:00:17. > :00:22.Good evening. Tonight's Question Time comes from Bexhill-on-Sea.
:00:22. > :00:28.A big welcome to our audience and our panel - the police Minister,
:00:28. > :00:33.Damian Green, the shadow Business Secretary, Chuka Umunna, Liberal
:00:33. > :00:36.Democrat peer Shirley Williams, novelist and Sun columnist Jane
:00:36. > :00:40.Moore, and Professor David Blanchflower, a former member of
:00:40. > :00:50.the Bank of England committee which sets interest rates and now editor
:00:50. > :00:55.
:00:55. > :00:58.of the New Statesman. Our first question comes from
:00:59. > :01:00.Katherine Mann. Is David Cameron's mention of a gay witch-hunt in
:01:01. > :01:07.relation to the child abuse allegations a self-fulfilling
:01:07. > :01:11.prophecy? This is something the Prime Minister said on television
:01:11. > :01:18.today, that he was worried that the search for people who committed
:01:18. > :01:24.child abuse would turn into, his words, a gay witch-hunt. Is it a
:01:24. > :01:27.self fulfilling proffer si? Damian Green. No, I think it is a timely
:01:27. > :01:31.warning. I think the stunt that Philip Schofield pulled of
:01:31. > :01:35.presenting a list of names he had taken off the internet live to the
:01:35. > :01:40.Prime Minister on television was a pretty tasteless and silly stunt.
:01:40. > :01:45.He shouldn't have done it. What the Prime Minister was warning about is
:01:45. > :01:51.if we just start plastering names all over the place of people
:01:51. > :01:55.against whom there may well be no evidence, it may well be a witch-
:01:55. > :01:59.hunt. Clearly because the attitudes towards gay people at the time in
:01:59. > :02:04.the 1980 Minister, of them are likely to be on it. Sorry, what do
:02:04. > :02:09.you mean? Well, because there was a period where particularly those
:02:09. > :02:12.involved in plings politics on all sides, if they were gay, --
:02:12. > :02:17.involved in politics on all sides, if they were gay, they felt
:02:17. > :02:22.reluctant to come out, that is no longer prevalent, but it was then.
:02:22. > :02:27.So they may well have been hiding things about their lives. We all
:02:27. > :02:32.know the gossips and rumours that spread. The key now is that anyone
:02:32. > :02:37.who has any evidence, whether from recent years or from times past,
:02:37. > :02:41.should go to the police. The police have got the ability and the powers
:02:41. > :02:47.to do something about this, to investigate the accusations. Not
:02:47. > :02:53.Twitter or blogs or live TV. If we do, that we will get to the truth
:02:53. > :02:56.faster and so we will get justice for the genuine victims of child
:02:56. > :02:59.abuse, rather than just this swirl of rumour that we have at the
:03:00. > :03:02.moment. I think getting to the truth as fast as possible is
:03:02. > :03:10.absolutely what we need to do in this terrible situation. But wasn't
:03:10. > :03:15.there a danger in what he was saying that he was confusing
:03:15. > :03:18.paedophilia with being gay by putting the two together. He wasn't
:03:18. > :03:22.confusing it at all. He was uttering a warning that other
:03:22. > :03:28.people used to do, that that used to be prevalent. Those sorts of
:03:28. > :03:32.people who are happily putting names on the internet or worse
:03:32. > :03:37.waves cards around on live TV are behaving irresponsibly. At worst,
:03:37. > :03:43.if names get out there of people who may well have committed an
:03:43. > :03:48.offence, the worst thing would happen would be that that would
:03:48. > :03:53.compromise a trial. So someone who may be guilty of vile crimes may
:03:53. > :03:59.not be able to be prosecuted because someone had interfered with
:03:59. > :04:05.the police investigation. That would be really terrible. APPLAUSE
:04:05. > :04:08.Shirley Williams? I think that Philip Schofield was unacceptable.
:04:08. > :04:12.You cannot suddenly thrust a list of names which you know nothing
:04:12. > :04:18.else about in front of the Prime Minister and expect him to comment.
:04:18. > :04:22.Supposing he had commented? He could be up to his neck in libel
:04:22. > :04:29.trails. It was completely unacceptable behaviour. I thought
:04:29. > :04:32.the Prime Minister, with whom I don't always agree, behaved with
:04:32. > :04:35.great dignity and restraint. Obviously there has to be an
:04:35. > :04:38.investigation. There are considerable worries, I will
:04:38. > :04:42.mention one in relation to the North Wales investigation, which to
:04:42. > :04:45.be best of my knowledge there was no real attempts to look at the
:04:45. > :04:48.medical records. One of the problems about the United Kingdom,
:04:48. > :04:53.certainly 30 years ago but even today, is that we don't take what
:04:53. > :04:56.youngsters say very seriously. Youngsters, especially those of
:04:56. > :05:00.primary school level, are often likely to blurt out the truth.
:05:00. > :05:05.There's been a long tradition in Britain that you don't listen to
:05:05. > :05:10.what youngsters say, you dismiss it. That means we've seen a lot of
:05:10. > :05:17.children should have been abused, who are scared, dismissed or in
:05:17. > :05:22.some cases chastised for bringing up a fact of this kind. I know that
:05:22. > :05:27.as I was Minister of State for education. The ditches between then
:05:27. > :05:31.and now was then if I shut down a school there was never any
:05:31. > :05:39.publicity, and I didn't stop there publicity, but there wasn't any.
:05:39. > :05:44.There was a conspiracy of celebs. - - conspiracy of silence. Parents
:05:44. > :05:48.tended to say nothing about it. I think we have to open up the
:05:48. > :05:52.culture, to be willing to listen to children, to take very seriously
:05:53. > :05:58.indeed. To be credit of the Home Secretary, any charge of abuse. I
:05:58. > :06:07.would finally say we have to change the culture so that we take kids
:06:07. > :06:14.seriously and what they have to say. APPLAUSE
:06:14. > :06:18.I think maybe in the 1970s children weren't taken very seriously. I
:06:18. > :06:26.work in a school and we take everything very seriously and would
:06:26. > :06:29.report anything that we heard. Moore. I think today the edges
:06:29. > :06:34.became dangerously blurred between what happens online, that great
:06:34. > :06:40.sort of lawless place that we have called the internet, and mainstream
:06:40. > :06:44.media. I was really shocked, because Philip Schofield is a very
:06:44. > :06:49.consummate, very professional television presenter. For me it was
:06:49. > :06:55.a fundamental error on his part to try and ambush the Prime Minister
:06:55. > :07:00.with something that was no more than conjecture and rumour that is
:07:00. > :07:04.circulating on the internet. There is no basis to it whatsoever. I
:07:04. > :07:09.think the phrase he used was clearly because the names that were
:07:09. > :07:13.on the list that he recognised maybe gentlemen who are gay. And
:07:14. > :07:20.the abuse involves young boys. It's a very dangerous line again,
:07:20. > :07:27.talking of blurring, to make that insinuation. And the age of
:07:27. > :07:33.homosexual consent has fallen hasn't it. It was 1967 before it
:07:33. > :07:38.was legal to have homosexual relations between men. It was 1994
:07:38. > :07:44.before the age dropped to 18. And it was 2000 before it dropped to 16.
