01/11/2012 Question Time

Good evening. Tonight, Question Time comes from London.

A big welcome to our audience here and our panel. The Foreign

Secretary in the last Labour Government, David Miliband. The

Conservative MP, Kwasi Kwarteng, newly elected to the House of

Commons in 2010. The Director of The Human rites pressure group,

Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti. The former chairman of Republicans

abroad, Colleen Graffy, who worked for Condoleezza Rice in the State

Department. And a Democrat politician who was Mayor of

Cincinnati and Ohio, then became host of his own controversial

television show, Jerry Springer. APPLAUSE

Thank you very much. The American elections are coming up and our

first question is from Mark Weaver. Hello. As a US citizen, I voted for

Barack Obama in 2008, optimistic about his mandate for hope and

change. The reality has been very different. Does he deserve another

four years? Well, of course, the race is getting closer and closer.

Does Obama deserve another four years? Jerry Springer? Yes.

APPLAUSE I like a man who gives a short

answer. I would suggest that the reality is that what he has done, I

think, is an excellent job. When he came into office, the financial

system in America was cray tering. People were losing half of their

life savings -- cratering. He came in, saved the financial community,

made it stable, people's life savings have now been in a large

part restored. Secondly, he saved the auto-industry. Thirdly, he when

he came in, he had several months in a row of losing 730,000 jobs

every month. Now, we've had 15 straight months of growth between

100,000 and 300,000 jobs per month. So why is he having such an uphill

struggle? Well, I think it's because the nation is deeply

divided. He said he'd get us out of Iraq. He got us out of Iraq. He's

getting us out of Afghanistan. He got us Osama Bin Laden. For the

first time in American history, we have health insurance that you all

enjoy here in Great Britain. I mean, you put that together, what else do

you want from this man? He's got us out of wars, turned the economy

around, the housing market is improving, the employment figures

are improving, the private sector is improving. So why is it so

difficult for him to... Because much of the country, half of the

country is... Not persuaded by what you say? Is Conservative. There are

many people that don't believe all Americans should have health

insurance. I'm not suggesting that my opinion is necessarily popular,

but the question was, from someone who supported Obama, why he should

be disappointed today and I'm saying, don't be. You've lost the

tingle that you had the first time you voted for him, but that's not

unlike a marriage. When you first get married, you just love the way

she looks and smiles and it's all the heart strings and the banjos,

but after years and years of a marriage, there's a deeper love but

it isn't like every time she walks into the room, you gasp because oh

my God, she's gorgeous, you love her because it's deep and there's a

performance there. Does this have resonance for you? No, I think he

lurched way far to the left, he wanted to build a bigger Government,

spend tonnes of money and I don't think frankly building bridges and

roads is the way out of this economic crisis and I think he's

taken the wrong path. Do you think it's OK that not all Americans have

health insurance? But again that was incorrectly implement and my

health care premiums have quadrupled in the last two or three

years since this came out. Instead of paying excess on my insurance

any more, I now have to co-insure myself so Obama care's failed. The

intent was good. It's not even started until 2014, how could it

have failed? We are already seeing the effects of that legislation.

You two just go aside for a second. Colleen Graffy? Let me first start

by saying that even though obviously I worked with the

previous administration, I was in Washington DC at the time of

Obama's inauguration and I thought it was fabulous for America, I

really did. I got up at 4am and I stood in line for five hours, my

feet are still defrosting it was so cold, but it was really magnificent

for the United States that we had elected our first African-American

President and nothing takes away from that. He's still likeable,

everyone loves him, but the fact is, he's been a disappointment. Not for

Republicans - we would say that wouldn't we - but for independence

and Democrats alike. It's not just that he promised to cut the deficit

in half and it's doubled. It's not just that we have 23 million

Americans out of work and struggling for work. It's some of

the things that took place at the beginning of his term. What strikes

many of us is, he didn't meet the Dalai Lama. The first President of

the United States not to meet the Dalai Lama when he came to

Washington DC. He had his reasons, he hadn't gone to China yet, he

didn't want to cause any problems there, but as a candidate, he had

told President Bush that he should boycott the Beijing Olympic Games

because he should have solidarity with Tibet and Darfur. Yet, as

President Obama, he doesn't want to meet with the thrarm. The reset

button with Russia not supporting the green revolution in Iran, there

is a whole host of things that have been disappointing -- he didn't

want to meet with the Dalai Lama. That's why you see double digits

turning to Romney. You see newspapers that endorsed Obama in

2008 and they are now switching and endorsing Romney. So again, great

moment for America but disappointment and whether that

results in a Romney win or not, it's very close to tell.

The woman on the right? I think regardless of who the democratic

candidate was, I think it would be a real disappointment from a

woman's perspective for Mitt Romney to be elected. Romney? Yes.

APPLAUSE Briefly, why do you think that?

