:00:07. > :00:13.Good evening from London start of a new series. Our audience
:00:13. > :00:22.are here ready to question and argue with our panel. Welcome to Question
:00:23. > :00:27.Time. As always, a big welcome to our
:00:27. > :00:32.audience, a cross-section of political opinion in Britain, and to
:00:32. > :00:36.our panel, International development Secretary Justine Greening,
:00:36. > :00:41.Labour's shadow business secretary, Chuka Umunna, Green party MP
:00:41. > :00:45.Caroline Lucas, The Times columnist David Aaronovitch, and a law
:00:45. > :00:48.professor and former state department adviser under George W
:00:48. > :01:07.Bush, Colleen Graffy. And, of course, the questions come
:01:07. > :01:13.from the audience who are here to debate with the panel. They do not
:01:13. > :01:18.come from us. The first one comes from Jane Eagles. Has written
:01:18. > :01:26.shirked its global responsibility by a link to militarily intervene in
:01:26. > :01:34.Syria? -- Britain. Yes, I think it has. This civil war in Syria started
:01:34. > :01:37.in March 2011 with demonstrations by Democrats that were shot upon by the
:01:37. > :01:43.Syrian government of Assad. They took up arms. At that stage there
:01:43. > :01:47.was no talk of Al-Qaeda. There has been a gradual decline since then
:01:47. > :01:51.into civil war, as a result of nobody doing anything about it.
:01:51. > :01:55.100,000 people have died. Three United Nations Security Council
:01:55. > :01:59.resolutions condemning Syria have been vetoed by China and Russia.
:01:59. > :02:04.Russia has said it will be to further UN resolutions. And
:02:04. > :02:08.President Obama, who has not been speedy to act, said there was a red
:02:08. > :02:11.line, the use of chemical weapons. On August 21st, that was breached in
:02:11. > :02:16.the most dramatic way and 1500 On August 21st, that was breached in
:02:16. > :02:21.people lost their lives. And we know it. And yet the position that we
:02:22. > :02:25.ended up in at the British Parliament was that we could not
:02:25. > :02:27.agree about doing anything about it. We could not agree to
:02:27. > :02:33.agree about doing anything about it. America if it did anything about it.
:02:33. > :02:37.And in so far as the Syrians are now saying they are now prepared to join
:02:37. > :02:39.the chemical weapons Convention and to disarm of their chemical weapons,
:02:39. > :02:41.the chemical weapons Convention and that has only been in the sponsored
:02:41. > :02:45.the chemical weapons Convention and to the threat of military action, of
:02:45. > :02:50.which this country was not repaired to be a partner. So Parliament and
:02:50. > :02:55.MPs should have ignored what appears to be the will of the British
:02:55. > :02:58.people? Yes. One of the things that Parliament is for is to make
:02:58. > :03:05.decisions about such matters. Caroline Lucas. It is a shame that
:03:05. > :03:09.global responsibility is defined in terms of military engagement. The
:03:09. > :03:14.idea that global responsibility only means lobbying missiles from one end
:03:14. > :03:24.of the world to the other, to my mind, does not stack up. Absolutely,
:03:24. > :03:27.just like everybody here, everybody around the country would have
:03:27. > :03:32.deplored the use of chemical weapons. That goes without saying.
:03:32. > :03:35.The images that we saw were etched on our minds. But the question in
:03:35. > :03:38.front of Parliament and in front of all of us was, do we have evidence
:03:39. > :03:42.that a military response will make matters better, or is there a very
:03:42. > :03:49.that a military response will make real risk that it could escalate
:03:49. > :03:53.things further? So it was a matter of practicality, not principle? If
:03:53. > :03:56.somebody could have persuaded me that we could have ended the
:03:56. > :03:59.suffering, would not have had a backlash, could have stopped the use
:03:59. > :04:02.of chemical weapons and stop violence in the Middle East through
:04:02. > :04:06.doing that, that would be a compelling argument, but none of
:04:06. > :04:10.that seemed to be the case. To the contrary, there was a lot of
:04:10. > :04:11.evidence, coming from quite distinguished military people,
:04:11. > :04:15.saying this area is a powder keg, distinguished military people,
:04:15. > :04:17.that the idea of putting a set of missiles there and not knowing what
:04:17. > :04:21.the impact could the could missiles there and not knowing what
:04:21. > :04:23.things a lot worse. I hope if we have learned anything over the
:04:23. > :04:29.things a lot worse. I hope if we 20 years from Iraq and Afghanistan,
:04:29. > :04:32.it is that a military response, firing off missiles to the Middle
:04:32. > :04:43.East, often does not bring about the peace that we might hope it would.
:04:43. > :04:46.Has a country like Australia shirked international responsibility, or
:04:46. > :04:51.Canada, Germany, Sweden, good liberal countries, but they do not
:04:51. > :04:55.feel the need, as Caroline was saying, to send bombs to a Middle
:04:55. > :04:57.Eastern country. I think we have done our bit in the Security Council
:04:57. > :05:03.and we should respect international law, because that may save more
:05:03. > :05:11.lives going far into the future. Do you agree? The reason the Prime
:05:11. > :05:14.Minister and the United States wanted to take military action was
:05:14. > :05:19.because international law had been broken. There is a long-standing
:05:19. > :05:24.lawn chemical weapons and Assad had breached that, brutally. At the end
:05:24. > :05:28.of the day, we are a democracy. We had a debate in Parliament,
:05:28. > :05:32.Parliament expressed its will, and ultimately, that is the most
:05:32. > :05:38.important thing. We, as a government, respect that, so we will
:05:38. > :05:42.not be part of that military action. Parliament respects it, except for
:05:42. > :05:46.you. You did not vote. I am not going to dress it up into anything
:05:46. > :05:54.that it is not. I went to Parliament fully intending to vote. It was not
:05:54. > :05:58.a deliberate mistake? No.What about the issue of runcible, which David
:05:59. > :06:02.Aaronovitch and Caroline Lucas were talking about? Do you believe we
:06:02. > :06:08.should have done it, even though the public, or parliament, thought not?
