters felt from the age of 11 it had been determined they
:49:35. > :49:38.were second-class in some way, which they weren't and they
:49:38. > :49:41.shouldn't have been. So, whilst there were huge failings when we
:49:41. > :49:45.went comprehensive certainly in Nottinghamshire, on balance, I
:49:45. > :49:52.think it's good that we have not re-introduced the grammar system.
:49:52. > :49:58.You are against creating an elite in the state system? In the private
:49:58. > :50:01.system, we were talking about Etonians, that's an elitist
:50:01. > :50:04.education that people can afford have and people go by the wayside
:50:04. > :50:07.there. They go to lesser schools. didn't like the idea if you didn't
:50:08. > :50:11.get to a top public school that somehow the lesser public schools
:50:11. > :50:15.took people who weren't as bright. It's exactly what they do. I don't
:50:15. > :50:18.think it is actually as simple as that. This is tedious stuff in the
:50:18. > :50:21.sense that the vast majority of children in this country are
:50:21. > :50:29.educated in the state system and that's where we should be putting
:50:29. > :50:33.all our efforts and what we should be talking about. Hold on, the man
:50:34. > :50:37.up there. Being brought up in a state school environment, you know,
:50:37. > :50:40.the school I went to in Portsmouth didn't have the best of records, I
:50:40. > :50:44.don't care if this grammar school in Kent wants to expand. At the end
:50:44. > :50:48.of the day, if they want to expand they want to expand. But there's
:50:48. > :50:51.one thing I have to warn about this, you talk about the class system.
:50:51. > :50:56.The class system system associated with grammar schools is very high.
:50:56. > :50:59.You look at here in Portsmouth, the grammar school, walking through the
:50:59. > :51:08.high street, people look at them and go oh they're the posh ones.
:51:08. > :51:14.They're the ones with all the money. The posh word has to be taken away
:51:14. > :51:17.from the grammar school system otherwise you are going to - people
:51:17. > :51:23.from backgrounds like mine not going to grammar school because
:51:23. > :51:28.it's posh. If it wasn't posh people would go there. I passed the 11-
:51:28. > :51:32.Plus, it turned out that the 11- Plus was largely based on the
:51:32. > :51:37.theories of a man called Sir Cyril Birth, it turned out after he died
:51:37. > :51:41.he had been faking all the results of his experiments and that's all I
:51:41. > :51:46.have to contribute to that really. Clearly I shouldn't have gone to
:51:46. > :51:51.grammar school. It was entirely based on fake
:51:51. > :51:56.research that people passed this, and it blighted people's lives. It
:51:56. > :52:00.was like in a working class - turns out I do have something to say, the
:52:00. > :52:04.day that the 11-Plus results came out it was like a poison that
:52:05. > :52:09.spread. There was like kids wouldn't go past other kids' houses
:52:09. > :52:12.because one had failed and one had succeeded. It has to be said that
:52:12. > :52:18.there was one benefit and I would say that, because I am from the
:52:18. > :52:21.town of Worksop, a mining town and undoubtedly when we did have the
:52:21. > :52:25.11-Plus the only benefit was that there was some children who passed
:52:25. > :52:30.the 11-Plus and it was their passport out of poverty. What I
:52:30. > :52:35.want is to make sure that we can achieve that by making all our
:52:35. > :52:38.schools, especially our academies, some of which are quite brilliant,
:52:38. > :52:45.passports out of poverty for all children and have great state
:52:45. > :52:50.schools, that's what we want, great state schools. APPLAUSE.
:52:50. > :52:57.We have five minutes left for a last question from George Mitchell,
:52:57. > :53:01.please. As we approach the 30th anniversary, could the UK fight a
:53:01. > :53:07.campaign based on the Falklands as we did in 1982 if required to do
:53:07. > :53:10.so? It falls this Monday, I think, the anniversary. Could the UK fight
:53:10. > :53:15.a Falklands-type campaign? probably could fight it, if it was
:53:15. > :53:19.that daft. But I mean, I can't imagine a stupid a thing to do. I
:53:19. > :53:24.thought the Falklands war was a just war. It was a very high risk
:53:24. > :53:27.war, a reckless war in many ways. But it was fought and it was won.
:53:27. > :53:31.And wrong was put right thereby. I do think that since then we really
:53:31. > :53:35.should have reached some accommodation with the Argentinians,
:53:35. > :53:41.it's ridiculous now to be in a situation spending millions
:53:41. > :53:44.defending these islands, very few people living there. We sold Hong
:53:44. > :53:49.Kong. There's nothing special about the Falklands. It's become a token
:53:49. > :53:52.of a sort of post-imperialism. There should be no question of any
:53:52. > :53:56.war with Argentina over the Falklands. We should be negotiating
:53:56. > :53:59.with them somehow. Sarah Teather.