His policies towards abortion... What are those policies? There

was... You may well ask. They change every day.

The fact is that abortion is not an issue. It's precedent in the United

States under Wade and Casey, no-one seriously suggests the Supreme

Court is going to overturn abortion. I know we bring this... No, it's

Conservative... One vote away from the Supreme Court and the next

President will choose. You are a lawyer, it's considered precedent.

The abortion issue is a scare tactic. Women care about the fact

that they are higher unemployment than men right now under this

economy, they care about the fact they don't make a wage that's going

to support them and their families and that's why women are now

turning towards Romney because they think I'm going to have a better

future under this President to have my career and my job. And the

Republican platform is opposed to the Ledbetter Act You know the

platform means nothing. It's not like the party manifesto here.

it has to be said that... I'm sorry. It's true nevertheless that he does

have difficulty getting the support of women. But that's changing as

people are realising they are all scare tactics coming out. David

Miliband? I think he's been a good President in remarkably difficult

circumstances. APPLAUSE

He's been calm, progressive, determined, rational, all the

qualities that you see actually in the last four days actually in the

context of the floods. Now, I think it's also very important to say, at

the moment we have been talking about domestic policy really, I

think he's the best choice on domestic policy. He rejects

simplistic slogans on foreign policy as well which is very, very

important. We have been through the era of the

"Axis of Evil" that North Korea, Iraq and Iran in the same context.

That was a dreadful mistake by President Bush. Anyone who knows

anything about the Middle East knows that Iraq and Iran are not

friends in an "Axis of Evil". On foreign policy, there are three big

issues facing the world - how you deal with China - not by declaring

trade war on day one. Second huge issue, Iran. You will never get a

diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis by threatening to

bomb them to kingdom come. What you do is actually engage with that

country and make absolutely clear that if they get a nuclear weapon,

then they are risking an attack. But until then you don't get Shia

to compromise by threatening to bomb them to hell. Third, we still

have 10,000 troops in Afghanistan. That's the forgotten war in both

the American election and too often our own domestic politics. We need

someone who understands that the only solution in Afghanistan is a

political solution. That does mean talking to the Taliban and engaging

with Pakistan. Those are essential qualities. One other thing which I

think the important on the foreign front. Look, the biggest diplomatic

failure for 40 years has been the failure to create a Palestinian

state. APPLAUSE

It's not that the failure to create a Palestinian state is fuelling Al-

Qaeda. That's not the point. It's an injustice for the Palestinians

and an insecurity for the Israelis. There's only one candidate who has

the slightest intention of trying to prosecute that case. I think for

those foreign policy reasons, as well as for the domestic policy

reasons, he's a compellingly strong alternative to Mr Romney.

APPLAUSE Just before we go back on that, I

want to ask you one caveat. Have you noticed a change in what he

said from when he was winning the nomination to now in the campaign

and to the last debate in the things that he said? Romney? Yes.

Yes, look, Romney will usually - admittedly when he came to London

and said we were a bunch of useless people who couldn't organise the

Olympics, he wasn't playing to type - but generally he'll say what the

audience wants to hear. That's not what he said. In the Republican

primaries, he ran on a tea party platform. My fear is that actually

if he got into office, he's too in hhoc to the tea party to get away

from them that.'s a danger to the American economy where the tea

party is not being about a fiscal hawk, it's fiscal incontinence with

tax cuts that can't be afforded. Internationally it's dangerous.

He'll never veto tea party congress because he does, let's say in the

first term, he'll have opposition in the Republican primaries by the

President for the tea party. For the first four years, he has to do

whatever the tea party says. Let's hear the voice? How are you saying

that Romney is saying he's going to bomb Iran to smithereens, no-one's

saying that. Every President's said they don't take use of force off

the table. To suggest he's talking about bombing Iran, incorrect. How

can you bring up the Middle East when all of candidate Obama's

criticism of Bush on the Middle East and Obama's done nothing,

there's been two weeks of high level meetings and nothing else, so

there is no... People are very disappointed on the Middle East

with Obama. That's one of the biggest criticisms. The man from

the front row? I think one of the problems with Colleen and her side

is they have Romnesia about how bad things were getting in 2008 and

they were getting bad because of the take-over of the US with what

is called the plutocrisy, the elite, which is monopolising the wealth in

the US. That will continue under Romney with the tax proples. He

paid 14.1% in the money he earned last year. When asked in 60 minutes

he - if he thought that was fair he said yes. They don't work in the

same world as us. Obama is coming in again and we'll speak next

Kwasi Kwarteng? I want to get back to what Mark said. Sorry, my poppy

has fallen off. You can put it back on. I think what Mark said hit the

nail on the head. He suggested that the deficit had doubled and that

admittedly Obama came in with a huge fund of goodwill and people

were supporting him, cheering, they realised it was an historic moment

in America's history with the first African-American President, as

Colleen suggested. But if you look at the last four years, what's

happened to the American economy, the idea that you could spend your

way out of a recession, that you could borrow more money. That's

what has caused Obama's problem. He hasn't delivered on the economy.