:06:08. > :06:13.Was the Prime Minister right? Yes. There was an international law that
:06:13. > :06:16.was breached. We cannot turn a blind eye to that. I do not
:06:16. > :06:20.was breached. We cannot turn a blind would have seen the steps now
:06:20. > :06:23.possibly being taken by Syria, around being prepared to put
:06:23. > :06:26.chemical weapons out of harms way, if we had not raised
:06:26. > :06:31.chemical weapons out of harms way, way that we did. The issue, when we
:06:31. > :06:35.were first recalled from recess, everybody expected, and indeed all
:06:35. > :06:39.of the reporting was that the motion in front of us would have been about
:06:39. > :06:43.taking military action very quickly. So there would have been no time for
:06:43. > :06:46.the diplomatic space that has been allowed to open up. The rewriting of
:06:46. > :06:52.history by the Conservative party needs to be called out. This was not
:06:52. > :06:54.a threat of military action to happen after leaving a space of
:06:55. > :06:59.time. It was military action to happen pretty soon, which was why we
:06:59. > :07:03.were recalled from Parliament. There is a fantasy at the back of this,
:07:03. > :07:07.which is the idea that somehow or other Assad has said he will get rid
:07:07. > :07:10.of chemical weapons as a response to you not taking a vote in the House
:07:10. > :07:18.of Commons. It is an absolute fantasy. If the parliament, and
:07:18. > :07:22.after all, the resolution that was in front of the Commons was actually
:07:22. > :07:25.a waiting resolution on the production of evidence. At that
:07:25. > :07:29.point, you might well have had the Russian initiative about chemical
:07:29. > :07:35.weapons then and there, if they were serious about it. You seem to be
:07:35. > :07:40.suggesting, in a funny way, that the Russians and Syrians are not serious
:07:40. > :07:45.about it. That is, essentially, in essence, the indication of what you
:07:45. > :07:48.are saying. Caroline is right about the rewriting of history, because we
:07:48. > :07:52.were being asked to sanction military action, basically a blank
:07:52. > :07:56.cheque to take military action, which everybody knows was planned
:07:56. > :07:59.for the weekend after the Thursday vote, and that would have happened
:07:59. > :08:01.in advance of Assad agreeing to do anything we are seeing him agreeing
:08:01. > :08:07.to this week. That was not the anything we are seeing him agreeing
:08:07. > :08:15.motion in front of you. We were being asked to go along and sanction
:08:15. > :08:20.military action in advance of us being provided with any legal basis
:08:20. > :08:23.for military action proceeding, in advance of the weapons inspectors
:08:23. > :08:32.never mind reporting that actually even leaving the Syria. That is not
:08:32. > :08:37.true. The issue here, and we have learned, I suppose, from history, is
:08:37. > :08:39.that before you act, you must make sure you actually understand the
:08:39. > :08:44.evidence and go through a proper process, and you at least exhaust
:08:44. > :08:47.the process at the UN. That had not happened at the point that we were
:08:47. > :08:55.being asked to sanction military action. To go there to the question
:08:55. > :09:05.asked, have we shirked global responsibility in not patching in a
:09:05. > :09:10.military way -- not acting. I don't think so, because we have seen a
:09:10. > :09:14.potential solution put on the table which does not involve military
:09:14. > :09:18.action. It is not just an issue of the ongoing horrendous death and
:09:18. > :09:22.destruction we are seeing. It goes without saying that the use of
:09:22. > :09:27.chemical weapons is completely and utterly inexcusable. But we have a
:09:27. > :09:31.mass humanitarian crisis, with over 2 million people displaced. Bombs
:09:31. > :09:37.are not going to necessarily solve that issue. In a sense, you are --
:09:37. > :09:43.you admire what the Russian president is doing? I don't think it
:09:43. > :09:47.is a question of admiring anybody. It is a question of how to reach a
:09:47. > :09:52.democratic, political and sustainable solution to this ongoing
:09:52. > :09:57.civil war. It is about stopping people being victims of chemical
:09:57. > :10:03.weapons. Of course. There is no disagreement on this panel about
:10:03. > :10:06.that. Colleen Graffy.Let me pull it back a little bit, talking about
:10:06. > :10:09.that. Colleen Graffy.Let me pull it global responsibility. Our starting
:10:09. > :10:13.point is that the United Nations Security Council is supposed to
:10:13. > :10:15.identify threats to peace and then do something about it. We are good
:10:15. > :10:18.at identifying threats to peace and do something about it. We are good
:10:18. > :10:23.not very good at doing something about it. We look at history, and we
:10:23. > :10:29.see when Mussolini invaded Abyssinia, the league of nations
:10:29. > :10:33.voted 54-0 that this was contrary to our peace and security, but they did
:10:33. > :10:37.not have the political will to do something about it. Now, we are
:10:37. > :10:40.faced with Russia and China not wanting to be part of the
:10:40. > :10:45.international community in identifying these threats to peace.
:10:45. > :10:48.Two years ago, as David was pointing out, we have been trying to put
:10:48. > :10:52.through resolutions to the Security Council and it has not been
:10:52. > :10:56.possible. Parliament aside, it has been this brinkmanship of a threat
:10:56. > :11:02.of use of force that has actually brought Putin to put pressure on his
:11:02. > :11:05.ally, Assad, in order for them to say that they will be forthcoming
:11:05. > :11:12.with the chemical weapons they said they did not have. Do you think that
:11:12. > :11:13.is a good, sound move? Was Obama right to say America was not the
:11:13. > :11:18.world's release man, because some right to say America was not the
:11:18. > :11:26.people think America has been the world's police man? There have been
:11:26. > :11:30.missteps and miscommunication, but we are where we are. If this is not
:11:30. > :11:34.a delaying tactic I Syria and the Russians, it would be excellent to
:11:34. > :11:37.find a way of getting hold of these chemical weapons, and most
:11:37. > :11:40.find a way of getting hold of these importantly also having Syria sign
:11:40. > :11:46.the chemical weapons Convention, because it will then hold them to
:11:46. > :11:53.account. Had action taken place, do you think we would see what we are
:11:53. > :11:57.seeing now happen? It would not have happened unless we had the threat of
:11:57. > :12:02.use of force, I am sorry to say. And it did not have to be that way.
:12:02. > :12:06.Though the first point that was made about the red line being crossed
:12:06. > :12:09.with the use of chemical weapons, was the line not crossed the day
:12:09. > :12:18.that the first innocent civilians died? Without chemical weapons being
:12:18. > :12:25.used, do you mean? Why is it OK to kill with bombs and guns? It is not
:12:25. > :12:29.OK, but we try to humanise warfare, as odd as that sounds, and chemical
:12:29. > :12:37.weapons is one of those threshold points that countries can agree on.