:07:44. > :07:49.So many of the people being mentioned may well have beenle
:07:49. > :07:54.illegally under the old law. They may well have been, but it is
:07:54. > :07:58.conjecture, it is rumour. It is on the internet. It hasn't been
:07:58. > :08:02.investigated properly. I agree with Shirley there has to with a proper
:08:02. > :08:05.investigation. A lot of people, if we are talking about Jimmy Savile
:08:05. > :08:09.as well, a lot of people are saying Jimmy Savile's dead, what's the
:08:09. > :08:15.point? The point is that the victims now have to be able to see
:08:15. > :08:19.that they are being listened to and that justice in some way is done.
:08:19. > :08:26.There were a lot of people accused around Jimmy Savile who are still
:08:26. > :08:30.alive. They have to be seen to be heard. We have a Home Affairs
:08:30. > :08:33.Select Committee looking into the Rochdale sex case. That was very
:08:33. > :08:38.current. Those girls weren't listened to. It is still going on.
:08:39. > :08:46.I think it is good now that we are looking into it at this level of
:08:46. > :08:49.depth and in future people will be listened to. I read today in
:08:49. > :08:52.connection with the Philip Schofield situation that the card
:08:52. > :08:57.that was handed to the Prime Minister, that the camera did pick
:08:57. > :09:02.up some of the names that were on that card. What will the
:09:02. > :09:06.ramifications be if that was the case and if those names are...
:09:06. > :09:10.was suggested but I think a number of people now have tried to read
:09:10. > :09:16.the names on the list and haven't been able to, so I think that's
:09:16. > :09:21.gone away. And he apologised if it had been seen. Just going back to
:09:21. > :09:25.what you said about paedophilia and homosexuality, I find it extremely
:09:25. > :09:33.difficult to associate those two things in anyway. Personally I
:09:33. > :09:39.don't see homosexuality as anything to do with paedophilia. Absolutely.
:09:39. > :09:42.It doesn't. APPLAUSE It was at the time. That's the point. That goes
:09:42. > :09:45.to the heart of what the Prime Minister said there's a danger if
:09:45. > :09:49.we are not careful this could turn into a witch-hunt particularly
:09:49. > :09:53.against people who are gay. David Blanchflower, what do you make of
:09:53. > :09:56.it? This seems to have lost the point. The point seems to me to be
:09:56. > :10:00.about the children. Going forward we need to make sure the children
:10:00. > :10:04.in the future are protected, first priority. We have the mechanisms in
:10:04. > :10:08.place to deal with that. Obviously we have to deal with victims of the
:10:08. > :10:11.past. I think the observation that it is about being homosexual or
:10:11. > :10:15.heterosexual. It is missing the point. It is what do you do to
:10:16. > :10:23.protect your children, to prevent this happening in the future.
:10:23. > :10:28.That's children. It probably harmed the nation's children today by such
:10:28. > :10:33.foolishness. I have the utmost sympathy with the victims of these
:10:33. > :10:37.cases, but unfortunately we don't, we are not all normal people in
:10:37. > :10:43.this country. I feel that some of them might well get on the
:10:43. > :10:48.bandwagon and try to make up stories. So I feel probably this
:10:48. > :10:53.case will run, well, indefinitely. That's hopefully the point of the
:10:53. > :10:57.investigation, to filter out the truth from the fiction. I think
:10:57. > :11:00.there's a question about whether or not we feel there is going be an
:11:00. > :11:03.integrity of the police investigation given the failure on
:11:03. > :11:08.their part to investigate Jimmy Savile earlier. What confidence
:11:08. > :11:12.does the public have that these will be fully and thoroughly and
:11:12. > :11:15.openly transparently investigated? That's precisely why the
:11:15. > :11:19.investigation into North Wales isn't being done by the North Wales
:11:19. > :11:23.Police. It is being done by the new National Crime Agency we've set up,
:11:24. > :11:27.a national body. Nobody on it has any connection with the North Wales
:11:27. > :11:32.Police, so it will be an independent inquiry. Chuka Umunna?
:11:32. > :11:35.To answer the question, I don't think the Prime Minister's response
:11:35. > :11:40.was unreasonable. I think what Philip Schofield did was foolish,
:11:40. > :11:43.stupid and grossly irresponsible. And frankly, rather amateur. It is
:11:43. > :11:49.not what you expect of serious broadcast journalism. There is an
:11:49. > :11:53.irony to this, because I think the victims have to be the absolute
:11:53. > :11:57.priority. One cannot begin to imagine what they have been through.
:11:57. > :12:01.Although many of them have now grown up and are not subject to it
:12:01. > :12:04.any more, mentally they are still living with it. It is an incredibly
:12:04. > :12:08.brave thing to see so many people prepared to speak out. But their
:12:08. > :12:12.complaint was that the investigation which is were done at
:12:12. > :12:18.the time were rather amateur and weren't terribly serious. The way
:12:18. > :12:21.that Philip Schofield has conducted Hill, trawling through the internet,
:12:21. > :12:26.searching for rumour and conjecture and presenting that in the way he
:12:26. > :12:33.has done flies in the face of what the victims want - which is a
:12:33. > :12:43.serious, proper investigation. That is ironic. Frankly it is insulting
:12:43. > :12:44.
:12:44. > :12:50.for many of of the victims. APPLAUSE You can join in tonight's
:12:50. > :12:57.debate on Twitter - #bbcqt. Our panellist tonight is the Telegraph
:12:57. > :13:02.blogger Tim Stanley. If you are into texting - 83981. Press the Red
:13:02. > :13:05.Button to see what others are saying. A question from Mike
:13:05. > :13:08.Richardson please? Now that the Bank of England appears to have run
:13:08. > :13:14.out of options what should the Government be doing to support the
:13:14. > :13:18.recovery? The Bank of England today didn't have any more quantitative
:13:18. > :13:23.easing and it stuck interest rates at 0.5 pertz. What should the
:13:23. > :13:27.Government be doing to recovery if the Bank of England has run out of
:13:27. > :13:31.steam. David Blanchflower. certainly don't take the view the
:13:31. > :13:35.Bank of England has run out of options. We are probably going to
:13:35. > :13:45.see them doing more quantitative easing going forward. The economy
:13:45. > :13:50.isn't growing. Plan A is in fact to do with Mormon tripolicy and Mormon
:13:50. > :13:54.trieasing. In likelihood that qeez willing be to try and help small --
:13:54. > :14:00.that qeez willing be to try and help -- quantitative easing will be
:14:00. > :14:04.to try to help small firms. What the world would have looked like
:14:04. > :14:07.without quantitative easing is a horrible place. Most people take
:14:07. > :14:11.the view these didn't work. I take the view that without QE
:14:12. > :14:15.unemployment would be at least double what it is now. We haven't
:14:15. > :14:20.run out of options, but on the fiscal front, the Chancellor has
:14:20. > :14:25.conducted what I consider to be the most foolish, mistaken
:14:25. > :14:31.macroeconomic policy for 100 years. The economy hasn't grown, shows no
:14:31. > :14:36.likelihood of growing. We went into a recession in 2008, Q1, we haven't
:14:36. > :14:41.restored 50% of the output that we lost. This is much worse than the
:14:41. > :14:46.Great Depression. Much worse than any other major countries. What
:14:46. > :14:50.would you like to see him do when you say fiscal front? What's the
:14:50. > :14:55.layman's language for that? classic thing you need to do is
:14:55. > :15:02.stimulate. Three things I guess. Stimulate investment, give firms
:15:02. > :15:06.inceptives to hire and to invest. - - incentives to hire and invest,
:15:06. > :15:09.and go down the road that the economy has to be pushed forward.