That's why he's under so much pressure in the next week. On

foreign policy, I, like many people here, watched the third debate on

foreign policy. I think Obama did well. He recovered from his first

debate. But what struck me and many people watching the debate is how

similar their foreign policy platforms were. I think there was a

broad range of agreement. The number of times in which each

candidate said, "I agree with Mr Romney, with Governor Romney, I

agree with the President" is what was striking about that debate. I

don't think foreign policy is going to be an issue in this election. It

boils down to the Reagan question, "Are you better off today than you

were four years ago?" From Obama's point of view I think too many

people would answer in the negative to that question. He's under a lot

of pressure. For that reason Romney deserve as really good look at.

you would support a Romney presidency? I'm not an American, so

I have the luxury of not having to decide. But on balance, looking at

the economy, and I make my position clear, in Britain and the British

debate, I'm very much in favour of what we call budget consolidation.

We've got to look at the deficit. I don't believe you get out of a debt

crisis by borrowing more and spending more. On that bases I

would probably vote for Mitt Romney on economic grounds. The woman on

the left. We heard that Obama is a progressive President, that he has

ended wars, but what about the escalation of the drone war. I

would say he hasn't been left enough. He's escalated the war.

He's taken over from Bush and gone to town on it. In terms of the

financial crisis perhaps it is a case of kicking the can down the

road. Have we really engaged with the critical issues on the economy.

So you would say he doesn't deserve another four years on the basis of

the past four? I would never vote for Romney, never in a million

years. I'm not appearing for him, that's for sure. There's a

challenge for regressives, who are like, we don't want Romney in

office. But we are not seeing much progress in terms of Guantanamo Bay

either. So Liberals have a reason to be disappointed in this

President. Shami Chakrabarti? spoke for me eloquently. I remember

that great move day too and I had hope. How could you not be inspired

by Obama who said Obama as elected as the President of the United

States? He was a constitutional lawyer who promised to shut down

Guantanamo Bay and didn't deliver on that promise. He did nothing

about the Patriot Act, which has so intruded on the personal privacy

and freedom of conscience of Americans. He hasn't ended

detention without trial. And the drones. Not just allowing that

terrible policy but having a kill list and leaking to the newspapers

that he's personally responsible for every person who is

assassinated by the drones. That is a terrible disappointment. On the

other side of the balance sheet, on equality and non-discrimination,

he's been good for women with fair pay and for gay people in terms of

repealing some very discriminatory legislation. That's important to

too. In tend it is about chairing choices so the voters get what they

deserve. I'm afraid what I can tell Mr Romney isn't going to help with

Guantanamo Bay and drones either, but he is going to be bad for women

and bad for gay people. APPLAUSE too voted for Barack Obama four

years ago. I was a little less likely to vote for him but did two

weeks ago with my absentee ballot. But there is very little difference

between the two based on their record. The reason I chose Obama

was Paul Ryan. LAUGHTER The candidate for the vice-presidency?

Of the Republican party. You say there is very little between them.

Their record. Let's start with Obamacare. It's the single most

powerful piece of legislation I would argue since... They stole

Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan. Exactly, but now he says on day one

and I'm quoting him, I will repeal Obamacare. I think it is just

morally, how dare you run for President of the United States to

be leader of the whole nation and to say that the first thing you're

going to do, the thing that will put your face on Mount Rushmore, is

that by God we will repeal that legislation, which gives healthcare

to 30 million Americans. It is so easy for the rest of us to say,

"Don't worry about it. Jerry, what about the deficit? Here's the

deficit. One person raised the issue of the deficit when we went

to war in Iraq. Don't worry, we are not going to raise your taxes...

not going to raise your taxes... APPLAUSE You are a British

politician who lovers his NHS. Don't tell the Americans they can't

have a little bit of health insurance. APPLAUSE Your issue with

the Iraq war. I'm not saying what the second President Bush was right.

He was terrible for the finances of America, I completely accept that.

But when you are facing a $16 trillion deficit -- a debt, forgive

me. Over time you have to deal with the deficit. But the time for

spending is not in a recession. You have to have people who can spend

money, or no company will do well. On this point of the NHS and of the

Obamacare. Do you believe that, as Jerry says, it is the thing he does

on day one? I thought there were problems on doing it at all.

big issues are the jobs, deficit and the economy, and Obamacare is

going to cause huge problems for the economy. You talked about is

there a difference between the two? There's a huge difference. Just

look at the background of Romney. Obama talks about the fact he was

going to be a healer. Romney worked with a legislates ture in

Massachusetts which was 87% Democrats. He changed a $3 billion

deficit into a $2 billion surplus. This is a man who came from a rich

family and he gave away his inheritance to say, "I want to make

this on my own" and he did it. He built up as a successful

businessman without taking a penny from his parents. He's a successful

politician in a Democratic state. And he goes on to the winter

Olympics in Utah, scandal-ridden and in debt, and turned it around.