:12:37. > :12:42.The man with the red pullover. This crisis has been going on for such a
:12:42. > :12:47.long time with 100,000 dead. We are talking about red line is being
:12:47. > :12:51.crossed. It was crossed ages ago. Is it not just about having a return on
:12:51. > :12:56.investment? We talk about learning from Iraq and Libya. It seems like
:12:56. > :13:00.they have been pondering for years. Are we going to get anything out of
:13:00. > :13:05.it? In terms of waiting for a UN resolution, Russia is already
:13:06. > :13:10.selling arms to the regime, and they have a financial interest in this.
:13:10. > :13:14.It seems like slowly trickling money into the rebels is prolonging this,
:13:14. > :13:19.rather than taking it to an end. What is your view rush to mark that
:13:19. > :13:29.America, France, Britain should have intervened military? I think the
:13:29. > :13:32.West should intervene. They intervened in Libya couple of months
:13:32. > :13:36.into the uprising. This has been going on for years. Why not
:13:36. > :13:46.intervene now when there are so many people dying on both sides? I want
:13:46. > :13:49.to come back to the idea that because we are not in favour of a
:13:49. > :13:52.military response we are doing nothing. We need to be straining
:13:52. > :13:56.every sinew on the diplomatic front, giving resources for
:13:56. > :13:59.refugees, and a more consistent approach to foreign policy, because
:13:59. > :14:02.I cannot help feeling frustrated about some of the inconsistency. We
:14:02. > :14:05.I cannot help feeling frustrated have not talked about the use of
:14:05. > :14:08.things like white phosphorus, depleted uranium. If you are on the
:14:08. > :14:14.other end of those, they are hideous as well, and were used recently by
:14:14. > :14:16.the US and Israel. We are not condemning that, so can we have some
:14:16. > :14:34.consistency? If you are not consistent, that is
:14:34. > :14:39.what makes people so angry. Chemical weapons are covered by a clear
:14:39. > :14:46.convention. You said, "We should strain every diplomatic sinew."
:14:46. > :14:51.Which do you think we have left unstrained? We have managed to get
:14:51. > :14:56.people around a table. The Russians now - because this is a double proxy
:14:56. > :15:01.war - you have the Russians, the US, Iran and Saudi. Because we have a
:15:01. > :15:06.diplomatic space - I come back to what Chuka Umunna said. We didn't go
:15:06. > :15:08.down the road that Parliament persuaded us to go down... You think
:15:08. > :15:11.down the road that Parliament the Russians said, "This is
:15:11. > :15:16.interesting. What a lovely moment. The British have been so nice in
:15:16. > :15:22.delaying any vote, we think this is the appropriate moment..." You are
:15:22. > :15:29.being ridiculous. That argument is ridiculous. David Aaronovitch, what
:15:29. > :15:36.would your policy be? I was in favour of implementing a no-fly zone
:15:36. > :15:41.back in 2011 to strengthen the pro-democracy rebels because we
:15:41. > :15:44.could see what would happen if you didn't, arms strengthening would
:15:44. > :15:50.happen to the Islamist rebels in Syria. How would that affect the use
:15:50. > :15:56.of chemical weapons? It might not have prevented it. I think in order
:15:56. > :16:02.to enforce a no-fly zone, it probably would have been necessary
:16:02. > :16:06.to take out Assad's air force. What would you want to see happen now?
:16:06. > :16:11.What would you like to have seen happened last week? I would like to
:16:11. > :16:14.see a punishment of Assad's military, significant enough to tell
:16:14. > :16:16.see a punishment of Assad's anyone else who wants to use
:16:16. > :16:18.see a punishment of Assad's chemical weapons that that is what
:16:18. > :16:24.they would face if they did. You wouldn't wait for the UN before you
:16:24. > :16:25.did that? It is legal.It is not. The responsibility to protect
:16:25. > :16:29.requires a UN Security Council The responsibility to protect
:16:29. > :16:33.agreement. We don't have that. Let me go to the audience. The man
:16:33. > :16:43.there? I was in the Public Gallery on the day of the vote and I
:16:43. > :16:46.listened to MPs for five hours. Then I watched the news post the vote. I
:16:47. > :16:50.couldn't understand why David Cameron said what he said. It wasn't
:16:50. > :16:55.the mood of the House. The mood of the House was, "We need time."
:16:55. > :16:59.No-one had taken military options off the table. The Labour Party,
:16:59. > :17:03.Caroline and others were just calling for space. Whether it's
:17:03. > :17:09.through luck - I think it has been partly through luck with Putin and
:17:09. > :17:15.Obama acting subsequent to that. The diplomatic space has been allowed.
:17:15. > :17:19.Other channels have been explored. I think that although the policy in
:17:19. > :17:23.the first instance may not have been the correct one, it was David
:17:23. > :17:28.Cameron's response which I found very odd. He put it off the table.
