08/11/2012 Question Time

Good evening. Tonight's Question Time comes from Bexhill-on-Sea.

A big welcome to our audience and our panel - the police Minister,

Damian Green, the shadow Business Secretary, Chuka Umunna, Liberal

Democrat peer Shirley Williams, novelist and Sun columnist Jane

Moore, and Professor David Blanchflower, a former member of

the Bank of England committee which sets interest rates and now editor

of the New Statesman. Our first question comes from

Katherine Mann. Is David Cameron's mention of a gay witch-hunt in

relation to the child abuse allegations a self-fulfilling

prophecy? This is something the Prime Minister said on television

today, that he was worried that the search for people who committed

child abuse would turn into, his words, a gay witch-hunt. Is it a

self fulfilling proffer si? Damian Green. No, I think it is a timely

warning. I think the stunt that Philip Schofield pulled of

presenting a list of names he had taken off the internet live to the

Prime Minister on television was a pretty tasteless and silly stunt.

He shouldn't have done it. What the Prime Minister was warning about is

if we just start plastering names all over the place of people

against whom there may well be no evidence, it may well be a witch-

hunt. Clearly because the attitudes towards gay people at the time in

the 1980 Minister, of them are likely to be on it. Sorry, what do

you mean? Well, because there was a period where particularly those

involved in plings politics on all sides, if they were gay, --

involved in politics on all sides, if they were gay, they felt

reluctant to come out, that is no longer prevalent, but it was then.

So they may well have been hiding things about their lives. We all

know the gossips and rumours that spread. The key now is that anyone

who has any evidence, whether from recent years or from times past,

should go to the police. The police have got the ability and the powers

to do something about this, to investigate the accusations. Not

Twitter or blogs or live TV. If we do, that we will get to the truth

faster and so we will get justice for the genuine victims of child

abuse, rather than just this swirl of rumour that we have at the

moment. I think getting to the truth as fast as possible is

absolutely what we need to do in this terrible situation. But wasn't

there a danger in what he was saying that he was confusing

paedophilia with being gay by putting the two together. He wasn't

confusing it at all. He was uttering a warning that other

people used to do, that that used to be prevalent. Those sorts of

people who are happily putting names on the internet or worse

waves cards around on live TV are behaving irresponsibly. At worst,

if names get out there of people who may well have committed an

offence, the worst thing would happen would be that that would

compromise a trial. So someone who may be guilty of vile crimes may

not be able to be prosecuted because someone had interfered with

the police investigation. That would be really terrible. APPLAUSE

Shirley Williams? I think that Philip Schofield was unacceptable.

You cannot suddenly thrust a list of names which you know nothing

else about in front of the Prime Minister and expect him to comment.

Supposing he had commented? He could be up to his neck in libel

trails. It was completely unacceptable behaviour. I thought

the Prime Minister, with whom I don't always agree, behaved with

great dignity and restraint. Obviously there has to be an

investigation. There are considerable worries, I will

mention one in relation to the North Wales investigation, which to

be best of my knowledge there was no real attempts to look at the

medical records. One of the problems about the United Kingdom,

certainly 30 years ago but even today, is that we don't take what

youngsters say very seriously. Youngsters, especially those of

primary school level, are often likely to blurt out the truth.

There's been a long tradition in Britain that you don't listen to

what youngsters say, you dismiss it. That means we've seen a lot of

children should have been abused, who are scared, dismissed or in

some cases chastised for bringing up a fact of this kind. I know that

as I was Minister of State for education. The ditches between then

and now was then if I shut down a school there was never any

publicity, and I didn't stop there publicity, but there wasn't any.

There was a conspiracy of celebs. - - conspiracy of silence. Parents

tended to say nothing about it. I think we have to open up the

culture, to be willing to listen to children, to take very seriously

indeed. To be credit of the Home Secretary, any charge of abuse. I

would finally say we have to change the culture so that we take kids

seriously and what they have to say. APPLAUSE

I think maybe in the 1970s children weren't taken very seriously. I

work in a school and we take everything very seriously and would

report anything that we heard. Moore. I think today the edges

became dangerously blurred between what happens online, that great

sort of lawless place that we have called the internet, and mainstream

media. I was really shocked, because Philip Schofield is a very

consummate, very professional television presenter. For me it was

a fundamental error on his part to try and ambush the Prime Minister

with something that was no more than conjecture and rumour that is

circulating on the internet. There is no basis to it whatsoever. I

think the phrase he used was clearly because the names that were

on the list that he recognised maybe gentlemen who are gay. And

the abuse involves young boys. It's a very dangerous line again,

talking of blurring, to make that insinuation. And the age of

homosexual consent has fallen hasn't it. It was 1967 before it

was legal to have homosexual relations between men. It was 1994

before the age dropped to 18. And it was 2000 before it dropped to 16.