You have an individual who is a problem solver, a pragmatist. Who

has been faced with problems and has turned them around. This is why

it is so close. People think he can make a difference. On day

Washington in addition reducing the corporate tax rate in addition to

solving the entitlements. There are not many voters here so we can cut

the message. The audience is completely anti-Romney and they

don't know anything about him. Look at the first debate. You have the

stereotype that many Americans have. I want to steal a question which

isn't fair of me, from David Mummery and put it to you. Will the

world be a safer or more dangerous place if Mitt Romney becomes

President? If he follows through on declaring China as a currency

manipulator on day one, that's dangerous. If he follows through on

what he said on his approach for the Iranian issue before the last

debate, the world will be a more dangerous place. If he follows

through on abandoning the Palestinian issue... Let me pick up

on an important point that Kwasi made. You have to be serious about

the deficit and he is right. Kwasi and I know that you cannot get rid

of a deficit unless you are willing to raise taxes as well as clear

spending. Mr Romney has said there'll be no tax rises on anyone.

He's also promised 20% tax cuts and said he will make up the difference.

You know as well as I do, Kwasi, come on, you can't run and say you

will limb that a deficit but by the way no-one is going to pay a penny

in taxes. That is just not honen honest. APPLAUSE A couple more

points from the audience. Thank you. I was just going to refer to

Kwasi's point about the deficit reduction. That is irrelevant. I

would much more prefer Obama to Romney. The deficit is supposed to

be reduced in this country but hate gone up. Everyone is quoting it has

gone down by a quarter. The share of GDP has gone down. No, in

absolute terms the deficit has gone down. The annual borrowing is

increasing at the moment. I think Romney is a dislikeable character,

he doesn't seem to stand for very much, but he ran the winter

Olympics well, he has a good record in Massachusetts. Unlike a lot of

politicians in the UK, he's done other things in his life. He hasn't

joined the Conservative Central Office or the Labour Party and

worked his way um as a researcher. Are you speaking to these two?

specifically but people in politics. He's been in business, delivered

for big organisations. And you think that's a deciding factor?

you are choosing someone as an executive you need experience.

must move away from the American elections. We have the result on

Tuesday night. We've got other Another question please. This one

from Rebecca Ellis. Is Nick Clegg right to claim that bringing powers

back from Brussels is a false promise wrapped in a Union Jack?

This was a quote from Nick Clegg today, the claim that powers could

be repatriated was a false promise wrapped in a Union Jack. He was

critical about the proposals for going to Brussels and trying to

reduce the amount we paid into the EU. David Miliband? I think that

the fact that no other country supports the repatriation of powers

from the European Union means that it is impossible to get powers back.

The fact is you need all 27 European countries to agree to

treaty change and not one supports that. The priority they've got is

sorting tout eurozone mess, and my God they should have sorted it out

two or three years ago. That's the overwhelming priority. Secondly, to

pick up David's second point, we have a desperate need for reform of

the EU budget. We have to get it out of supporting cows, sheep and

goats and into supporting skills, universities and innovation. We've

got a Government that declared its intention at the beginning as

focusing on the sum total that's being spent, not what it is being

spent on. Secondly, they have forsaken our allies in northern

Europe, in Germany and Holland and in the new Eastern European

countries. That's why we've found ourselves completely isolated in

the case for reforming the EU budget. It is important for a

British audience to know that the way to get our net contribution

down is to reform the EU budget. Because the Common Agricultural

Policy, which consumes a lot of the EU budget, because of the Common

Agricultural Policy that we end up having to have a rebate in the

first place. Reform the budget and then you can get on with a lower

net contribution from Britain. I think that's why Nick Clegg is

right to say Britain is weak in the negotiating chambers of the

European Union today. We are in this third tier. The danger is we

are going to end up in the fourth tier as well. I don't want to see

Your Government gave up some of the rebate we had in Europe and last

night you went into the lobby, did you? I always vote Labour. Exactly,

regardless of the question. Let's pick up the point. Saying our

contribution should be... Let's pick up both those points. First of

all, we negotiated in 2005 for the first time ever, instead of Britain

paying three times as much contribution as France, we would

pay the same as France and secondly we negotiated the enlargement of

the European Union which the Conservative Party and the Liberal

Democrats both supported and the budget went up to pay for the

historic enlargement of the European Union. David... Let me

finish the point then take me on. The world's changed since 2005-06,

we have had a financial crisis, we need to cut our deficit at home and

to make sure we reduce spending in Europe as well. I think there's

been a real problem for pro- Europeans like me. We've seemed

like we'd always wanted more spending and seemed like we were

sort of soft he-headed about more spending. You have a repositioning

in the Labour Party to take on this idea that to be pro-European you

are always more more spending but we are not, we are more more

effective European Union. What happened last night, and I just

wanted to two back to Rebecca's question first of all, it's not

true to say that it's impossible to get back powers. People said it was

impossible when Margaret Thatcher got back some of the rebate. They

said she wouldn't bother and she wouldn't get agreement. But she

managed through tough negotiation to claw back some of that money.