:17:28. > :17:34.No-one in that House had put it off the table completely including the
:17:34. > :17:39.most anti-war of the MPs in there, Caroline included. Why did David
:17:39. > :17:44.Cameron say the issue is a dead issue? The motion was all about
:17:44. > :17:48.giving a bit of space. It wasn't a motion about immediately taking
:17:48. > :17:52.military action. The reason we can't get involved in military action is
:17:52. > :17:57.because Parliament didn't vote to give us a space to keep that option
:17:57. > :18:01.on the table. What he is saying is, you didn't have to have the Prime
:18:01. > :18:07.Minister saying, "I get it" and that's it? Chuka Umunna's party
:18:07. > :18:11.would have voted against it. No, we wouldn't. Let's deal with David
:18:11. > :18:14.Cameron's party. Are you saying there is no circumstance in which
:18:14. > :18:18.the Prime Minister could go back to the House of Commons now, despite a
:18:18. > :18:22.vote, and say, "The situation has changed." Are you saying that is
:18:22. > :18:27.politically impossible for him to do? What we have said unless
:18:27. > :18:31.circumstances change, Parliament has had its debate on this motion and
:18:32. > :18:35.basically said that military action cannot be pursued in relation to
:18:35. > :18:37.this chemical weapons attack so we can't be part of that. You want to
:18:37. > :18:39.this chemical weapons attack so we come back? They only said that based
:18:39. > :18:43.this chemical weapons attack so we on the evidence before the House on
:18:43. > :18:48.the day. They didn't say if things got worse and if more evidence was
:18:48. > :18:52.given, hard evidence, and there was more international support for it,
:18:52. > :18:57.not international support, just your friends, the UN General Assembly
:18:57. > :19:02.support. The mood in the House that day was if it got to it, we would do
:19:03. > :19:07.it. We have not got there yet. Had that vote been passed, the
:19:07. > :19:11.Government would have had to come back to Parliament with the sort of
:19:11. > :19:15.information, additional information before it actually had got the
:19:15. > :19:19.ability to take any military action. This is all about saying in
:19:19. > :19:25.principle can we consider this? What Parliament said was no. That is why
:19:25. > :19:28.this option has come off the table. Parliament said provide us with the
:19:28. > :19:31.evidence, the legal basis and tell us what the plan and the
:19:31. > :19:41.consequences are. We did that.You did not. We were not provided with
:19:41. > :19:46.that. That wasn'ts... It wasn't your subsequent position. What Cameron
:19:46. > :19:49.was facing, however badly he might have handled it, was a situation
:19:49. > :19:52.whereby the Labour Party would almost certainly have voted against
:19:52. > :19:59.any further resolution he brought - he knew it. He knew at least 30 of
:19:59. > :20:03.his backbenchers were unreliable as well. We were very clear that we
:20:03. > :20:09.would consider military action if a certain number of criterias were
:20:09. > :20:13.met. That was that we would be given the evidence and that was that we
:20:13. > :20:17.would be given the plan after any action. We were not provided with
:20:17. > :20:21.those things. That is why we didn't consider military action. At this
:20:21. > :20:23.stage no would you vote for it? If the Prime Minister wanted to bring
:20:23. > :20:25.stage no would you vote for it? If the issue back to the House of
:20:25. > :20:26.stage no would you vote for it? If Commons as a responsible opposition,
:20:26. > :20:30.which has a constitutional duty, of Commons as a responsible opposition,
:20:30. > :20:34.course we would have to consider it. Do you take any account of what
:20:34. > :20:39.President Obama wants and what would happen in Congress? Our number one
:20:40. > :20:43.concern here has been will what we are being asked to do improve the
:20:43. > :20:47.situation of the Syrian people or not? What is in the British national
:20:47. > :20:55.interest? Other considerations... What do you call the British
:20:55. > :21:00.nationalnational ? We have to think what is in our national interest. We
:21:00. > :21:06.have all been... Is it being shocked by what we have seen on the
:21:06. > :21:10.television? Do you think it is in our national interest to support
:21:10. > :21:14.President Obama if he gets approval from Congress to take military
:21:14. > :21:15.action? It is not a question of whether we support President Obama
:21:15. > :21:19.action? It is not a question of or not. It is about doing the right
:21:19. > :21:23.thing. The woman on the right? We are talking about an international
:21:23. > :21:30.law being breached when it comes down to chemical weapons. It was the
:21:30. > :21:36.UK which supplied Assad with chemicals from 2004 to 2010. Those
:21:36. > :21:40.are the chemical weapons which could have possibly been used against the
:21:40. > :21:46.Syrian people. What is the consequence of believing that to be
:21:46. > :21:54.true? I didn't make it up.No, if it is true, how does it affect things?
:21:54. > :21:59.It was the UK which supplied Assad with chemicaweapons and that was a
:21:59. > :22:06.breach at its time. That is incorrect. Chemicals. It was a
:22:06. > :22:11.breach at the time. You, Sir?And the Government did own up to it.
:22:11. > :22:15.You, Sir? We have been sitting on our hands for two years. A red line
:22:16. > :22:19.has been crossed. We are still debating party politics. The UN
:22:19. > :22:29.doesn't work. The time for action is now. You, Sir?What part is the
:22:29. > :22:34.United Nations now to play? We are saying they are redundant. So we are
:22:34. > :22:43.talking about avoiding them and going around them and declaring war
:22:43. > :22:47.ourselves on another nation. You shouldn't seek change in governments
:22:47. > :22:51.purely for its own sake. Can I come back on that? I absolutely agree
:22:51. > :22:55.that one of the lessons for this whole episode is that the UN does
:22:55. > :22:58.need massive reform. The idea that you have five permanent members is
:22:58. > :23:03.like something out of Animal Farm that some countries are more equal
:23:03. > :23:07.than others. It doesn't work. There are mechanisms within the UN, which
:23:07. > :23:10.is something that means that if you had two-thirds of the general
:23:10. > :23:13.membership of the UN agreeing to something, if it were military
:23:13. > :23:17.force, that could happen. So, what we need to do is look at the
:23:17. > :23:22.mechanisms that are still there at the UN, reform the parts that need
:23:22. > :23:30.to be reformed and... We shouldn't forget Mr Churchill's great
:23:30. > :23:34.comments. I don't want to leave this topic but I want to go to a
:23:34. > :23:38.different aspect of it. Busha al-Akraa has a question which I
:23:38. > :23:43.would like to take. Is asking Assad to hand over chemical weapons an
:23:43. > :23:49.invite for him to kill more using conventional weapons? This focus on
:23:49. > :23:53.chemical weapons solely, David Aaronovitch? Allows him to - nobody
:23:53. > :24:08.is talking about the Conventional weapons? The vast majority of the
:24:08. > :24:09.100 -- 100,000 killed were killed by conventional weapons. We know what
:24:10. > :24:14.100 -- 100,000 killed were killed by will be going on all the time while
:24:14. > :24:19.that is happening, which is that his army and air force will continue to
:24:19. > :24:22.flatten rebel-held areas and any areas which don't accede to him.
:24:22. > :24:28.That is what is going to happen anyway. You are right. Colleen
:24:29. > :24:31.Graffy, do you agree? First of all, getting his chemical weapons will be
:24:31. > :24:36.incredibly important. It might be that what has to take place will be
:24:36. > :24:41.somewhat of a ceasefire, maybe there can be some coming around of the
:24:41. > :24:45.table. The difficulty is is how do you have a regime change and can and
:24:45. > :24:51.what is going to come in its place? Do we know who are the moderate
:24:51. > :24:56.rebels that we can support? The right to protect is still an
:24:56. > :25:01.international law that is evolving. So, I think, that is our problem. We
:25:02. > :25:07.feel absolutely frustrated at not being able to do anything, but
:25:07. > :25:13.intervening in a civil war is going to be problematic. It doesn't mean
:25:13. > :25:17.that we cannot find and identify those moderate Syrians who want a
:25:18. > :25:22.secular state. I think we are kidding ourselves to say that it is
:25:22. > :25:30.impossible to do. We can. I think we can. OK. The man in the middle?