So many of the people being mentioned may well have beenle

illegally under the old law. They may well have been, but it is

conjecture, it is rumour. It is on the internet. It hasn't been

investigated properly. I agree with Shirley there has to with a proper

investigation. A lot of people, if we are talking about Jimmy Savile

as well, a lot of people are saying Jimmy Savile's dead, what's the

point? The point is that the victims now have to be able to see

that they are being listened to and that justice in some way is done.

There were a lot of people accused around Jimmy Savile who are still

alive. They have to be seen to be heard. We have a Home Affairs

Select Committee looking into the Rochdale sex case. That was very

current. Those girls weren't listened to. It is still going on.

I think it is good now that we are looking into it at this level of

depth and in future people will be listened to. I read today in

connection with the Philip Schofield situation that the card

that was handed to the Prime Minister, that the camera did pick

up some of the names that were on that card. What will the

ramifications be if that was the case and if those names are...

was suggested but I think a number of people now have tried to read

the names on the list and haven't been able to, so I think that's

gone away. And he apologised if it had been seen. Just going back to

what you said about paedophilia and homosexuality, I find it extremely

difficult to associate those two things in anyway. Personally I

don't see homosexuality as anything to do with paedophilia. Absolutely.

It doesn't. APPLAUSE It was at the time. That's the point. That goes

to the heart of what the Prime Minister said there's a danger if

we are not careful this could turn into a witch-hunt particularly

against people who are gay. David Blanchflower, what do you make of

it? This seems to have lost the point. The point seems to me to be

about the children. Going forward we need to make sure the children

in the future are protected, first priority. We have the mechanisms in

place to deal with that. Obviously we have to deal with victims of the

past. I think the observation that it is about being homosexual or

heterosexual. It is missing the point. It is what do you do to

protect your children, to prevent this happening in the future.

That's children. It probably harmed the nation's children today by such

foolishness. I have the utmost sympathy with the victims of these

cases, but unfortunately we don't, we are not all normal people in

this country. I feel that some of them might well get on the

bandwagon and try to make up stories. So I feel probably this

case will run, well, indefinitely. That's hopefully the point of the

investigation, to filter out the truth from the fiction. I think

there's a question about whether or not we feel there is going be an

integrity of the police investigation given the failure on

their part to investigate Jimmy Savile earlier. What confidence

does the public have that these will be fully and thoroughly and

openly transparently investigated? That's precisely why the

investigation into North Wales isn't being done by the North Wales

Police. It is being done by the new National Crime Agency we've set up,

a national body. Nobody on it has any connection with the North Wales

Police, so it will be an independent inquiry. Chuka Umunna?

To answer the question, I don't think the Prime Minister's response

was unreasonable. I think what Philip Schofield did was foolish,

stupid and grossly irresponsible. And frankly, rather amateur. It is

not what you expect of serious broadcast journalism. There is an

irony to this, because I think the victims have to be the absolute

priority. One cannot begin to imagine what they have been through.

Although many of them have now grown up and are not subject to it

any more, mentally they are still living with it. It is an incredibly

brave thing to see so many people prepared to speak out. But their

complaint was that the investigation which is were done at

the time were rather amateur and weren't terribly serious. The way

that Philip Schofield has conducted Hill, trawling through the internet,

searching for rumour and conjecture and presenting that in the way he

has done flies in the face of what the victims want - which is a

serious, proper investigation. That is ironic. Frankly it is insulting

for many of of the victims. APPLAUSE You can join in tonight's

debate on Twitter - #bbcqt. Our panellist tonight is the Telegraph

blogger Tim Stanley. If you are into texting - 83981. Press the Red

Button to see what others are saying. A question from Mike

Richardson please? Now that the Bank of England appears to have run

out of options what should the Government be doing to support the

recovery? The Bank of England today didn't have any more quantitative

easing and it stuck interest rates at 0.5 pertz. What should the

Government be doing to recovery if the Bank of England has run out of

steam. David Blanchflower. certainly don't take the view the

Bank of England has run out of options. We are probably going to

see them doing more quantitative easing going forward. The economy

isn't growing. Plan A is in fact to do with Mormon tripolicy and Mormon

trieasing. In likelihood that qeez willing be to try and help small --

that qeez willing be to try and help -- quantitative easing will be

to try to help small firms. What the world would have looked like

without quantitative easing is a horrible place. Most people take

the view these didn't work. I take the view that without QE

unemployment would be at least double what it is now. We haven't

run out of options, but on the fiscal front, the Chancellor has

conducted what I consider to be the most foolish, mistaken

macroeconomic policy for 100 years. The economy hasn't grown, shows no

likelihood of growing. We went into a recession in 2008, Q1, we haven't

restored 50% of the output that we lost. This is much worse than the

Great Depression. Much worse than any other major countries. What

would you like to see him do when you say fiscal front? What's the

layman's language for that? classic thing you need to do is

stimulate. Three things I guess. Stimulate investment, give firms

inceptives to hire and to invest. - - incentives to hire and invest,

and go down the road that the economy has to be pushed forward.