What happened last night in the House of Commons was a spectacle,

if you liex, of sheer opportunism on the part of the Labour Party --

if you like. They are playing Parliamentary games, they see there

was a significant portion of the Conservative Party that was going

to oppose the Government and they did what oppositions do, they used

their numbers to defeat the Government. It has nothing to do

with Labour's actual position because, as David was suggesting,

they actually increased the amounts of money they gave to the EU budget.

So for David Miliband now to pirouette and suggest this is a

real struggle and now he's supporting cutting the budget, I

think is completely disingenuous. I think the Labour Party is very

consistently for the EU, they want the closer I think integration,

they still haven't ruled out joining the euro currency and so

for them to pretend that they were more Euro-Sceptic and willing to

cut the budget was purely opportunistic.

You, Sir? Doesn't the dispute last night in

Parliament actually represent what the majority of the British people

feel that we should be reducing costs in Europe by actually having

a referendum on our membership of Europe?

APPLAUSE I think the referendum issue... The vote in Parliament,

did it represent the views of the British people? The opportunism of

the Labour Party. I disagree. It shows that a lot of people in the

country are unhappy with our relationship in Europe. Thing's

true. I think Labour and Conservative do not do us justice

as a democracy of offering us a referendum, years ahead, always

after the event. I think that the Conservative Party, a section of

them, was against it, wanted to cut the budget that we were spending or

the amount we were paying, which was right. The Prime Minister's

view was that this was not a position which we'd be able to get

support around and it was very unlikely if he went there, he'd

unlikely get support there. He was arguing that we should freeze nit

real terms. Doesn't the problem come back to the British people as

a whole, we are very unhappy with our relationship? I agree. The vote

was 74-75... You, Sir? I agree with that gentleman. Last night it

showed our politicians have completely lost faith in Europe. I

just think it's laughable that David's party last night had the

opportunity to say you have been so pro-up for the past 13 years,

suddenly in one night to go, actually I think maybe not, is just

opportunistic and a chance to have a go at the Tories in the last

three years. That's all you've done with no real alternative whatsoever.

Colleen Graffy? Well, I take my law students on a field trip every year

to see the European Parliament and we go to Brussels and we also go to

Strasbourg to see the European Parliament and if you've not

witnessed that, it's something to behold. The building in Strasbourg

is absolutely magnificent, but the idea that you have all of these

members of European Parliament that are decampling from Brussels to

Strasbourg and from Strasbourg to Brussels and the hotels and the air

fares and the carbon, it's just a scandal. So I...

APPLAUSE So I actually Laud the 53 Tory

rebels because I think that their heart was in the right place

because they really do believe there needs to be cutbacks on the

EU. I also have to say that we know for 13 years that Labour did

nothing to cut the costs in the EU and it was cynical and

opportunistic, sorry, David. Sorry. Chakrabarti? I wonder if it

would ever be possible to have a different kind of debate about

Europe that doesn't turn everybody in this room or everybody in Europe

into either a rampant xenophobe on the one hand or a fat cat

complacent bloated bureaucrat on the other hand. Is it possible,

instead of saying are we for or against Europe and the ocean, is it

possible to say what kind of Europe, what kind of Europe, who is it

working for, who sit - who is it working against, what values should

it protect, what priorities should it have, who is it accountable to?