:25:30. > :25:34.Every major NGO is saying don't enter with troops on the ground. I
:25:34. > :25:38.work for Oxfam. That is the main thing we are saying. It is not two
:25:38. > :25:41.million displaced - it is five million. It is really important that
:25:41. > :25:46.the UN needs to, as the lady mentioned, the mechanism is in place
:25:46. > :25:53.in the UN, they need to be reformed. What happened last time in Iraq,
:25:53. > :25:57.Britain and America went around, they were walking too slowly. It is
:25:58. > :26:03.two years later... What would you do now? You can't sit about talking
:26:03. > :26:10.about reforming the UN at this stage? No-one has asked him to step
:26:10. > :26:18.down. No-one has told him, "You must stop now or we will enter." I stand
:26:18. > :26:21.between, in the middle working for a charity. I don't want people to be
:26:21. > :26:29.hurt. The decisions that people will make to go in don't - it isn't to do
:26:29. > :26:34.with me. You, Sir?I suspect we should give some credit to Russia in
:26:34. > :26:38.the sense that they have come up with a solution. At least even if it
:26:38. > :26:44.is a starting point. I don't know for certain, but I suspect that -
:26:44. > :26:49.this is to go back to an earlier question - I suspect we haven't
:26:49. > :26:53.engaged with Russia and with China diplomatically. I think this is a
:26:53. > :26:57.great deal... I don't think that is true. This is the first conflict
:26:57. > :27:01.since Vietnam where we have not been able to get a Security Council
:27:01. > :27:07.Resolution on the humanitarian access that is required to help the
:27:07. > :27:12.two million refugees and the four to five million people displaced within
:27:12. > :27:21.Syria. On Rwanda, Kosovo, we were able to get agreement to at least
:27:21. > :27:25.have civilians protected, to have doctors not be targeted. We have not
:27:25. > :27:30.been able to get a resolution on that. Why? The Russians have stood
:27:30. > :27:34.in the way of that and China. Let's not have rose-tinted glasses about
:27:34. > :27:37.the Russians now that they are choosing to enganl politically. They
:27:37. > :27:41.the Russians now that they are could have done -- engage
:27:41. > :27:47.politically. They could have done this months ago. We now need to -
:27:47. > :27:51.you are right - focus on the politics of this because it is going
:27:51. > :27:55.to be a diplomatic solution that solves this civil war. In the
:27:55. > :28:01.meantime, we surely need to put pressure on Russia and China to at
:28:01. > :28:06.least allow humanitarian access and to become a much part of providing
:28:06. > :28:11.the money that we need to help support the millions of people who
:28:11. > :28:17.have been affected by this crisis. Alright. Three million of them now
:28:17. > :28:24.children. You have had your hand up since the beginning. I take pity. So
:28:24. > :28:27.a last point from you, Sir? Alright. In 2011, the Libyan civil war began
:28:27. > :28:32.a last point from you, Sir? Alright. in February. The same war ended in
:28:32. > :28:36.October/November with the death of Colonel Gaddafi. It ended within a
:28:36. > :28:41.October/November with the death of span of ten or 11 months. Every
:28:41. > :28:47.single country condemned the actions of gad gad. They all supported the
:28:47. > :28:53.rebels. They all bombed and targeted Gaddafi. Come to Syria.Why is it
:28:53. > :28:59.the same level of military support is not being provided to the rebels?
:28:59. > :29:03.OK. I will leave that, unless anybody wants to reply? It is a
:29:03. > :29:09.different country. We were able to get a UN security Council Resolution
:29:09. > :29:13.through. China and Russia abstained. Now, because a regime change took
:29:13. > :29:17.place, that is why they are going to veto anything to do with Syria
:29:17. > :29:21.because they don't want to see a regime change there because Putin
:29:21. > :29:24.has billion dollars worth of weapons trade with Syria and a big
:29:24. > :29:44.investment in their energy sector. I am going to move on to another
:29:44. > :30:03.question. You can join in the debate by text or on Twitter. A question
:30:03. > :30:06.now, domestic, Lewis Kershaw. Given that 70% of the public oppose it,
:30:06. > :30:16.should the government privatise the Royal Mail. Chuka Umunna. They
:30:16. > :30:20.should not, and I will tell you why. Royal Mail is doing very well at the
:30:20. > :30:25.moment. It has just announced over the last year £400 million operating
:30:25. > :30:29.profit. What the government is doing, and the government, by the
:30:29. > :30:34.way, has taken on the historic pension liabilities of the Royal
:30:34. > :30:37.Mail, so it has nationalised the debt, if you like, and now it is
:30:37. > :30:41.privatising the profit at the very time that it is beginning to be a
:30:41. > :30:44.really successful business in public ownership. That makes no sense to me
:30:44. > :31:00.whatsoever. So if Labour were to win the
:31:00. > :31:05.election you would reverse the decision? I would not be doing what
:31:05. > :31:11.they are doing now. Just a moment, I am trying to answer the question. We
:31:11. > :31:15.do not know how much they are going to raise from the sale which has
:31:15. > :31:19.been announced today, and so we also have absolutely no idea how much it
:31:19. > :31:24.would cost to buy it back after it is sold. So asking if we would
:31:24. > :31:25.re-nationalise it is asking me to write a blank cheque and I am not
:31:25. > :31:31.re-nationalise it is asking me to prepared to do that. Do you not get
:31:31. > :31:34.the revenue from tax and corporation tax from a successful business? Why
:31:34. > :31:42.does it need to be owned by the state? Let me give you two reasons.
:31:43. > :31:45.The Post Office provides Royal Mail services. It is an important
:31:45. > :31:48.relationship and there is an agreement between the two which
:31:48. > :31:54.helps to maintain the viability of the Post Office. In the short term,
:31:54. > :31:56.that agreement is secure. Long-term, there is no guarantee that Royal
:31:56. > :32:01.Mail will continue to provide services through the Post Office.