:15:09. > :15:14.You raise confidence. The biggest mistake the Government made was
:15:14. > :15:18.when it came into office and it said the economy is bankrupt, it is
:15:18. > :15:23.like Greece. That wasn't true. What we've seen is the biggest collapse
:15:23. > :15:30.in consumer and business confidence for a very long time. It was very
:15:30. > :15:33.foolish to not understand what Keynes talked about, the needs to
:15:33. > :15:37.have animal spirits. It is like the death spiral and you have to break
:15:37. > :15:42.that. I've been talking to business leaders recently. They all say
:15:42. > :15:47.there is no confidence there. The talk about building an airport, it
:15:47. > :15:51.doesn't matter where you build it. For goodness sake build one. Do
:15:51. > :15:55.something. We see no basis on which growth has come. I think the
:15:55. > :16:00.Government has put itself into a hole with this and the Bank of
:16:00. > :16:02.England will stimulate more. Unless that happens we are going back into
:16:02. > :16:12.negative output and a triple difficult.
:16:12. > :16:15.
:16:15. > :16:23.Briefly, this Thursday, today, you would like to have seen them print
:16:23. > :16:29.more money and... The absolutely, yes. We will see a report next week
:16:29. > :16:33.which will show you that. They can do it next month. Let me start with
:16:33. > :16:38.my fundamental disagreement, when he's so there is no growth. We just
:16:38. > :16:43.heard the last quarterly growth figures showing growth of 1%. And
:16:43. > :16:48.over the past year, the economy has been growing. He says it has
:16:48. > :16:58.declined. It went up 1%, much higher than anyone predicted.
:16:58. > :16:59.
:16:59. > :17:06.Everyone says it was the Olympics. It is just not true. And the point
:17:06. > :17:10.is that the analysis... It is true. I am very sorry, but it is true.
:17:10. > :17:14.The reason the animal spirit of the economy was destroyed was that we
:17:14. > :17:17.had the worst debt of any G20 country because the previous
:17:18. > :17:24.Government spent money like water, borrowed money, put up debts and
:17:25. > :17:29.left us bankrupt. That is why animal spirits went down. You left
:17:29. > :17:33.us bankrupt. We certainly did not leave you with a recession. In fact,
:17:33. > :17:36.what we did post the financial crisis and the global economic
:17:36. > :17:40.downturn that followed, we prevented that from turning from
:17:40. > :17:46.recession into depression. But we can talk about all these big
:17:46. > :17:50.figures. Look at that human reality. In my constituency I have over 11
:17:50. > :17:54.people chasing every Jobcentre Plus vacancy. I have over 4000
:17:54. > :17:58.constituents claiming jobseeker's allowance. Long-term unemployment
:17:58. > :18:01.has doubled. We have just come out of three-quarters of a contraction,
:18:02. > :18:05.the longest double-dip recession since the Second World War. I am
:18:05. > :18:09.pleased that we have a good growth figure recently, but it is still
:18:09. > :18:13.incredibly fragile. What would you do that the Government is not
:18:13. > :18:17.doing? Labour says that Government is doing the wrong thing but is
:18:17. > :18:21.cautious about saying what it would do. I don't agree with that. First
:18:22. > :18:25.of all, I think the monetary levers, the monetary loosening we have seen
:18:25. > :18:29.has been helpful but it is insufficient. You need to use
:18:29. > :18:33.fiscal policy. When I talk to businesses, and I talk to them
:18:33. > :18:36.about the kind of things they want, they want things like, for example,
:18:36. > :18:39.a national insurance break to take on an extra worker. That is
:18:39. > :18:45.something we are proposing. They want, in the retail sector, they
:18:45. > :18:50.want to see us reduce VAT. Damiano and others increased it last year,
:18:50. > :18:55.hiking it up, costing families about �450 a year. There are lots
:18:55. > :18:59.of things we talk about, using the proceeds of the sale of the 4G
:18:59. > :19:02.spectrum to build over 100,000 new homes. There are plenty of ideas,
:19:02. > :19:05.plenty of levers to pull. The question is whether you have the
:19:05. > :19:09.political will to pull them. The problem with the Government's
:19:09. > :19:12.approach is that usually what is cited as the reason for not doing
:19:12. > :19:17.anything is that if we change the fiscal situation, we will be
:19:17. > :19:20.ultimately punished by the markets. But I have not spoken to any
:19:20. > :19:25.leading economist who has told me that if you change course for
:19:25. > :19:28.economic reasons, the market will punish you. Actually, if you
:19:28. > :19:38.continue to have a low-growth, in fact the market takes a pretty dim
:19:38. > :19:41.
:19:41. > :19:44.We should be borrowing more. Is that a good idea? Let me be very
:19:44. > :19:47.precise, I think there is no great point in trying to say who is
:19:47. > :19:52.responsible for the financial mess that we have been in, because I
:19:52. > :19:55.think both the banks and, to some extent, the period of the Labour
:19:55. > :20:00.government, and to some extent many other things have fed into this
:20:00. > :20:07.problem. I am not in the business of trying to throw blame one way or
:20:07. > :20:11.the other. But I will be very precise. First of all, I think that
:20:11. > :20:14.it has gone rather over the top because the level of unemployment
:20:14. > :20:20.in the United States is exactly the same as in the United Kingdom this
:20:20. > :20:24.month, some 0.9%. There is not that big difference between the two.
:20:24. > :20:27.7.9% is the level of unemployment in both countries, with this
:20:27. > :20:31.difference, that the United States measures people actively seeking
:20:31. > :20:34.jobs and we do not, we measure people drawing unemployment benefit
:20:34. > :20:39.will stock and the United States has a lower level of activity than
:20:39. > :20:43.we do. There is no simple way of saying the UK is specifically bad.