That's the tkpe bait -- debate I would like to have if it's possible

in any party. I would like to see some powers seriously looked at

again. The euro arrest warrant that treats Europe as if it's one

country when the standards in the police stations and courts are so

different. We shouldn't be carted off from one part to another

without protections. Yes, the budget ought to be looked at, but

opportunism isn't the monopoly of any particular party. Hang on, one

of the things I've been most concerned is about the way that

some people in Kwasi's party have deliberately pretended that the

Council of Europe is the same as the European Parliament. They

haven't done that. They have because they want to rip up the

convention on human rights that's protected people from arbitration

and it's Churchill's legacy and some people in your party want to

rip it up a. That would be a disgrace. Thank you. We haven't

done that. Where is the xenophobia you talk about? What I'm saying is,

you don't have to be a xenophobe to be concerned about the budget and

you don't have to be a bloated bureaucrat to think that Europe has

done good things for peace and prosperity in Europe. Swrecked a

more intelligent debate. -- we could have a more intelligent

debate. You, Sir? Picking up on what Chakrabarti just said, is

David Cameron and the Conservative Party responsible for misleading

the public about Europe by highlighting cases that are quite

rare like cases which people disagree about human rights when

he's actually quite clearly pro- Europe because he doesn't want a

referendum on it and he knows the economic benefit of it? That's a

really interesting point. People are worried about the economy and

budgets and it's so easy a distraction to say two fingers to

the Court of Human Rights and we'll pull out of the convention on human

rites. You are saying it's not the same thing. We'll leave that point

and come back to the EU and whether we are wrapping ourselfs in the

Union Jack by promising to repatriate powers. What is your

view?, Jerry Springer? I'll have to check with President Obama. I'm

least qualified on this panel to speak of this issue, I don't live

with it every day as you do. you see Europe as a force in the

world? I absolutely do. I think what will happen, and I can say

this because I won't be alive by then, but the next 20, 30 years,

nations will be less relevant. We are already seeing in this

globalisation in the way we communicate with each other, our

economies, our values, what we think is important. I think

countries at some point will have the same relevance as various

states have within the United States. In other words, we no

longer will have this. What would what would you say about China, the

emergence of that, it's a nation state. You don't think it will be

an election state? No, again you will have to find me if you are

willing to go to hell and you will find me! I hope you last more than

20 years, Jerry! You are only 68. Well... What have you done? Have

you not seen my show?! Iex China is not going to be this country in 20,

30 years from now. Individual Governments are having less and

less power over their people. With technology what it is today,

Governments can no longer control people, they don't want to be cold.

They can get information on their own and they are going to get

interests on their own and it isn't going to matter as much to people.

This is inevitable. The flag waivers of any particular country

30 years from now will be in the minority. Take a look at America.

20 or 30 years from now, whites will not be 50% of America any more.

It will be the majority of Hispanic, African-American and other

minorities. The complexion of every country in the world is ultimately

going to strange. This is straying a bit from the EU. No, you ask me...

It's the big picture. Go for the big picture! I'm going to defend

Jerry because you are being naughty and sarcastic here. The big point

is this - this is a shrinking interconnected world and there's

going to come a point where we have to decide whether we want to be,

you know, foreigners in most parts of the world or human beings

everywhere and I think that's a point he's made very well. Hold on

a second. Very briefly. David you first then you Kwasi? A massive

leadership transition is going on not just in America next week but

in China.Ership is changing. The first generation of Chinese leaders

who've grown up in a China that was opening up to the rest of the world,

the new leadership will have been in their teens in 1978 when China

started opening up. My belief is, not like Jerry, that somehow China

is going to fall apart, but that group of leaders do understand that

China needs radical change to continue to engage with this

interconnected world. There's a very important point for us. The

truth is that there's an option for countries like ours. You can say,

and I don't know whether Kwasi would say this, but the Prime

Minister has - the world and future is going to be about flexible

networks and that somehow we are going to have close relations with

Vietnam, 80 or 90 million people, as we do with Germany. The

alternative view is that the world is becoming smaller but the

neighbourhood in which you live is going to be incredibly important

and we'll always have more in common and rely on our partnerships

with Germany than we will with countries like Vietnam. The reason

is this - if you are China and you have Britain as a strong part of

the European Union knobing on your door about trade or the environment

or human rights, we are going to take far more notice of a country

like Britain if we are part of the EU than if we are separate. That is

the whois we face. Do we go for a world where we have bilateral

relations one-on-one, or do we say, those bilateral relations should be

strengthened by strong, regional associations that respect national

identity but also bring to bear the power that come through being 27

together. I put myself in that latter camp because I think that

around the world you are going to see in South America, Africa,

actually in Asia itself, regional alliances growing that are going to

shape the modern world. APPLAUSE

I have a slightly different view from David in the brief time that

I've followed and been involved in British politics, the attitude

towards the EU, that's specifically what we are talking about, as moved

away. People did share the internationalism that you talked

about, certainly in the '70s and '80s. I was a week old when that

referendum took place in 1975 and I can assure you, I don't remember

anything about it. People under if age of 53 have never had a say. If

you look at the climate today in Britain, the attitudes towards

Europe, I think people are very proud of their country and they

want to have independence, they want to have a sense in which they

are in charge of Britain's own destiny. I don't see the world

moulding into this big global Government in the way that people

on the panel have described. I think people are very conscious and

proud of being British. Doesn't mean they are not international

focused but they want to preserve a degree of independence.

Thank you. I have a problem because there are

a lot of people with their hands up and we could go on talking about

Europe for the rest of the programme but we have other

questions. I want to take this one from John Lamb. Just before you put

it, this is one that's of a local political issue with worldwide

implications. John Lamb? Is the Energy Minister right in saying

there are enough onshore turbines, or is he tilting at windmills?

new emergency minister, John Hayes, who came in and said that enough is

enough, we've got enough windmills and by implication, wind power,

send it packing because of the disturbance and trouble it causes.