You raise confidence. The biggest mistake the Government made was

when it came into office and it said the economy is bankrupt, it is

like Greece. That wasn't true. What we've seen is the biggest collapse

in consumer and business confidence for a very long time. It was very

foolish to not understand what Keynes talked about, the needs to

have animal spirits. It is like the death spiral and you have to break

that. I've been talking to business leaders recently. They all say

there is no confidence there. The talk about building an airport, it

doesn't matter where you build it. For goodness sake build one. Do

something. We see no basis on which growth has come. I think the

Government has put itself into a hole with this and the Bank of

England will stimulate more. Unless that happens we are going back into

negative output and a triple difficult.

Briefly, this Thursday, today, you would like to have seen them print

more money and... The absolutely, yes. We will see a report next week

which will show you that. They can do it next month. Let me start with

my fundamental disagreement, when he's so there is no growth. We just

heard the last quarterly growth figures showing growth of 1%. And

over the past year, the economy has been growing. He says it has

declined. It went up 1%, much higher than anyone predicted.

Everyone says it was the Olympics. It is just not true. And the point

is that the analysis... It is true. I am very sorry, but it is true.

The reason the animal spirit of the economy was destroyed was that we

had the worst debt of any G20 country because the previous

Government spent money like water, borrowed money, put up debts and

left us bankrupt. That is why animal spirits went down. You left

us bankrupt. We certainly did not leave you with a recession. In fact,

what we did post the financial crisis and the global economic

downturn that followed, we prevented that from turning from

recession into depression. But we can talk about all these big

figures. Look at that human reality. In my constituency I have over 11

people chasing every Jobcentre Plus vacancy. I have over 4000

constituents claiming jobseeker's allowance. Long-term unemployment

has doubled. We have just come out of three-quarters of a contraction,

the longest double-dip recession since the Second World War. I am

pleased that we have a good growth figure recently, but it is still

incredibly fragile. What would you do that the Government is not

doing? Labour says that Government is doing the wrong thing but is

cautious about saying what it would do. I don't agree with that. First

of all, I think the monetary levers, the monetary loosening we have seen

has been helpful but it is insufficient. You need to use

fiscal policy. When I talk to businesses, and I talk to them

about the kind of things they want, they want things like, for example,

a national insurance break to take on an extra worker. That is

something we are proposing. They want, in the retail sector, they

want to see us reduce VAT. Damiano and others increased it last year,

hiking it up, costing families about �450 a year. There are lots

of things we talk about, using the proceeds of the sale of the 4G

spectrum to build over 100,000 new homes. There are plenty of ideas,

plenty of levers to pull. The question is whether you have the

political will to pull them. The problem with the Government's

approach is that usually what is cited as the reason for not doing

anything is that if we change the fiscal situation, we will be

ultimately punished by the markets. But I have not spoken to any

leading economist who has told me that if you change course for

economic reasons, the market will punish you. Actually, if you

continue to have a low-growth, in fact the market takes a pretty dim

We should be borrowing more. Is that a good idea? Let me be very

precise, I think there is no great point in trying to say who is

responsible for the financial mess that we have been in, because I

think both the banks and, to some extent, the period of the Labour

government, and to some extent many other things have fed into this

problem. I am not in the business of trying to throw blame one way or

the other. But I will be very precise. First of all, I think that

it has gone rather over the top because the level of unemployment

in the United States is exactly the same as in the United Kingdom this

month, some 0.9%. There is not that big difference between the two.

7.9% is the level of unemployment in both countries, with this

difference, that the United States measures people actively seeking

jobs and we do not, we measure people drawing unemployment benefit

will stock and the United States has a lower level of activity than

we do. There is no simple way of saying the UK is specifically bad.