:20:43. > :20:47.Let me make two suggestions. First, I think the Government should be
:20:47. > :20:50.tougher on the banks. I think we should insist the banks make
:20:50. > :20:53.available capital for small business. And we have let them get
:20:53. > :20:56.away with that, and I think we have to be tougher. I hope that as a
:20:56. > :21:01.result of the vicar's report and the willingness of the Government
:21:01. > :21:04.to adopt the because report, they become the tougher in that way. The
:21:04. > :21:07.second thing which is absolutely central is that you have a very
:21:07. > :21:11.much higher level of youth unemployment in the whole of Europe
:21:11. > :21:17.than you have of general unemployment. In the United Kingdom,
:21:17. > :21:21.it is about 20%, which is a hell of a lot. In Spain it is 46%, which is
:21:21. > :21:26.desperate. But we have the good suggestion that the local
:21:26. > :21:29.government pinched some funds, one on and �50 billion, should be spent
:21:29. > :21:33.to a much greater extent than today, on building a huge housing
:21:33. > :21:37.programme. �45 billion of that money could be ploughed into
:21:37. > :21:41.housing, at a time when we are desperate for housing need. And
:21:41. > :21:44.incidentally, there is no area where you can employ young men and
:21:45. > :21:50.women more easily with apprenticeships and skills than in
:21:50. > :21:54.construction. That is a step I hope the Government will take. Back to
:21:54. > :21:59.Mike Richardson, who asked the question. I will say it wasn't my
:21:59. > :22:03.idea, in 2008 George Osborne on the Andrew Marr shows said that any
:22:03. > :22:07.Government in its right mind should have a moratorium on PAYE and VAT
:22:07. > :22:12.collection. As a small business, any company employing people every
:22:12. > :22:15.month has to send the PAYE it has collected and generated to the
:22:16. > :22:20.Inland Revenue. If they delayed the payment by a month, and they could
:22:20. > :22:24.do it tomorrow, the next payment is due on 19th November, that would be
:22:24. > :22:29.�30 billion bottom line on to the UK economy for minimal cost to the
:22:29. > :22:33.Government. They need to borrow the money at 1%. That is �300 million a
:22:33. > :22:37.year for every month extension. George Osborne said any country in
:22:37. > :22:43.its right mind would do it for six months. I think a month or two,
:22:43. > :22:46.especially for small business. short period of relief. Yes.
:22:46. > :22:52.Delayed payments for a month, and then later on in the cycle you can
:22:52. > :22:55.draw them back in when everything is hunky-dory. Can I ask a question
:22:55. > :23:05.of that gentlemen? Have you found it difficult to raise money from
:23:05. > :23:09.
:23:09. > :23:14.the banks, or not? Have you found it difficult! It is impossible!
:23:14. > :23:23.They might lose the loans they have already got, have them taken back.
:23:23. > :23:30.One or two members of the audience. I don't understand how the panel,
:23:30. > :23:40.and most of our country, continued to talk about growth. I don't
:23:40. > :23:41.
:23:41. > :23:45.understand how we can have internet I don't understand how that works.
:23:45. > :23:48.A quarter of the world's mammals are in danger of extinction. We are
:23:48. > :23:54.mammals and I think we need to start taking account of the world
:23:54. > :23:59.we live in. We should not be going for growth? Renewed talk about
:23:59. > :24:03.growth, David Blanchflower, your example was an airport. If we are
:24:03. > :24:08.going to go for growth, we need to go for things that are going to be
:24:08. > :24:13.combating what aircraft are part be causing, which is climate change. -
:24:13. > :24:20.- what they are partly caused him. I want to bring in Jane Moore, who
:24:20. > :24:24.is not an economist or a politician. Basically, if you want to lose
:24:24. > :24:28.weight, the thing is to eat less and exercise more. That is what
:24:28. > :24:33.every book that you read boils down to, doesn't it? I am not an
:24:33. > :24:37.economist, David, you are right. But as far as I'm concerned, if you
:24:37. > :24:42.want to sort out the economy, you spend less and you learn more. It
:24:43. > :24:46.is that simple. And I agree with Shirley, that I think Britain,
:24:46. > :24:50.small businesses and entrepreneurial behaviour is what
:24:50. > :24:55.Britain has been built on. We still see worldwide the influence of
:24:55. > :25:01.British inventors and things that we have done and the hard work that
:25:01. > :25:04.we have put in and the impact we have made on the global stage. That
:25:04. > :25:08.is being diminished the entire time, because every time somebody tries
:25:08. > :25:12.to start a business in this country they go and they don't get loans
:25:12. > :25:18.and they can't get started, and they end up maybe just being on
:25:18. > :25:22.benefits, when they want to work. The Government has to get behind
:25:22. > :25:26.that, because that is where the growth will come, from small
:25:26. > :25:31.businesses, cottage industries, mothers sitting at home with their
:25:31. > :25:38.laptops. They can make money that way. But they can't get the loans
:25:38. > :25:41.to start it up. Just one thing. Every initiative seems to be
:25:41. > :25:47.against the people that are trying to make... The living wage, for
:25:47. > :25:51.example, that is going to cripple small business. It means they will
:25:51. > :25:57.employ less people because it is going to make the wages higher up
:25:57. > :26:00.the business get higher as well. David Blanchflower, answer the
:26:00. > :26:04.point that the woman made about it being wrong to go for growth at all
:26:04. > :26:07.because the planet can't afford it. Obviously, that is a valid point
:26:08. > :26:12.and there has been a move in economics to think about how you
:26:12. > :26:15.measure well-being. And the Prime Minister has pushed for that. I do
:26:16. > :26:19.not think he will like the answers, because we have the first set of
:26:19. > :26:25.data and what we have seen since 2011 is that well-being and
:26:25. > :26:28.happiness has fallen a lot. The evidence is that. A fundamental
:26:28. > :26:32.point for an economist, I disagree with everything you have said. The
:26:32. > :26:36.economy is not like a household. It would be like a household if each
:26:36. > :26:40.person in the back of their garden had a central bank that could print,
:26:40. > :26:43.and their own exchange rate. So that is not the position we are in.
:26:43. > :26:49.The central bank and these conditions. The question to ask is,
:26:49. > :26:52.how do you ease the position where small firms can't get loans? We
:26:52. > :26:58.have to fix that somehow. Although we have heard is that this cannot
:26:58. > :27:01.be fixed. There is a fix. You have to go to stimulus. Somehow, we have
:27:01. > :27:07.to start moving money to small businesses. I thought his idea was
:27:08. > :27:11.a really good idea about helping small firms. We agree on that, and
:27:11. > :27:15.I agree that one of the things we need to do is to get banks lending
:27:15. > :27:22.more. There is money out there. They do have it. That is why we set
:27:22. > :27:26.up the funding for lending scheme, precisely to try to unblock that.
:27:26. > :27:29.It is not working. It has been going for several months now. The
:27:29. > :27:34.problem that small firms find is that it is not those that can
:27:34. > :27:37.already get the money. They have the benefit of that scheme. It is
:27:37. > :27:40.the successful, profitable firms who cannot get access to credit at
:27:40. > :27:45.the moment, and that funding for lending scheme, at the moment, is
:27:45. > :27:48.not working for them. Is it a matter of regret that the Bank of
:27:48. > :27:52.England was given independence? Because if it had not got
:27:52. > :27:56.independence, people like you could actually now be deciding the
:27:56. > :28:01.policies, were used in at the Bank of England. Instead, the Bank of
:28:01. > :28:07.England goes off on its own. actually think the Treasury would
:28:07. > :28:12.have probably cut rates earlier in 2008 than the Bank of England did.
:28:12. > :28:20.Overall, the Treasury might well have done a better job than the
:28:20. > :28:23.Bank of England actually did. person in the third row. As soon as
:28:23. > :28:27.Damian was asked about the Government, working on economic
:28:27. > :28:31.policy, if he backed them up. It would be really good if for once
:28:31. > :28:34.politicians did not just stick with their party. And when David said
:28:34. > :28:39.that Jane is not an economist, David Blanchflower is and I would
:28:39. > :28:44.advise you to listen to him because he knows what he's talking about.