Of course it goes to the heart of the I have been yew about green

energy and all of that -- heart of the issue about green energy and

all that. Jerry Springer, you are in favour of that and Barack Obama

is, I'm told? So therefore it's So therefore it is good! Yes, we

have to have them. It is not the only answer. We've got to find all

kinds of sources of energy. Yes, we are still going to have oil and

rely on gas. But we have to go green as well. Do you think wind

power works? Is it efficient? some places yes, to some degree yes.

Over time perhaps more. With more innovation, more. It's absurd I

think to believe that we can just continue to say oil is the answer,

oil is the answer, oil is the answer. We can't. Time is not on

our side. Speaking of China, as we have more and more consumers of

this energy, it's going to become less and less available. No country

in the world is going to be able to dig its way out of the energy

crisis by just getting more oil under its land. Which by the way it

is not even a moral answer. Would we be OK to say that if oil is in

Iraq and Iran they get to keep all of their oil and to hell with the

rest of the world? No, we want to be able to trade and share. The

whole world is going to need energy, so yes we are going to need

windmills. No-one is going to want a windmill I'm sure in the middle

of Hampstead heath, but at some point we are going to have them

some place. There are a lot of people for green energy that want

it over there. Colleen Graffy? you impressed that I said hatch

said heath? It was very impressive. I think wind farms are an

interesting topic because you have environmental issues on both sides.

You have those who want wind to be part of our National Grid. Wind

energy. It also is a blight on the horizon to have these huge

stretchers. So for the United States, America is I think the

second largest provider of wind energy and Texas is the number one

state providing it. But it is only 3% of our energy. America is huge,

so we've got about 84 people per square mile in the United States

and you have 640 per square mile. So if you are going to try to have

renewable energy, as I believe the European directive is 15% of your

national power, I'm not sure you are going to do it all with wind

power. I think that John Hayes was tapping into something. Perhaps he

was off script, but he was tapping into something in recognising that

people feel that perhaps the capacity for wind power has been

met. It also Costas lot of money. It's expensive. You, we, are the

ones that are subsidising it. The Government is not subsidising it.

We want to keep the lights switched on but we want them switched on at

a price that we can afford. OK. windmills are aesthetically not

pleasing. That's undeniable, but more than that it is completely

inefficient. We live on an island, surrounded by water. Surely we need

to be able to harness that power and recognise that there are other

methods, other green methods, that aren't oil - obviously - which mean

we can live sustainably and provide enough energy that we need. Kwasi

Kwarteng, I'm puzzled, have we got a new Government policy from this

Minister? I think he was slightly off script. He's only just taken on

the job He was making a broads point, that we are not going to

cover... Enough is enough. That's not a broad point. It was part of a

broader debate. Where he was coming from, I think, is that we are not

going to cover every square metre from Land's End to John o'Groats

with windmills. There'll come a point where we'll be saturated with

windmills. What Jerry said about diversity of provision is key to

this debate. Will you stop - not stop talking - when you've done the

present proposed number? I'm not sure what the limit will be.

Chancellor seems to be against them.. There is scepticism about

the capacity, that windmill will be the solution to our energy problem.

Why not put the windmills in front of Parliament and open the windows?

APPLAUSE Actually we could have one on Question Time. Not facing the

audience, the panel. David Miliband? Look, we've got an

environmental vice is of overwhelming proportions. We are

going to need every conceivable source of low-carbon energy that we

can find. As it happens this country, and to pick up the lady's

point, a really good point, this country is a world leader in

offshore wind. We are going to need onshore wind as well. But honestly

you've got the Liberal Democrat Secretary of State arguing with the

Conservative Energy Minister about 1% of our energy. The truth is if

you care about the energy mix and about low-carbon, 30% of our energy

comes from coal at the moment. It comes from coal that isn't dug from

this country. It is imported from Russia. The biggest thing we can do

to contribute to a global challenge as well as ensure cost of supply is

to switch from having 30% coal to having putting that 30% into gas.

Gas is being discovered all around the world, including in America,

shale gas, and we are going to need the wind. But the truth is to

debate 1% when you've got 30% coal, we are not doing justisto the

environmental challenge, never mind the energy challenge. I don't see

how wind energy is going to help us in the future. I don't understand

why everyone is so anti-nuclear. You can look at Fukushima, but

there's nuclear plants all over the world. Fukushima was old anyway. It

was an ancient bit of kit The future, inside this country, to me

wind farms is a propeller and nuclear is a jet engine. I don't

understand why everyone is so anti- nuclear now. Alright. Shami

Chakrabarti? I think we've got a real problem here in that we need a

long-material, sustainable policy for sustainable energy, in terms of

the environment and in terms of energy security, as David Miliband

indicated. We need to develop a consensus that is informed by the

science and that is a consensus that deals with different parts of

the country, where people live and maybe don't want certain things in

their back yard. You can't achieve consensus in one department between

two Ministers, how on earth are we going to begin to build a

sustainable policy and long-term consensus that we need throughout

the whole country for decades ahead? OK. We have four minutes

left. One more question, from Rosie McTaggart please.