:53:59. > :54:03.Do you agree there should be negotiations? I don't think we are
:54:03. > :54:05.in any danger of having a war with the Argentinians at the moment. I
:54:05. > :54:08.think it would be completely irresponsible to suggest that we
:54:08. > :54:12.are. I think the question that the gentleman asked was actually
:54:12. > :54:16.broader, it was more about whether or not we have the capacity to ever
:54:16. > :54:20.fight a similar battle such as that again. I hope again that we are
:54:20. > :54:23.never put in that position to have to do that. War has changed
:54:23. > :54:27.significantly since the 1980s, the nature has changed, what our
:54:27. > :54:31.soldiers have to do has changed. Largely because we are now fighting
:54:31. > :54:36.terrorism in a different way, so our military's had to change with
:54:36. > :54:41.it as people here will be aware. you think we should negotiate with
:54:41. > :54:46.Argentina as Simon suggested? don't think that there is any
:54:46. > :54:52.danger of us currently going to war with Argentina over the Falklands.
:54:52. > :54:57.I am quite clear... Nothing to talk about? I don't think there is any
:54:57. > :55:03.danger of us going to war. You Sir. I find this a depressing question,
:55:03. > :55:06.we have spent the last ten, 12 years fighting around the globe
:55:06. > :55:10.chasing terrorists and I have got friend, I am ex-armed forces, I
:55:10. > :55:16.have friends in the Falklands and their lives were defence straighted
:55:16. > :55:23.because -- devastated because of it. It never ceases to amaize me, this
:55:23. > :55:29.idea about Britain being this power and colonialism, and imperialism. I
:55:29. > :55:34.find it depressing. APPLAUSE. OK. Douglas Alexander? I agree with the
:55:34. > :55:37.gentleman to the extent our first responsibility as we approach the
:55:37. > :55:40.remembers verse -- anniversary is to remember those who paid the
:55:40. > :55:44.ultimate price in the last conflict and recognise and acknowledge their
:55:45. > :55:47.sacrifice. I do think that the Strategic Defence Review carried
:55:47. > :55:52.out by this Government is sa mess for the next decade, we are not
:55:52. > :55:57.going to have aircraft on our carriers, the clue is in the title.
:55:57. > :56:00.You are sporesed to have aircraft on top of aircraft carriers. The
:56:00. > :56:04.British military have always risen to the challenge been set for them.
:56:04. > :56:07.I think the Argentinians should be no doubt the Government's position
:56:07. > :56:11.and the position of the Labour Party remains that the sovereignty
:56:11. > :56:14.of the Falklands is not and should not be in question. But I think
:56:14. > :56:21.this is a time that demands cool heads and careful words from
:56:21. > :56:29.politicians, not just in Argentina, but also here in Britain. Anna
:56:29. > :56:33.Soubry. We inherited, I know it's a phrase that's used, but we
:56:33. > :56:37.inherited an MoD with a budget that was a disgrace. We are beginning to
:56:37. > :56:40.balance the books. I have a barracks in my constituency, and
:56:40. > :56:45.these are difficult times for the armed forces. Nobody wants to go to
:56:45. > :56:49.war. Even though we are in these difficult times and it is difficult
:56:49. > :56:53.for the forces I never fail to be struck by the remarkable courage
:56:53. > :56:58.and determination and ultimate sacrifice that all our forces are
:56:58. > :57:02.prepared to make. The answer would be? I think they're outstanding. We
:57:02. > :57:05.should be proud of them. Yes the UK could? I think so, there were many
:57:05. > :57:09.faults and fail initial the Falklands campaign but it was the
:57:09. > :57:13.courage of those brave men, mainly men, that took us on to victory and
:57:13. > :57:19.I am very proud of our forces. in the making a valued judgment but
:57:19. > :57:25.clearly we couldn't, you know, we sold off all the Harrierings and
:57:25. > :57:29.then -- Harriers and then the US marine corps bought them for �12
:57:30. > :57:33.each. We haven't got any aircraft carriers, the joint strike fighters
:57:33. > :57:37.a piece of junk. Given that we pay as much as we pay for our armed
:57:37. > :57:42.forces the least we could do was send them around the world to mess
:57:42. > :57:46.people up. We can't do that, we should probably pay less for our
:57:46. > :57:50.armed forces, but there you go. We are getting the worst of both
:57:50. > :57:52.worlds, pay ago fortune and they're rubbish. To pick up on the point
:57:52. > :57:56.Simon made, should we negotiate with Argentina over the Falklands
:57:56. > :58:00.or take the Government's position and opposition's position? I think
:58:00. > :58:04.we should, I mean, the pressure coming from Argentina is clearly
:58:04. > :58:07.more about fishing rights and the discovery of oil and gas off the
:58:07. > :58:12.Falklands, we should certainly do a deal where we split the revenue, I
:58:12. > :58:15.don't think that would do any harm. But, you know. Thank you very much.
:58:16. > :58:20.Our hour is up. Question Time is back when parliament returns after
:58:20. > :58:26.Easter. We are going to be in Leeds for the programme on 19th April and
:58:26. > :58:32.on our panel there Yvette Cooper, and Tim Farren the Liberal Democrat
:58:32. > :58:42.President and also the comedian Marcus Brigstock and we are going
:58:42. > :58:45.
:58:45. > :58:48.to be in Romford for a special on The number is on the screen to call.