:28:44. > :28:49.Just defending all the schemes, as Chuka said, the Shadow Health
:28:49. > :28:52.Secretary, it is telling you that the scheme is not working.
:28:52. > :28:56.problem with listening to economists is that if you have
:28:56. > :28:59.three of them in a room, you have four opinions. You have to pick the
:29:00. > :29:03.economists that you listen to. The two economic measures by which
:29:03. > :29:06.governments are judged our inflation and unemployment.
:29:06. > :29:10.Inflation is half the level it was a year ago, and unemployment has
:29:10. > :29:14.been falling for seven months in a role. So on the big, serious
:29:14. > :29:18.economic measures, things are getting better. Of course, things
:29:18. > :29:24.have been tough and we are nowhere near out of woods, but on the basic
:29:24. > :29:33.measures, the economy is healing, getting better. I insist on
:29:33. > :29:37.responding to that lady. All right. But then I insist on moving on.
:29:37. > :29:40.asked an important question about the issue of growth, and she is
:29:41. > :29:46.absolutely right. Growth for the sake of growth could be devastating
:29:46. > :29:49.for the planet. But if you actually want, for example, to conserve the
:29:50. > :29:55.South Downs and you live close to them, if you want to make sure the
:29:55. > :29:59.ash trees are going to be saved, if you want to make sure that animals
:29:59. > :30:03.survive and species survive, and if you want to make sure you bring in
:30:03. > :30:08.new ways of making energy which don't destroy its large stretches
:30:08. > :30:12.of countryside, you have to get money to do it with. And that money,
:30:12. > :30:15.it is not a question of no growth, or growth. It is a question of what
:30:15. > :30:19.growth is for. You decide on the objectives of saving the planet,
:30:19. > :30:29.you can use the money usefully in that direction, and that is the
:30:29. > :30:33.
:30:33. > :30:43.A question from David Fisher. the Conservative party overreact
:30:43. > :30:44.
:30:44. > :30:48.when withdrawing the party whip from Nadine Dorries? Jane Moore?
:30:48. > :30:53.don't think they overreacted at all. I like Dorries dofrplt I've always
:30:53. > :30:58.been a fan. I'm in favour -- I like Nadine Dorries. I've always been a
:30:58. > :31:03.fan. I'm in favour of reducing the abortion limit to 20 weeks. She's
:31:03. > :31:09.led a very real life. I like the fact she's quite outspoken. I like
:31:09. > :31:13.the fact she's been a bit of a thorn in the side of David Cameron
:31:14. > :31:19.et al. But I think she's absolutely shot herself in the foot with this.
:31:19. > :31:25.A serving MP who is paid for by the taxpayer, to represent their
:31:25. > :31:33.constituents in the House of Commons has no place slathering sun
:31:33. > :31:40.cream on themselves in Australia. APPLAUSE It is not the sun cream,
:31:40. > :31:44.it is eatsing all those disgusting raw animals, testicles from
:31:44. > :31:49.crocodiles and things like. That think people will be voting for her
:31:49. > :31:58.to do it. Is it because she said I think Cameron and Osborne are two
:31:58. > :32:05.posh boys who don't know the price of milk but are two arrogant posh
:32:05. > :32:10.pois who show no remorse... That why she was suspended? I'm sure
:32:10. > :32:14.they were running their hands with glee. I'm sure there is an element
:32:14. > :32:18.of that as well, but you can't blame, it is totally her decision
:32:18. > :32:22.to go to Australia. Any of us here, if we suddenly upped sticks and
:32:22. > :32:28.went off to Australia for five weeks without telling our employers,
:32:28. > :32:32.we would all be suspended. It is ridiculous. Shirley Williams?
:32:32. > :32:37.agree with almost every word. It is right, constituents have a right to
:32:38. > :32:42.expect their MP to be around. That's what you are paid for. When
:32:42. > :32:47.Nadine Dorries appears in Australia and she is no doubt fed a diet of
:32:48. > :32:57.shall we say unmentionable things about kangaroos, I would want a lot
:32:58. > :33:01.
:33:01. > :33:06.more than �14,000 to swallow that! APPLAUSE I think the thing that
:33:06. > :33:12.Nadine has done is a very good idea, going out to Australia, to show a
:33:13. > :33:19.different light to MPs. I think MPs are too much shown in suits. This
:33:19. > :33:24.shows MPs in another light and doesn't just show them in the House
:33:24. > :33:29.of Commons. Even though they might be working with celebrities, I
:33:30. > :33:33.think it is a great thing for MPs to be shown in a different light.
:33:33. > :33:38.OK. Damian Green, this programme is being watched by just under 3
:33:38. > :33:41.million people. If you went off to Australia into the jungle, 11.5
:33:42. > :33:47.million people would see you. There's a gap between always
:33:47. > :33:51.appearing in a suit, I take the point about MPs, Chuka Umunna and I
:33:51. > :33:55.are wearing suits. You don't have to wear a suit. There's a spectrum,
:33:55. > :34:01.which starts in wearing a suit, and the other end is eating kangaroo's
:34:01. > :34:05.testicles in Australia with a pile of Z list celebrities. Somewhere on
:34:05. > :34:10.that spectrum MPs might feel comfortable. I'm tempted to say
:34:10. > :34:15.that, like my colleague Eric Pickles, I will be struggling to
:34:15. > :34:25.cope without Nadine for a month but I will be voting loyally for her
:34:25. > :34:27.
:34:27. > :34:33.every week to stay there and continue... APPLAUSE Hi. My point
:34:33. > :34:37.is I agree with Jane Moore. I look at Nadine as an employee. If one of
:34:37. > :34:41.my employees suddenly appeared working for someone else with no
:34:41. > :34:48.notice, they would be suspended from their job straight away.
:34:48. > :34:53.That's the main issue here. Does she work for the Conservative Party
:34:53. > :34:58.or her constituents? I don't think they have overreacted. The clue is
:34:58. > :35:05.in the title. The show is called I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of
:35:05. > :35:11.Here!. No you're not, Nadine. You are a publicly... APPLAUSE You are
:35:11. > :35:16.an elected politician. We each represent in the region of around
:35:16. > :35:20.100,000 people. I could not look one of my constituents in the face
:35:20. > :35:24.and justify swanning off, eating insects on the other side of the
:35:24. > :35:28.world in a jungle and saying that's what I'm going to spend the week
:35:28. > :35:33.doing rather than representing you, which is what you elected me to do.
:35:33. > :35:37.What we do is a sacred thing. I'm really angry with Nadine. We need
:35:37. > :35:42.to rehabilitate what I think is a noble occupation. I will say this
:35:42. > :35:46.about most members in the House of Commons. I may defer from people if
:35:46. > :35:49.they are in another party, but most people are there to improve the
:35:49. > :35:54.world. They've got a subjective view of, that but that doesn't
:35:54. > :36:04.matter. This brings what we do into disrepute. That's why I'm so
:36:04. > :36:05.