Let me make two suggestions. First, I think the Government should be

tougher on the banks. I think we should insist the banks make

available capital for small business. And we have let them get

away with that, and I think we have to be tougher. I hope that as a

result of the vicar's report and the willingness of the Government

to adopt the because report, they become the tougher in that way. The

second thing which is absolutely central is that you have a very

much higher level of youth unemployment in the whole of Europe

than you have of general unemployment. In the United Kingdom,

it is about 20%, which is a hell of a lot. In Spain it is 46%, which is

desperate. But we have the good suggestion that the local

government pinched some funds, one on and �50 billion, should be spent

to a much greater extent than today, on building a huge housing

programme. �45 billion of that money could be ploughed into

housing, at a time when we are desperate for housing need. And

incidentally, there is no area where you can employ young men and

women more easily with apprenticeships and skills than in

construction. That is a step I hope the Government will take. Back to

Mike Richardson, who asked the question. I will say it wasn't my

idea, in 2008 George Osborne on the Andrew Marr shows said that any

Government in its right mind should have a moratorium on PAYE and VAT

collection. As a small business, any company employing people every

month has to send the PAYE it has collected and generated to the

Inland Revenue. If they delayed the payment by a month, and they could

do it tomorrow, the next payment is due on 19th November, that would be

�30 billion bottom line on to the UK economy for minimal cost to the

Government. They need to borrow the money at 1%. That is �300 million a

year for every month extension. George Osborne said any country in

its right mind would do it for six months. I think a month or two,

especially for small business. short period of relief. Yes.

Delayed payments for a month, and then later on in the cycle you can

draw them back in when everything is hunky-dory. Can I ask a question

of that gentlemen? Have you found it difficult to raise money from

the banks, or not? Have you found it difficult! It is impossible!

They might lose the loans they have already got, have them taken back.

One or two members of the audience. I don't understand how the panel,

and most of our country, continued to talk about growth. I don't

understand how we can have internet I don't understand how that works.

A quarter of the world's mammals are in danger of extinction. We are

mammals and I think we need to start taking account of the world

we live in. We should not be going for growth? Renewed talk about

growth, David Blanchflower, your example was an airport. If we are

going to go for growth, we need to go for things that are going to be

combating what aircraft are part be causing, which is climate change. -

- what they are partly caused him. I want to bring in Jane Moore, who

is not an economist or a politician. Basically, if you want to lose

weight, the thing is to eat less and exercise more. That is what

every book that you read boils down to, doesn't it? I am not an

economist, David, you are right. But as far as I'm concerned, if you

want to sort out the economy, you spend less and you learn more. It

is that simple. And I agree with Shirley, that I think Britain,

small businesses and entrepreneurial behaviour is what

Britain has been built on. We still see worldwide the influence of

British inventors and things that we have done and the hard work that

we have put in and the impact we have made on the global stage. That

is being diminished the entire time, because every time somebody tries

to start a business in this country they go and they don't get loans

and they can't get started, and they end up maybe just being on

benefits, when they want to work. The Government has to get behind

that, because that is where the growth will come, from small

businesses, cottage industries, mothers sitting at home with their

laptops. They can make money that way. But they can't get the loans

to start it up. Just one thing. Every initiative seems to be

against the people that are trying to make... The living wage, for

example, that is going to cripple small business. It means they will

employ less people because it is going to make the wages higher up

the business get higher as well. David Blanchflower, answer the

point that the woman made about it being wrong to go for growth at all

because the planet can't afford it. Obviously, that is a valid point

and there has been a move in economics to think about how you

measure well-being. And the Prime Minister has pushed for that. I do

not think he will like the answers, because we have the first set of

data and what we have seen since 2011 is that well-being and

happiness has fallen a lot. The evidence is that. A fundamental

point for an economist, I disagree with everything you have said. The

economy is not like a household. It would be like a household if each

person in the back of their garden had a central bank that could print,

and their own exchange rate. So that is not the position we are in.

The central bank and these conditions. The question to ask is,

how do you ease the position where small firms can't get loans? We

have to fix that somehow. Although we have heard is that this cannot

be fixed. There is a fix. You have to go to stimulus. Somehow, we have

to start moving money to small businesses. I thought his idea was

a really good idea about helping small firms. We agree on that, and

I agree that one of the things we need to do is to get banks lending

more. There is money out there. They do have it. That is why we set

up the funding for lending scheme, precisely to try to unblock that.

It is not working. It has been going for several months now. The

problem that small firms find is that it is not those that can

already get the money. They have the benefit of that scheme. It is

the successful, profitable firms who cannot get access to credit at

the moment, and that funding for lending scheme, at the moment, is

not working for them. Is it a matter of regret that the Bank of

England was given independence? Because if it had not got

independence, people like you could actually now be deciding the

policies, were used in at the Bank of England. Instead, the Bank of

England goes off on its own. actually think the Treasury would

have probably cut rates earlier in 2008 than the Bank of England did.