:32:01. > :32:03.Secondly, just think about it, your local Royal Mail delivery and
:32:03. > :32:07.sorting offices are in prime locations. What is to stop a
:32:07. > :32:10.privatise Royal Mail from selling locations. What is to stop a
:32:10. > :32:12.off these assets to realise a profit, and meanwhile you as
:32:12. > :32:16.consumers and business people will profit, and meanwhile you as
:32:16. > :32:20.have to travel so much further? Another thing, it has been presented
:32:20. > :32:24.as a big opportunity for the public to buy into the Royal Mail. The
:32:24. > :32:30.minimum stake you would have to invest to buy a share as a member of
:32:30. > :32:34.the public is £750. If you are in the cabinet earning a big sum of
:32:34. > :32:39.money that might not seem much, but to my constituents in Streatham that
:32:40. > :32:50.is out of the question. You have a holiday home in Beith.
:32:50. > :32:54.As Justine may have seen, my family has property in another country. I
:32:54. > :32:57.As Justine may have seen, my family think we should keep our families
:32:58. > :33:10.out of lytic and stick on the issues, Justine. -- out of politics.
:33:10. > :33:15.I think this is about allowing the Royal Mail to be able to compete in
:33:15. > :33:20.what is a really tough and changing global market, ultimately. It needs
:33:20. > :33:24.freedom, freedom to innovate, Freedom to get more investment. In
:33:25. > :33:28.fact, it needs freedom from politicians interfering. Does that
:33:28. > :33:33.mean we should allow it to do whatever it likes in future? No.
:33:33. > :33:38.Which is why we have legislated to make sure there will be that
:33:38. > :33:44.universal postal provision that we rely on. And as Chuka has admitted,
:33:44. > :33:49.the Royal Mail has done a long-term deal with the Post Office and it is
:33:49. > :33:52.inconceivable that those two organisations will not work closely
:33:52. > :33:58.together because it is in both of their interests. Chuka talked about
:33:58. > :34:02.how the Royal Mail may change. Ultimately, successful businesses
:34:02. > :34:04.have to meet customer needs. This is about allowing the Royal Mail to be
:34:04. > :34:07.have to meet customer needs. This is in a position to do that.
:34:07. > :34:12.Ultimately, it will be a public listed company, so the whole public
:34:12. > :34:15.can invest in it. What is it that it cannot do at the moment and that
:34:15. > :34:20.resume the bleed your government is preventing it doing, that you feel
:34:20. > :34:26.it should be freed to do. -- presumably your government is
:34:26. > :34:29.preventing. It needs more investment. That can come from a
:34:30. > :34:34.taxpayer, and that may be several billion pounds we cannot put into
:34:34. > :34:45.schools or hospitals. Or it can come from the markets and shareholders.
:34:45. > :34:51.Why not reinvest the profits? And we all know that a few years ago it was
:34:51. > :34:54.not making profit. It is doing well, thanks to good management. You say
:34:54. > :34:58.there is a risk of political interference. Are you saying that
:34:58. > :35:03.the Cabinet are massively interfering in Royal Mail right now?
:35:03. > :35:09.The Labour Party in 2009 fully supported privatisation, and now you
:35:09. > :35:16.have changed your mind. We never opposed to put a majority stake into
:35:16. > :35:20.private ownership. -- proposed. You are selling off this 300-year-old
:35:20. > :35:24.institution that we all love, which was one of those things that binds
:35:24. > :35:28.us together. Everybody knows their local Post Office. You are selling
:35:28. > :35:31.that off for the sake of making a quick buck to fill a hole in the
:35:31. > :35:42.public finances caused by the lack of growth. That is what this is
:35:42. > :35:47.about. The way I understand it, the way the Post Office works is that no
:35:47. > :35:52.matter where you live, you pay the same amount for postage. You could
:35:52. > :35:55.live in the north, south, east, and pay the same amount. If you
:35:55. > :35:59.privatise it, there are certain rural areas which would not get a
:35:59. > :36:04.frequent delivery service because it will not be, in terms of
:36:04. > :36:09.commercialism, it will not work. As it stands, the Royal Mail owes a
:36:09. > :36:13.duty to the public. If it is privatised it will owe a duty to
:36:13. > :36:19.shareholders, so the dynamics will change. If profit becomes the main
:36:19. > :36:25.objective... You do not believe the government assurances? We have
:36:25. > :36:28.legislated to make sure that provision you just talked about will
:36:28. > :36:36.stay, so that by law the Royal Mail will have to continue providing
:36:36. > :36:43.that. Until 2015, Justine.That is just wrong. It is true. It is up for
:36:43. > :36:50.review in 2000 and Dean. Can you guarantee that it will stay the same
:36:50. > :36:57.beyond 2015? You can change it by law if you want to, but we are not
:36:57. > :37:02.going to. This is now enshrined in legislation, that the kind of
:37:02. > :37:04.service you talked about will be continued to be provided, the
:37:04. > :37:10.universal postage service that we rely on. It is in legislation. Only
:37:10. > :37:17.Parliament can change it through law. I remember Margaret Thatcher
:37:17. > :37:22.wanting to privatise, but not the Royal Mail. That was before the
:37:22. > :37:26.internet, before internet shopping, before we had FedEx, UPS, and the
:37:26. > :37:31.fact is that times have changed. In order for the Royal Mail to keep on
:37:31. > :37:35.top of that, it needs a big influx of capital. It needs access to the
:37:35. > :37:45.equity markets. If it rose now, for every £1 it rose, it borrows £1 on
:37:45. > :37:48.the national debt. -- if it borrows. Unfortunately, this is the way
:37:48. > :37:56.things need to happen. Angry, America will follow suit. Why do you
:37:56. > :38:00.say unfortunately? Because there is that sentimental tied to it. The US
:38:00. > :38:08.Postal Service is $16 million in debt. It is not sustainable. But the
:38:08. > :38:12.Royal Mail is doing pretty well. It is making profit because it is
:38:12. > :38:16.delivering those things that people order online. It is not enough to
:38:16. > :38:23.keep up with the competition. Times have changed. I just think it is
:38:23. > :38:32.very sad that we are losing a great British institution. I wonder how
:38:32. > :38:37.many we have left. The BBC?It is sad because I think a lot of people,
:38:37. > :38:41.myself included, have already started using other services to
:38:41. > :38:44.deliver parcels and packages. My local Post Office, and I live in a
:38:44. > :38:48.large area of London, is the smallest part of the building and
:38:48. > :38:50.you cannot even tell it is a Post Office on the outside. We are losing
:38:50. > :38:58.these identities and it is very sad. Office on the outside. We are losing
:38:58. > :39:06.I do not really mind. That is a lot of good! You have nothing to say!