:36:05. > :36:10.annoyed with her for doing this. Why? It's mad. APPLAUSE
:36:10. > :36:14.I wanted to just mention the fact that the hypocrisy of Nadine
:36:14. > :36:19.Dorries, because she said when Sally Bercow, the wife of the
:36:19. > :36:24.leader of the Commons, she said that it is bringing the House of
:36:24. > :36:29.Commons into disrepute. Secondly, the fact that if she is going out
:36:29. > :36:36.for a month, all her money she's getting as a salary she should be
:36:36. > :36:41.either returning that or donating that to charity. OK. I wonder if
:36:41. > :36:47.she's there long enough she might claim it as her second home.
:36:47. > :36:52.APPLAUSE David Blanchflower? I'm a Labour economist and I think it is
:36:52. > :36:56.very interesting that politicians say that, but they've all got a
:36:56. > :37:00.full-time job and so has she. Lots of people in this country will be
:37:00. > :37:03.pleased to have an additional part time job, unemployed actors and all
:37:03. > :37:09.sorts of people. We've got a million unemployed people in this
:37:09. > :37:15.country. 250,000 of those have been unemployed for a year. Presumably a
:37:15. > :37:18.trip to Australia eating ants will be good for them. We've seen
:37:18. > :37:23.employment falling in this country in the last three months so any job
:37:23. > :37:29.is a jewel. I don't think she deserves it and many people in the
:37:29. > :37:32.country would be better to get it. I think it's a disgrace. We go on.
:37:32. > :37:34.Martin White. Would money be better spent on policing rather than the
:37:34. > :37:44.cost of the Police Commissioner elections or the appointed
:37:44. > :37:46.
:37:46. > :37:52.Commissioners' salaries? APPLAUSE The elections are coming up and
:37:52. > :37:58.expected to cost �75 million. The people who become commissioners
:37:58. > :38:01.when elected are being paid �65,000 and �100,000. Chuka Umunna.
:38:01. > :38:07.didn't want these police commission ers in the first place. That's
:38:07. > :38:09.money that could be much better spent entering we keep our police
:38:09. > :38:14.numbers up. Unfortunately what we've seen under this Government is
:38:14. > :38:18.police numbers fall by over 6,500. Up to this point in the Parliament,
:38:18. > :38:22.15,000 are likely to go by the end of this Parliament. I think that's
:38:22. > :38:26.where people want the resource to go. So you think it's a net
:38:26. > :38:30.increase in cost having Police Commissioners? Well, tinge money
:38:30. > :38:36.could be better spent on the front line. If it is available, you will
:38:36. > :38:40.be much better spending it on the front line. We have seen crime fall.
:38:40. > :38:43.It has been on a downward trajectory for some time. But
:38:43. > :38:46.despite that, I've seen in some measures in the area I represent
:38:46. > :38:52.that crime has gone down, but visibility, having police on the
:38:52. > :38:57.streets, is something that really matters to people. Soic to - so I
:38:57. > :39:00.think to a lot of people this is a crazy proposal. What I think is a
:39:00. > :39:03.problem is the shambolic way in which these elections are being
:39:03. > :39:08.cuttinged. There is no need to be doing these elections in November
:39:08. > :39:13.when it is cold, when it is dark. I am really worried about turnout,
:39:13. > :39:17.when they could have done this in May. There is another problem that
:39:17. > :39:20.the Electoral Commission have urgently taken up the process of
:39:20. > :39:24.these elections with the Home Office, because very few people
:39:24. > :39:31.seem to know who their candidates are. If you are going to have an
:39:31. > :39:35.election, at least run it properly. APPLAUSE Damian Green, would the
:39:35. > :39:39.money be better spent on policing rather than paying for elections
:39:39. > :39:43.and appointing commissioners and paying them a salary? The money
:39:43. > :39:46.doesn't come out of the policing budget, so I can happily assure
:39:47. > :39:53.people that Where does it come from? From other parts of the Home
:39:53. > :39:57.Office. But hang on. Let's be clear. It is money that, as the Minister
:39:57. > :40:02.in charge of policing you couldn't say I would rather have that money
:40:02. > :40:06.for policemen on the beat than have it spent on politician
:40:06. > :40:09.commissioners? The decision about the policemen on the beat is made
:40:09. > :40:13.by Chief Constables. Everyone assumes these Police Commissioners
:40:13. > :40:18.come out of nowhere and are going to cost salaries. You already have
:40:18. > :40:23.organisations that are meant to be overseize the police. Are they
:40:23. > :40:27.paid? Yes. They are called police authorities. Are they paid �100,000
:40:27. > :40:32.a year? In the West Midlands, I've heard this question asked of the
:40:32. > :40:38.Police Commissioner candidates who are going to be paid �100,000. The
:40:38. > :40:45.expenses alone of the 17 -strong Police Authority are nearer
:40:45. > :40:48.�200,000. So you are saying they are making a net saving? We should
:40:48. > :40:53.do because the Police Commissioners, I've had candidates say to me that
:40:53. > :40:58.they are shocked to discover that the Police Authority staff are 14
:40:58. > :41:02.or 15 strong. They don't necessarily want that. You are
:41:02. > :41:06.saying that they are going to save money by having these
:41:06. > :41:11.commissioners? They should do. should do or they will? This is the
:41:11. > :41:16.point about democracy. You will all elect a Police Commissioner and you
:41:16. > :41:20.can then... Well, you've got the chance to. If you don't vote you
:41:20. > :41:26.can't complain afterwards. In all elections people should vote.
:41:26. > :41:29.are you doing it now? fascinated that people seem not to
:41:29. > :41:37.want democracy. You have the choice of selecting can be. You can hold
:41:37. > :41:45.them to account. If they waste money you can chuck them out after
:41:45. > :41:50.four years. Why not do it in May? How can people say... Can I deal
:41:50. > :41:53.with the first point. That it works perfectly well now. One at a time
:41:53. > :41:57.please. In the middle of everything we've been discussing this evening
:41:57. > :42:02.about things that have happened in the past with the North Wales
:42:02. > :42:06.Police, we've seen the Hillsborough inquiry where it appears there's
:42:06. > :42:11.been a huge cover-up, electing people who are responsible to the
:42:11. > :42:15.must be, who can shine a light on the individual police forces seems
:42:15. > :42:19.to me a significant step forward not just for democracy but for
:42:19. > :42:22.improving the way we do policing in this country for a along time to
:42:22. > :42:28.come. If we always had democracy in this area nobody would say please
:42:28. > :42:32.take away from us the choice. APPLAUSE Alright. Many people with
:42:32. > :42:36.their hands occupy. The man behind the woman who spoke just now.