Overall, the Treasury might well have done a better job than the

Bank of England actually did. person in the third row. As soon as

Damian was asked about the Government, working on economic

policy, if he backed them up. It would be really good if for once

politicians did not just stick with their party. And when David said

that Jane is not an economist, David Blanchflower is and I would

advise you to listen to him because he knows what he's talking about.

Just defending all the schemes, as Chuka said, the Shadow Health

Secretary, it is telling you that the scheme is not working.

problem with listening to economists is that if you have

three of them in a room, you have four opinions. You have to pick the

economists that you listen to. The two economic measures by which

governments are judged our inflation and unemployment.

Inflation is half the level it was a year ago, and unemployment has

been falling for seven months in a role. So on the big, serious

economic measures, things are getting better. Of course, things

have been tough and we are nowhere near out of woods, but on the basic

measures, the economy is healing, getting better. I insist on

responding to that lady. All right. But then I insist on moving on.

asked an important question about the issue of growth, and she is

absolutely right. Growth for the sake of growth could be devastating

for the planet. But if you actually want, for example, to conserve the

South Downs and you live close to them, if you want to make sure the

ash trees are going to be saved, if you want to make sure that animals

survive and species survive, and if you want to make sure you bring in

new ways of making energy which don't destroy its large stretches

of countryside, you have to get money to do it with. And that money,

it is not a question of no growth, or growth. It is a question of what

growth is for. You decide on the objectives of saving the planet,

you can use the money usefully in that direction, and that is the

A question from David Fisher. the Conservative party overreact

when withdrawing the party whip from Nadine Dorries? Jane Moore?

don't think they overreacted at all. I like Dorries dofrplt I've always

been a fan. I'm in favour -- I like Nadine Dorries. I've always been a

fan. I'm in favour of reducing the abortion limit to 20 weeks. She's

led a very real life. I like the fact she's quite outspoken. I like

the fact she's been a bit of a thorn in the side of David Cameron

et al. But I think she's absolutely shot herself in the foot with this.

A serving MP who is paid for by the taxpayer, to represent their

constituents in the House of Commons has no place slathering sun

cream on themselves in Australia. APPLAUSE It is not the sun cream,

it is eatsing all those disgusting raw animals, testicles from

crocodiles and things like. That think people will be voting for her

to do it. Is it because she said I think Cameron and Osborne are two

posh boys who don't know the price of milk but are two arrogant posh

pois who show no remorse... That why she was suspended? I'm sure

they were running their hands with glee. I'm sure there is an element

of that as well, but you can't blame, it is totally her decision

to go to Australia. Any of us here, if we suddenly upped sticks and

went off to Australia for five weeks without telling our employers,

we would all be suspended. It is ridiculous. Shirley Williams?

agree with almost every word. It is right, constituents have a right to

expect their MP to be around. That's what you are paid for. When

Nadine Dorries appears in Australia and she is no doubt fed a diet of

shall we say unmentionable things about kangaroos, I would want a lot

more than �14,000 to swallow that! APPLAUSE I think the thing that

Nadine has done is a very good idea, going out to Australia, to show a

different light to MPs. I think MPs are too much shown in suits. This

shows MPs in another light and doesn't just show them in the House

of Commons. Even though they might be working with celebrities, I

think it is a great thing for MPs to be shown in a different light.

OK. Damian Green, this programme is being watched by just under 3

million people. If you went off to Australia into the jungle, 11.5

million people would see you. There's a gap between always

appearing in a suit, I take the point about MPs, Chuka Umunna and I

are wearing suits. You don't have to wear a suit. There's a spectrum,

which starts in wearing a suit, and the other end is eating kangaroo's

testicles in Australia with a pile of Z list celebrities. Somewhere on

that spectrum MPs might feel comfortable. I'm tempted to say

that, like my colleague Eric Pickles, I will be struggling to

cope without Nadine for a month but I will be voting loyally for her

every week to stay there and continue... APPLAUSE Hi. My point

is I agree with Jane Moore. I look at Nadine as an employee. If one of

my employees suddenly appeared working for someone else with no

notice, they would be suspended from their job straight away.

That's the main issue here. Does she work for the Conservative Party

or her constituents? I don't think they have overreacted. The clue is

in the title. The show is called I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of

Here!. No you're not, Nadine. You are a publicly... APPLAUSE You are

an elected politician. We each represent in the region of around

100,000 people. I could not look one of my constituents in the face

and justify swanning off, eating insects on the other side of the

world in a jungle and saying that's what I'm going to spend the week

doing rather than representing you, which is what you elected me to do.