Was Dame Helen Ghosh right to accuse David Cameron of freezing

women out of senior Government positions in favour of an old

Etonian clique? She is the first female Permanent Secretary at the

Home Office, talking to students it's a Cambridge University, and

said women didn't get into Government, and David Cameron froze

them out in favour of old Etonians. One of which is sitting on my right,

except he is not in Government. not in Government. I'm not part of

the clique. How many old Etonians are there? Not as many as people

say. When Margaret Thatcher started in 1979 there were six old Etonians

in the Cabinet. I think the number now is probably one. It is easy to

mock and it is quite a funny story, but I don't think it is a

reflection of where we are coming from. What about four women in

Cabinet? I think we could have more, but the parliamentary party didn't

have that ma historically. I'm not sure whether David Cameron has

binders full of women. But the issue, as Romney suggested, that

some very capable women have come into the parliamentary party on the

Conservative side in 2010. A number have been made undersecretaries in

the last shuffle. I'm sure that by the end of the Parliament and going

forward there'll be many more Conservative women serving in the

Cabinet. The trajectory is in the right direction. The Conservative

Party, did they do everything right on the last 20 years on this?

Probably not. There were failings, but the movement is in the right

direction. I think there is improvement. I think we'll be in a

much stronger position in the years to come. Did the number of women in

the Cabinet rise or fall in the It stayed the same Fell actually. I

think it stayed the same. shouldn't be staying the same. Dame

Helen Ghosh is an extremely careful and judicious person. For her to

lay into the Government in this way is pretty extraordinary. What about

the old Etonian element? What I do think, after 13 years in Government,

one of the big problems with the Brown Government at the end was it

was closing the shutters. It was not opening up the debate. If this

is happening in the new Government after two years, that's a real

problem. It's a real problem for the Tories. Shoe worry about it. We

in Labour can't rest on our laurels. None of news the political class

can sit here and say our parties are representative enough of the

geography of the country, of the different social classes in the

country, of the different ethnicities, never mind the men and

women in the country. I hope while Labour people enjoy the discomfort

caused to the Tories on this, we need to make our party more

representative and change the way we do politics. That's only way to

make sure it matters for ordinary people. APPLAUSE

Colleen? Well, I think, I worked for con least ska rice. She was

fantastic -- Condoleezza Rice. If you want to change a country you

need to work with educating women. So across the board of course we

want women in politics, but not just to have a woman there. So I

really would want to say, hopefully they are all qualified but we just

don't want woman there because you want a female. Can I speak? Yes.

That's the general idea. As a woman. I'm not going to make the Etonian

point, because quasi-is a young Etonian here, and it is in his own

way is saying something very important by being here tonight. He

will send a signal to lots of black men in the country, and and that's

is really important too. There simply are not enough women in

Government. Yes, not enough in Parliament but not enough in

Government. Liberty is a cross- party, non-party organisation. I've

met lots of brilliant young women in your party and they could have

been promoted by now. This is good politics as well as an equity issue.

You want people to identify with you. You want people to vote for

you. It says something about your values and who you are. I agree.

APPLAUSE Briefly if you would. is clearly been a problem in

America, where often times we have a Government, a political party,

that doesn't believe that women are equal, no matter how many you put

in Cabinet positions, that they don't permit women to make

decisions about their own personal lives and health, that it is

condescending that the way we even talk about this issue, "Let's bring

the women in, they're really good." Men should just shut up when it

comes to women's issues about their own bodies, their own health, what

they want to do with their lives. We've grown up in a culture that is

so male oriented, we got a lot of work to do, but the best thing we

can do is total, total equality for women, not because men are giving

it to them, but because by birth they are equal. And a woman

President in 2016? Yes. APPLAUSE And I think a woman President. In

fact, someone with the last name Clinton. That's very representative.

APPLAUSE That's the equivalent of having old Etonians in Cabinet

having another Clinton. We've got to stop. Our time is up. Apologies.

We only have an hour. I would like an hour and a half. I would like

two hours, but they will only give us one hour. Next week we are going

us one hour. Next week we are going be in Bexhill. We've got David

blunt on our panel, with Shirley Williams and Chuka Umunna. The week

that have we'll be in Corby. Visit our website. Or call us if you

prefer that. Before that, American election night. I will be in

Washington. We've got panellist there is, reporters, experts for

the BBC results programme, US election night 2012. It is here on

BBC One, 11.30pm on Tuesday evening and throughout the night. It has