:42:36. > :42:42.don't think it is an economic issue. The money is just too small to talk
:42:42. > :42:46.about. The real issue is why are we putting somebody with a white
:42:46. > :42:52.collar on in a situation that's quite powerful running a uniformed
:42:52. > :42:57.operation? Does it not look rather like the NHS a few years ago when
:42:57. > :43:03.NHS managers were employed and the mess that was made then? That was a
:43:03. > :43:08.farce and I think this non- democratic election of PCCs will
:43:08. > :43:18.turn out to be in four years' time an American idea that's been
:43:18. > :43:23.imported over here to be an outright failure. APPLAUSE
:43:23. > :43:28.When you say non-democratic, do you think not enough people will vote
:43:28. > :43:31.for it? Exactly. The mainly issues, I read about the issues that the
:43:31. > :43:38.candidates are going to bring up. I think there were 30 mentions of
:43:39. > :43:44.alcohol in the way they should be voted in. When in fact... Sorry, I
:43:44. > :43:52.am completely lost now. It is non- democratic, because there won't be
:43:52. > :43:56.the turnout. What's this mention of alcohol? The reason... Send me a
:43:56. > :44:01.bottle of whisky and vote for me? No, let me speak. The mention of
:44:01. > :44:07.alcohol in terms of their interview tech Noakes was mentioned 30 times
:44:07. > :44:12.in common words when 40% of the crime in this country is committed
:44:12. > :44:17.through alcohol consumption. I see what you mean. I wanted to say, our
:44:17. > :44:24.family has got three polling cards on our kitchen table. I'm not aware
:44:24. > :44:28.what I'm being asked to vote for. I think the money needs to go to the
:44:28. > :44:38.Inspector at Bexhill plaifplgts maybe she can spend it on active
:44:38. > :44:42.policing. -- Bexhill police station. I just think it is another layer of
:44:42. > :44:46.bureaucracy. I think it politicises the police, which I think is wrong.
:44:47. > :44:50.Yes the police have made many mistakes over the years, but it's a
:44:50. > :44:55.vast, vast institution and they are going to make mistakes. I think
:44:55. > :45:02.what you should have done is just improved the way that police
:45:02. > :45:09.authorities were run. This week alone I read a figure that
:45:09. > :45:15.something like last year 1,800 offenders, sex offenders, were let
:45:15. > :45:19.off with cautions because the police are dispensing summary
:45:19. > :45:25.justice on the streets. Is that for monetary reasons that they are not
:45:25. > :45:35.going to court, do we know? It seems to me that money is not
:45:35. > :45:37.
:45:38. > :45:41.getting... What? Sorry, I thought No, it was not for monetary reasons.
:45:41. > :45:45.You are illustrating what you might want a police commissioner for. If
:45:45. > :45:48.you do not want that sort of thing done by your police force, now you
:45:48. > :45:52.have somebody democratically- elected who can stop it happening.
:45:52. > :45:56.What you could do is you could have the Government say to the police,
:45:56. > :46:02.we want these people taken to court because that is the letter of the
:46:02. > :46:06.law. You are democratically-elected. You make the decisions about how
:46:06. > :46:10.much funding goes to the police. Police numbers are being cut
:46:10. > :46:16.because of decisions you have made. You need to take responsibility for
:46:16. > :46:20.that, instead of trying to push it off. I think were reason why it
:46:20. > :46:26.seemed a bright idea to have all of these police commissioners was
:46:26. > :46:29.simply to please and pandered to the hangar and flog them vote. You
:46:29. > :46:33.thought the people who could be bothered to vote would be voting
:46:33. > :46:38.for more severe, more harsh policing, banging people up,
:46:38. > :46:41.pandering to that element. It is a waste of money. Nobody can really
:46:41. > :46:45.be engaged in it because we don't know who the candidates are and
:46:45. > :46:54.what difference it would make. You need to take responsibility for
:46:54. > :46:59.policing. You are the Police Minister. The man expresses exactly
:46:59. > :47:03.what I am worried about. I spent many years of my life in America
:47:03. > :47:06.and I think you do get police commissioners who played to the
:47:06. > :47:12.hangar and flog them Brigade, who will play to the hang them up and
:47:12. > :47:16.get rid of them Brigade. There is a danger of that, that you get an
:47:16. > :47:20.attempt to try to panic people into saying, vote for me and I will end
:47:20. > :47:24.crime. Crime rates in America are substantially higher than here.
:47:24. > :47:27.What I am worried about, and here I have some respect for what Damian
:47:27. > :47:32.Green said, is that there have been recent cases where the police have
:47:32. > :47:38.not behaved in a trustworthy manner. Hillsborough is one example of that,
:47:38. > :47:42.and maybe North Wales will prove another. That means we need a more
:47:42. > :47:46.effective system of investigating the police, and we have to be
:47:46. > :47:49.tougher about their standards. And if I may be sexist for a moment, we
:47:49. > :47:52.need more women police, particularly dealing with domestic
:47:52. > :48:00.violence and things like that, who will actually be able to understand
:48:00. > :48:08.what it is like to be a child or a woman being abused. Under police
:48:08. > :48:11.commissioner would help? I think a stronger police authority. It is
:48:11. > :48:14.not obvious that the Government has demonstrated that the proposal they
:48:15. > :48:20.are going to put in place is actually going to work. It seems
:48:20. > :48:24.that turnout is going to be crucial. We worry about people going on
:48:24. > :48:28.strike and we say that turnout in strikes is very low. What if the
:48:28. > :48:35.turnout here is even lower, so the legitimacy of a police commissioner
:48:35. > :48:39.is one thing. And for somebody who last week voted for a sheriff, in
:48:39. > :48:44.the US, many small towns vote for a sheriff. But what happened there
:48:44. > :48:49.was that you voted for Mitt Romney in your ticket and further down you
:48:49. > :48:55.voted for a sheriff. It turned out the turnout for voting for sheriff
:48:55. > :48:58.was 70%. We only had one choice, but still. We also voted for the
:48:58. > :49:03.dog catcher. But it seems the legitimacy of the turnout is
:49:03. > :49:07.important. The other thing in the US is that in general the votes for
:49:07. > :49:11.sheriffs are in small towns, where people go to a meeting and know the
:49:11. > :49:15.person. They do not vote for the sheriff in Boston, New York and
:49:15. > :49:18.Washington DC. There are not demonstrated benefits to that and I
:49:18. > :49:26.don't think the Government to this point has demonstrated them. This
:49:26. > :49:31.looks like politics rather than practical application. If we are
:49:31. > :49:34.going to get a police commissioner, I would ask that he gives serious
:49:34. > :49:40.consideration to bringing back the bobby on the beat. I got fined for
:49:40. > :49:44.driving my car at 36 mph, but when my car was broken into, windows
:49:44. > :49:54.smashed and the contents taken, I got a crime number with not a
:49:54. > :49:55.
:49:55. > :49:59.policeman in sight. Bring back the bobbies on the beat. Jane made a
:49:59. > :50:03.point that is often made, about a new level of bureaucracy. Actually,
:50:03. > :50:09.it replaces a level of bureaucracy. The turnout for the police
:50:09. > :50:12.authorities, the bureaucracy that is already there, is zero. Elected
:50:12. > :50:20.politicians are better than appointed politicians. If you want
:50:20. > :50:24.to know about the candidates, you can go to the website. I am
:50:25. > :50:29.surprised that he is not urging people to vote. He is intent on
:50:29. > :50:34.doing the elections, so vote, but obviously for the Labour candidate.