What we do is a sacred thing. I'm really angry with Nadine. We need

to rehabilitate what I think is a noble occupation. I will say this

about most members in the House of Commons. I may defer from people if

they are in another party, but most people are there to improve the

world. They've got a subjective view of, that but that doesn't

matter. This brings what we do into disrepute. That's why I'm so

annoyed with her for doing this. Why? It's mad. APPLAUSE

I wanted to just mention the fact that the hypocrisy of Nadine

Dorries, because she said when Sally Bercow, the wife of the

leader of the Commons, she said that it is bringing the House of

Commons into disrepute. Secondly, the fact that if she is going out

for a month, all her money she's getting as a salary she should be

either returning that or donating that to charity. OK. I wonder if

she's there long enough she might claim it as her second home.

APPLAUSE David Blanchflower? I'm a Labour economist and I think it is

very interesting that politicians say that, but they've all got a

full-time job and so has she. Lots of people in this country will be

pleased to have an additional part time job, unemployed actors and all

sorts of people. We've got a million unemployed people in this

country. 250,000 of those have been unemployed for a year. Presumably a

trip to Australia eating ants will be good for them. We've seen

employment falling in this country in the last three months so any job

is a jewel. I don't think she deserves it and many people in the

country would be better to get it. I think it's a disgrace. We go on.

Martin White. Would money be better spent on policing rather than the

cost of the Police Commissioner elections or the appointed

Commissioners' salaries? APPLAUSE The elections are coming up and

expected to cost �75 million. The people who become commissioners

when elected are being paid �65,000 and �100,000. Chuka Umunna.

didn't want these police commission ers in the first place. That's

money that could be much better spent entering we keep our police

numbers up. Unfortunately what we've seen under this Government is

police numbers fall by over 6,500. Up to this point in the Parliament,

15,000 are likely to go by the end of this Parliament. I think that's

where people want the resource to go. So you think it's a net

increase in cost having Police Commissioners? Well, tinge money

could be better spent on the front line. If it is available, you will

be much better spending it on the front line. We have seen crime fall.

It has been on a downward trajectory for some time. But

despite that, I've seen in some measures in the area I represent

that crime has gone down, but visibility, having police on the

streets, is something that really matters to people. Soic to - so I

think to a lot of people this is a crazy proposal. What I think is a

problem is the shambolic way in which these elections are being

cuttinged. There is no need to be doing these elections in November

when it is cold, when it is dark. I am really worried about turnout,

when they could have done this in May. There is another problem that

the Electoral Commission have urgently taken up the process of

these elections with the Home Office, because very few people

seem to know who their candidates are. If you are going to have an

election, at least run it properly. APPLAUSE Damian Green, would the

money be better spent on policing rather than paying for elections

and appointing commissioners and paying them a salary? The money

doesn't come out of the policing budget, so I can happily assure

people that Where does it come from? From other parts of the Home

Office. But hang on. Let's be clear. It is money that, as the Minister

in charge of policing you couldn't say I would rather have that money

for policemen on the beat than have it spent on politician

commissioners? The decision about the policemen on the beat is made

by Chief Constables. Everyone assumes these Police Commissioners

come out of nowhere and are going to cost salaries. You already have

organisations that are meant to be overseize the police. Are they

paid? Yes. They are called police authorities. Are they paid �100,000

a year? In the West Midlands, I've heard this question asked of the

Police Commissioner candidates who are going to be paid �100,000. The

expenses alone of the 17 -strong Police Authority are nearer

�200,000. So you are saying they are making a net saving? We should

do because the Police Commissioners, I've had candidates say to me that

they are shocked to discover that the Police Authority staff are 14

or 15 strong. They don't necessarily want that. You are

saying that they are going to save money by having these

commissioners? They should do. should do or they will? This is the

point about democracy. You will all elect a Police Commissioner and you

can then... Well, you've got the chance to. If you don't vote you

can't complain afterwards. In all elections people should vote.

are you doing it now? fascinated that people seem not to

want democracy. You have the choice of selecting can be. You can hold

them to account. If they waste money you can chuck them out after

four years. Why not do it in May? How can people say... Can I deal

with the first point. That it works perfectly well now. One at a time

please. In the middle of everything we've been discussing this evening

about things that have happened in the past with the North Wales

Police, we've seen the Hillsborough inquiry where it appears there's

been a huge cover-up, electing people who are responsible to the

must be, who can shine a light on the individual police forces seems

to me a significant step forward not just for democracy but for

improving the way we do policing in this country for a along time to

come. If we always had democracy in this area nobody would say please

take away from us the choice. APPLAUSE Alright. Many people with

their hands occupy. The man behind the woman who spoke just now.