:39:06. > :39:09.Parts of this discussion take me back 20 years, to the
:39:09. > :39:14.nationalisation of British Telecom. The first thing to say to chuck a
:39:14. > :39:17.macro is, Peter Mandelson, when he was you, except in government,
:39:17. > :39:21.wanted to do 49%. -- Chuka. But he was you, except in government,
:39:21. > :39:27.would have gone on to do the rest, actually. If this government had not
:39:27. > :39:32.done it, I think if you came to power in 2015, after a couple of
:39:32. > :39:36.years you would do it, too, because you would have a similar problem.
:39:36. > :39:43.Although the Royal Mail is doing well, the parcels part is
:39:43. > :39:49.undercapitalised, and it is actually significantly competing. Do you
:39:49. > :39:54.accept that in order to get the capital, you have to go to the
:39:54. > :39:58.market? It makes sense because it has been the case with other
:39:58. > :40:03.industries, that you can raise more capital if you are privately owned.
:40:03. > :40:07.The big question for users is what guarantees there are that the
:40:07. > :40:12.service will be as good as it was before? This is not only locked in
:40:12. > :40:14.by an act of Parliament, but also by bits of European legislation as
:40:14. > :40:20.well, about the levels of service that have to be provided across by
:40:20. > :40:30.Europe. So I am relatively happy that it will be OK. It seems like a
:40:30. > :40:33.total conflict in time. We make £400 million, and then we trip ourselves
:40:33. > :40:38.up trying to privatise something that is making money. Why can't we
:40:38. > :40:43.sit back with the profit and let it run, and take a check of things and
:40:43. > :40:46.think, this is making some money? The capital issue might answer my
:40:46. > :40:49.question, but it seems the government makes money for itself
:40:49. > :40:56.and then things, we will do something else, trip ourselves up. I
:40:56. > :41:00.want to see future profits from the Royal Mail invested in the service,
:41:00. > :41:04.not siphoned off to shareholders. If you are looking for capital to put
:41:04. > :41:10.into it, the government can borrow at the lowest levels. You are also
:41:10. > :41:14.likely to see more job losses. What really worries me is the link to the
:41:14. > :41:16.Post Office, because I am not reassured by any of the language I
:41:16. > :41:19.Post Office, because I am not have heard from this government that
:41:19. > :41:24.somehow the link between worry or mail and the Post Office is secure
:41:24. > :41:27.and it would be thinkable for it to be separated. -- Royal Mail. A few
:41:27. > :41:32.years ago we might have thought it be separated. -- Royal Mail. A few
:41:32. > :41:36.was unthinkable for the NHS to be privatised, and we have seen what
:41:36. > :41:39.has happened. So I am really worried what will happen to our Post Office,
:41:39. > :41:46.because post offices are not just bases where you buy stamps, they are
:41:46. > :41:49.part of the glue that holds communities together, and one of the
:41:49. > :42:02.few places where people can meet each other, can know each other. I
:42:02. > :42:06.do not believe your protection. We are not talking about the Post
:42:06. > :42:10.Office, but about the Royal Mail. You made the point for me that you
:42:10. > :42:14.are going to be able to borrow money cheaper outside than you can inside
:42:14. > :42:23.the government, so Royal Mail will be able to save money by borrowing
:42:23. > :42:27.outside. I lost loads of post offices in my constituency. We have
:42:27. > :42:32.detected that network and invested in it to make it better. I do not
:42:32. > :42:42.think post offices are safe under either of your parties. Another
:42:42. > :42:45.question. And yell Sherman. In the light of Michael Le Vell's
:42:45. > :42:51.acquittal, should those accused of sexual crimes be granted the same
:42:51. > :42:58.anonymity as their accusers? URA lawyer. Do you have a view on this?
:42:58. > :43:03.I think the impact of being accused of that sort of crime is so much
:43:03. > :43:10.greater than any other crime, really, that it is something we need
:43:10. > :43:13.to seriously consider, yes. The Coronation Street actor had massive
:43:13. > :43:19.publicity about the charge that he had repeatedly raped a child. Should
:43:19. > :43:27.he be granted anonymity, as his accuser was? David Aaronovitch. No,
:43:27. > :43:31.I don't think he should, but I can see why people argue about this. I
:43:31. > :43:35.think it is a matter of some kind of fairness. Because his accuser has
:43:35. > :43:41.anonymity in sexual cases of rape, the person who is accused should
:43:41. > :43:45.have anonymity. Unfortunately, if you suggest that, you give this one
:43:45. > :43:49.category of offence anonymity that no other offence, not even murder,
:43:49. > :43:54.which is a fairly personal and intimate crime. And the second
:43:54. > :43:57.consequence of that is that when somebody, it would mean they had to
:43:58. > :44:02.be anonymous when they were charged or accused. One of the things that
:44:02. > :44:04.often happens in rape cases is that you find you have a serial rapist,
:44:04. > :44:10.often happens in rape cases is that somebody who has raped before. And
:44:10. > :44:14.so when the accusation is made, other cases can come forward which
:44:14. > :44:19.would not otherwise come forward, and can act as corroboration for
:44:19. > :44:26.what is very often his word against her word. In this case it did not
:44:26. > :44:34.happen. But in many other cases.And yet the opprobrium attached to him.
:44:34. > :44:37.One of the things we think is how much opprobrium we attach to people
:44:37. > :44:41.when they are accused of something, as opposed to convicted.
:44:41. > :44:46.Colleen Graffy, what do you think? I appreciate the work the Crown
:44:46. > :44:50.Prosecution Service does and it looks like they thought they had the
:44:50. > :44:53.evidence on this one. But, the problem with allowing that
:44:53. > :44:59.individual to have anonymity is that so often the strengthening of the
:44:59. > :45:04.case comes about when the person has been named and you see his face and
:45:04. > :45:08.you hear the stories, just like in the Jimmy Savile case. This is where
:45:08. > :45:12.we had other individuals coming to light to say they had an incident
:45:12. > :45:16.take place. We couldn't have anonymity. OK. Do any of you think
:45:16. > :45:19.there should be anonymity? Justine Greening? There is an earlier stage
:45:19. > :45:23.there should be anonymity? Justine where the police is investigating,
:45:23. > :45:26.where there is anonymity. They can take a decision to waive that and
:45:26. > :45:31.make that investigation public, which is what happened in the case
:45:31. > :45:36.of Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall. That can give people who have also
:45:36. > :45:42.been affected the confidence to come forward and build the case.