:50:34. > :50:38.Labour candidate, Tory candidate. Since you are concerned citizens
:50:38. > :50:47.who have come to Question Time, hands up who is going to vote on
:50:47. > :50:57.November 15th. That is about half, isn't it? Good. We only have time
:50:57. > :50:57.
:50:57. > :51:05.for one question. What can British politicians learn from the recent
:51:05. > :51:10.victory of Barack Obama? What can British politicians learn from
:51:10. > :51:16.Barack Obama's victory? Barack Obama was elected by an
:51:16. > :51:23.overwhelming majority of women, and men and women of colour. He would
:51:23. > :51:26.have lost if the election had been only male American white men. It is
:51:26. > :51:36.about time our politicians started taking much more seriously women
:51:36. > :51:37.
:51:37. > :51:41.and men and women of colour. It is about time. I agree with Shirley on
:51:41. > :51:44.the coalition building.. I think two other things. If you are going
:51:44. > :51:48.to go around saying we are in it together, you need policies which
:51:48. > :51:52.demonstrate that. In the US, he refused to go ahead with George
:51:53. > :51:56.Bush's tax cuts for wealthy people. In this country, we have seen the
:51:56. > :52:00.Government give people earning over �1 million a tax break. And if you
:52:00. > :52:05.are going to have an economic policy, make sure it works. He has
:52:05. > :52:12.seen the economy grow 3% since his government came into power. This
:52:12. > :52:18.one has grown by 0.6%. That tells you something. Damian Green, what
:52:18. > :52:24.do you learn from it, having heard that? I do not agree with his
:52:24. > :52:27.economic analysis. I actually agree with a lot of what Shirley said. I
:52:27. > :52:31.draw wanting specific to my party, that incumbents can win if they are
:52:31. > :52:34.seen to be cleaning up the problems they inherited. And it is
:52:34. > :52:39.absolutely the case that David Cameron has, ever since he became
:52:39. > :52:43.leader, taken on some of the established views within the Tory
:52:43. > :52:48.party, precisely to make us reach out beyond our comfort zone, to
:52:48. > :52:53.engage with ethnic minorities, get more women MPs and so on. There is
:52:53. > :52:58.always more to do but absolutely, you only win elections in first
:52:58. > :53:04.past the post systems if you reach beyond your base. You think that is
:53:04. > :53:08.what the Republicans failed to do? I think so. I would think the
:53:08. > :53:13.Republican Party should take note of what happened. They keep saying
:53:13. > :53:17.they are a party of inclusion. When you look at the demographics, look
:53:17. > :53:23.at the convention and the likes, you realise they are not.
:53:23. > :53:29.Minorities, Hispanics, Latin Americans and so forth are very few
:53:29. > :53:33.and far between. So what lesson for this country's politicians? Well,
:53:33. > :53:36.if you are looking at the Conservative Party, if they want to
:53:36. > :53:41.be considered the party of inclusion, they need to do the very
:53:41. > :53:46.same thing. Cabinet wise and otherwise.
:53:46. > :53:51.My understanding is that the Hispanic vote counted for 24
:53:51. > :53:56.million Americans, of which 78% was for Obama. Are we saying, therefore,
:53:56. > :54:00.that unless you are female or black, therefore you are only there to
:54:00. > :54:05.attract a certain minority or raise certain people? Is it not based on
:54:05. > :54:09.policy, irrespective of colour, creed, race? It makes no difference.
:54:09. > :54:13.You vote for the party for what they can do, not because they
:54:13. > :54:17.happen to be black, white or any other colour. Yes, but if your
:54:17. > :54:23.party excludes people like yourself, you should ask whether your party
:54:23. > :54:26.genuinely reflects the democratic opinion of society. You have to
:54:26. > :54:32.remember it was very close and you can slice up where the vote came
:54:32. > :54:37.from. If you look at the whole of America, it was nearly 50-50.
:54:37. > :54:41.Hispanics used to vote for George Bush. I voted in that election. I
:54:41. > :54:46.think there are important things for the Government here to think
:54:46. > :54:49.about. Firstly, it is hard, clearly, for an incumbent to get re-elected
:54:49. > :54:53.in a recession. But in the case of Barack Obama, he was defending a
:54:53. > :54:57.large majority, which is quite different to what you have here.
:54:57. > :55:00.This is the first thing. Second, the difference in the US is not, I
:55:00. > :55:08.disagree with Shirley, but the level of unemployment is what
:55:08. > :55:11.matters. What Barack Obama had was 13 consecutive quarters of GDP
:55:11. > :55:16.growth and 32 months in a row of employment increase. The last thing
:55:16. > :55:20.is that it seems this is a great victory for science over spins. I
:55:20. > :55:25.know you said it was close, but the scientists, the pollsters who sat
:55:25. > :55:29.and looked at what is coming called it right. And it was really over by
:55:29. > :55:37.the end of last week. I know the BBC did a grand job, but the
:55:37. > :55:41.bookies paid out last Friday. There is betting sites had called it. The
:55:41. > :55:47.scientists call it, and the spin guys missed it. You make it sound
:55:47. > :55:51.as if there was no need to vote at all. I did hear that all the money
:55:52. > :56:00.that was spent in Ohio actually changed one person's mind, and it
:56:00. > :56:10.I think it was a case of letting somebody finish what they had
:56:10. > :56:18.started, which women particularly are always very keen on. Would you
:56:18. > :56:26.like to elaborate on that, Jane! You are at liberty to start the
:56:26. > :56:31.sentence again! I thought Bexhill was such a nice place! Not marquee.
:56:31. > :56:36.It is to let President Obama finish what he started. He has just got
:56:36. > :56:44.going. Things are happening with employment. To then bring in
:56:44. > :56:49.somebody else again and put it back to square one, no. Also, in a way,
:56:49. > :56:53.the lessons for our Government to learn is that it is what New Labour
:56:53. > :56:57.started in this country before it went wrong. It is the thing that we
:56:57. > :57:03.do want to look after the vulnerable, to look after the less
:57:03. > :57:10.well-off. But I think the lessons to be learned now up are, do not
:57:10. > :57:14.create a client state out of that. You have to identify who are the
:57:14. > :57:22.genuinely poor and dispossessed, and make sure that everybody else
:57:23. > :57:25.who can get out to work and contributes. Because you have had
:57:25. > :57:29.John Mann not for the whole programme. One thing we have
:57:29. > :57:32.learned from the American presidential election is that the
:57:32. > :57:35.Americans are passionate about their politics. We are not in this
:57:35. > :57:45.country. There is far too much apathy because we are bored with
:57:45. > :57:49.
:57:49. > :57:53.I have to leave it to next week's panel to excite you. Our time is up.
:57:53. > :57:58.We will be in Corby next week, because there is a by-election in
:57:58. > :58:02.Corby. We have Chris Grayling, Stella Creasey, Nigel Farage and
:58:02. > :58:06.the boss of the Saatchi advert agency. The week after that, we
:58:06. > :58:11.will be in the Houses of Parliament. We went last year in Westminster
:58:11. > :58:16.Hall, which is a terrific setting. If you want to come to either of
:58:17. > :58:26.those programmes, to put questions to the panel, you can see the
:58:27. > :58:27.