don't think it is an economic issue. The money is just too small to talk

about. The real issue is why are we putting somebody with a white

collar on in a situation that's quite powerful running a uniformed

operation? Does it not look rather like the NHS a few years ago when

NHS managers were employed and the mess that was made then? That was a

farce and I think this non- democratic election of PCCs will

turn out to be in four years' time an American idea that's been

imported over here to be an outright failure. APPLAUSE

When you say non-democratic, do you think not enough people will vote

for it? Exactly. The mainly issues, I read about the issues that the

candidates are going to bring up. I think there were 30 mentions of

alcohol in the way they should be voted in. When in fact... Sorry, I

am completely lost now. It is non- democratic, because there won't be

the turnout. What's this mention of alcohol? The reason... Send me a

bottle of whisky and vote for me? No, let me speak. The mention of

alcohol in terms of their interview tech Noakes was mentioned 30 times

in common words when 40% of the crime in this country is committed

through alcohol consumption. I see what you mean. I wanted to say, our

family has got three polling cards on our kitchen table. I'm not aware

what I'm being asked to vote for. I think the money needs to go to the

Inspector at Bexhill plaifplgts maybe she can spend it on active

policing. -- Bexhill police station. I just think it is another layer of

bureaucracy. I think it politicises the police, which I think is wrong.

Yes the police have made many mistakes over the years, but it's a

vast, vast institution and they are going to make mistakes. I think

what you should have done is just improved the way that police

authorities were run. This week alone I read a figure that

something like last year 1,800 offenders, sex offenders, were let

off with cautions because the police are dispensing summary

justice on the streets. Is that for monetary reasons that they are not

going to court, do we know? It seems to me that money is not

getting... What? Sorry, I thought No, it was not for monetary reasons.

You are illustrating what you might want a police commissioner for. If

you do not want that sort of thing done by your police force, now you

have somebody democratically- elected who can stop it happening.

What you could do is you could have the Government say to the police,

we want these people taken to court because that is the letter of the

law. You are democratically-elected. You make the decisions about how

much funding goes to the police. Police numbers are being cut

because of decisions you have made. You need to take responsibility for

that, instead of trying to push it off. I think were reason why it

seemed a bright idea to have all of these police commissioners was

simply to please and pandered to the hangar and flog them vote. You

thought the people who could be bothered to vote would be voting

for more severe, more harsh policing, banging people up,

pandering to that element. It is a waste of money. Nobody can really

be engaged in it because we don't know who the candidates are and

what difference it would make. You need to take responsibility for

policing. You are the Police Minister. The man expresses exactly

what I am worried about. I spent many years of my life in America

and I think you do get police commissioners who played to the

hangar and flog them Brigade, who will play to the hang them up and

get rid of them Brigade. There is a danger of that, that you get an

attempt to try to panic people into saying, vote for me and I will end

crime. Crime rates in America are substantially higher than here.

What I am worried about, and here I have some respect for what Damian

Green said, is that there have been recent cases where the police have

not behaved in a trustworthy manner. Hillsborough is one example of that,

and maybe North Wales will prove another. That means we need a more

effective system of investigating the police, and we have to be

tougher about their standards. And if I may be sexist for a moment, we

need more women police, particularly dealing with domestic

violence and things like that, who will actually be able to understand

what it is like to be a child or a woman being abused. Under police

commissioner would help? I think a stronger police authority. It is

not obvious that the Government has demonstrated that the proposal they

are going to put in place is actually going to work. It seems

that turnout is going to be crucial. We worry about people going on

strike and we say that turnout in strikes is very low. What if the

turnout here is even lower, so the legitimacy of a police commissioner

is one thing. And for somebody who last week voted for a sheriff, in

the US, many small towns vote for a sheriff. But what happened there

was that you voted for Mitt Romney in your ticket and further down you

voted for a sheriff. It turned out the turnout for voting for sheriff

was 70%. We only had one choice, but still. We also voted for the

dog catcher. But it seems the legitimacy of the turnout is

important. The other thing in the US is that in general the votes for

sheriffs are in small towns, where people go to a meeting and know the

person. They do not vote for the sheriff in Boston, New York and

Washington DC. There are not demonstrated benefits to that and I

don't think the Government to this point has demonstrated them. This

looks like politics rather than practical application. If we are

going to get a police commissioner, I would ask that he gives serious

consideration to bringing back the bobby on the beat. I got fined for

driving my car at 36 mph, but when my car was broken into, windows

smashed and the contents taken, I got a crime number with not a

policeman in sight. Bring back the bobbies on the beat. Jane made a

point that is often made, about a new level of bureaucracy. Actually,

it replaces a level of bureaucracy. The turnout for the police

authorities, the bureaucracy that is already there, is zero. Elected

politicians are better than appointed politicians. If you want

to know about the candidates, you can go to the website. I am

surprised that he is not urging people to vote. He is intent on

doing the elections, so vote, but obviously for the Labour candidate.

Labour candidate, Tory candidate. Since you are concerned citizens

who have come to Question Time, hands up who is going to vote on

November 15th. That is about half, isn't it? Good. We only have time

for one question. What can British politicians learn from the recent

victory of Barack Obama? What can British politicians learn from

Barack Obama's victory? Barack Obama was elected by an

overwhelming majority of women, and men and women of colour. He would

have lost if the election had been only male American white men. It is

about time our politicians started taking much more seriously women

and men and women of colour. It is about time. I agree with Shirley on

the coalition building.. I think two other things. If you are going

to go around saying we are in it together, you need policies which

demonstrate that. In the US, he refused to go ahead with George

Bush's tax cuts for wealthy people. In this country, we have seen the

Government give people earning over �1 million a tax break. And if you

are going to have an economic policy, make sure it works. He has

seen the economy grow 3% since his government came into power. This

one has grown by 0.6%. That tells you something. Damian Green, what

do you learn from it, having heard that? I do not agree with his

economic analysis. I actually agree with a lot of what Shirley said. I

draw wanting specific to my party, that incumbents can win if they are

seen to be cleaning up the problems they inherited. And it is

absolutely the case that David Cameron has, ever since he became

leader, taken on some of the established views within the Tory

party, precisely to make us reach out beyond our comfort zone, to

engage with ethnic minorities, get more women MPs and so on. There is

always more to do but absolutely, you only win elections in first

past the post systems if you reach beyond your base. You think that is

what the Republicans failed to do? I think so. I would think the

Republican Party should take note of what happened. They keep saying

they are a party of inclusion. When you look at the demographics, look

at the convention and the likes, you realise they are not.

Minorities, Hispanics, Latin Americans and so forth are very few

and far between. So what lesson for this country's politicians? Well,

if you are looking at the Conservative Party, if they want to

be considered the party of inclusion, they need to do the very

same thing. Cabinet wise and otherwise.

My understanding is that the Hispanic vote counted for 24

million Americans, of which 78% was for Obama. Are we saying, therefore,

that unless you are female or black, therefore you are only there to

attract a certain minority or raise certain people? Is it not based on

policy, irrespective of colour, creed, race? It makes no difference.

You vote for the party for what they can do, not because they

happen to be black, white or any other colour. Yes, but if your

party excludes people like yourself, you should ask whether your party

genuinely reflects the democratic opinion of society. You have to

remember it was very close and you can slice up where the vote came

from. If you look at the whole of America, it was nearly 50-50.

Hispanics used to vote for George Bush. I voted in that election. I

think there are important things for the Government here to think

about. Firstly, it is hard, clearly, for an incumbent to get re-elected

in a recession. But in the case of Barack Obama, he was defending a

large majority, which is quite different to what you have here.

This is the first thing. Second, the difference in the US is not, I

disagree with Shirley, but the level of unemployment is what

matters. What Barack Obama had was 13 consecutive quarters of GDP

growth and 32 months in a row of employment increase. The last thing

is that it seems this is a great victory for science over spins. I

know you said it was close, but the scientists, the pollsters who sat

and looked at what is coming called it right. And it was really over by

the end of last week. I know the BBC did a grand job, but the

bookies paid out last Friday. There is betting sites had called it. The

scientists call it, and the spin guys missed it. You make it sound

as if there was no need to vote at all. I did hear that all the money

that was spent in Ohio actually changed one person's mind, and it

I think it was a case of letting somebody finish what they had

started, which women particularly are always very keen on. Would you

like to elaborate on that, Jane! You are at liberty to start the

sentence again! I thought Bexhill was such a nice place! Not marquee.

It is to let President Obama finish what he started. He has just got

going. Things are happening with employment. To then bring in

somebody else again and put it back to square one, no. Also, in a way,

the lessons for our Government to learn is that it is what New Labour

started in this country before it went wrong. It is the thing that we

do want to look after the vulnerable, to look after the less

well-off. But I think the lessons to be learned now up are, do not

create a client state out of that. You have to identify who are the

genuinely poor and dispossessed, and make sure that everybody else

who can get out to work and contributes. Because you have had

John Mann not for the whole programme. One thing we have

learned from the American presidential election is that the

Americans are passionate about their politics. We are not in this

country. There is far too much apathy because we are bored with

I have to leave it to next week's panel to excite you. Our time is up.

We will be in Corby next week, because there is a by-election in

Corby. We have Chris Grayling, Stella Creasey, Nigel Farage and

the boss of the Saatchi advert agency. The week after that, we

will be in the Houses of Parliament. We went last year in Westminster

Hall, which is a terrific setting. If you want to come to either of

those programmes, to put questions to the panel, you can see the