:45:42. > :45:45.Ultimately, as David said, you can't really have anonymity once the
:45:45. > :45:50.charges have been brought. I do think that we have a system where
:45:50. > :45:58.people are innocent until proven guilty. Perhaps that needs to be
:45:58. > :46:03.borne more in mind. There was an argument about whether there should
:46:03. > :46:09.be anonymity at the point of arrest and it should be retained if there
:46:09. > :46:13.was no charge. At the moment, the police can have anonymity when
:46:13. > :46:17.people are arrested and it is only when they are charged that it
:46:17. > :46:22.becomes public. It is rare. Everybody seems to know who is
:46:22. > :46:26.arrested. The woman on the right? I'm sorry, but this drives me up the
:46:26. > :46:31.wall. The Crown Prosecution Service estimates that 0.3% of accusations
:46:31. > :46:34.of rape are false and we spend so much time discussing the
:46:34. > :46:40.consequences for the person that's been accused, how terrible it must
:46:40. > :46:44.be for them. All these old men. It drives me up the wall. That is not
:46:44. > :46:48.the problem. That is not what we should be focussing on at all. I
:46:48. > :46:52.really think something should be done to address the way we have this
:46:52. > :47:04.debate. We are missing the point in a very big way. And the point is?
:47:04. > :47:08.Not that - the problem is whether they look a bit bad. The problem is
:47:08. > :47:12.that it is very, very difficult to prosecute these cases. It is very -
:47:12. > :47:14.the Crown Prosecution Service is in a very difficult position over
:47:14. > :47:17.whether they choose to charge someone or not. From my
:47:17. > :47:20.understanding, they have to have a reasonable level of evidence before
:47:21. > :47:25.they do decide to charge someone. Caroline Lucas? I have a lot of
:47:25. > :47:30.sympathy for what the lady just said. It would be unfortunate if one
:47:30. > :47:34.of the conclusions was that there is more doubt over the cases that are
:47:34. > :47:38.brought to court. It is incredibly difficult to secure convictions on
:47:38. > :47:42.rape cases anyway. There is the difficulty in getting people to come
:47:43. > :47:47.to court. When we consider the level of rape cases that are being
:47:47. > :47:51.properly tried and so forth, it is a fraction of the number of rapes that
:47:51. > :47:56.are happening. We shouldn't be discouraging women from coming
:47:56. > :48:02.forward. We need to focus on them getting good justice. I would also
:48:02. > :48:06.add to what Justine Greening was saying. The media has a bit of a
:48:06. > :48:12.role here. You get trial by the Daily Mail as well as by the jury.
:48:12. > :48:15.People have an outcry when they see how somebody appears to have been
:48:16. > :48:21.tried in the media even though they turn out to be innocent. Let's sort
:48:21. > :48:27.that out. Alright. Let's go on to our last question. This is from Fung
:48:27. > :48:31.Wah Man. Has George Osborne won the argument on the economy? Has George
:48:31. > :48:38.Osborne won the argument on the economy? I wonder who I should go to
:48:38. > :48:46.first? Colleen Graffy? Well, I think that he has. I think that the
:48:46. > :48:50.economy is turning a corner. I think that Ed Miliband - actually Ed Balls
:48:50. > :48:55.saying the economy was going to flatline. I think it is Ed Balls'
:48:55. > :49:01.career that will be flatlining and we might see a reshuffle coming up,
:49:01. > :49:04.perhaps some were saying Alistair Darling needs to get in there to
:49:04. > :49:08.freshen things up. Labour got it wrong. The Conservatives have got it
:49:08. > :49:13.right. Again, it was a deep recession. It was a long recession.
:49:13. > :49:17.It is not going to happen overnight. The signs are very good. What was
:49:17. > :49:25.the argument that he won? We don't really know whether he did the right
:49:25. > :49:35.thing. We only know the recession is very slowly receding? The concern is
:49:35. > :49:38.that the austerity measures were happening and we were feeling the
:49:38. > :49:44.pain. It was the British people and the sacrifices that they made. Now
:49:44. > :49:51.we see 1.3 million people back in jobs. We see the unemployment going
:49:51. > :49:57.down. These are really good indicators. Alright.If things stay
:49:57. > :50:04.on course, he's done the right thing. Chuka Umunna, Mr Balls will
:50:04. > :50:08.be out of a job? I don't think this is about George Osborne or Ed's
:50:08. > :50:10.career. This is about people's lives. It is not a game. The
:50:10. > :50:15.career. This is about people's question that you have to ask is how
:50:15. > :50:19.do people feel? I am pleased to see encouraging data. We know it is
:50:19. > :50:24.still quite a mixed picture. If you look in my constituency, in
:50:24. > :50:28.Justine's, we have seen in both of our constituencies long-term
:50:28. > :50:34.unemployment increase five times since the general election. Most
:50:34. > :50:38.people have sustained a £1,500 pay cut since 2010. If you ask most
:50:38. > :50:43.people do you feel better off now or worse off now compared to 2010,
:50:43. > :50:48.people don't feel better off. There is no cause for anyone to celebrate.
:50:48. > :50:53.Wait a minute, Ed Balls said Osborne's plan hadn't worked. Did
:50:53. > :50:58.you agree with that? Do you agree it hasn't worked? There is need for a
:50:58. > :51:01.Plan B? I do believe George Osborne's plan hasn't worked. We are
:51:01. > :51:05.talking about this data after three years of a flatlining economy. I
:51:05. > :51:12.don't think that is a cause for celebration. I don't think that is a
:51:12. > :51:15.vindication - the fact we are seeing a recovery take hold again, this
:51:15. > :51:21.does not mean he's been vindicated at all. The question, David, is what
:51:21. > :51:26.are you doing to relieve the squeeze on middle and lower-income families?
:51:26. > :51:30.I don't think, giving £100,000 tax cut to people who are earning
:51:30. > :51:33.millions of pounds, at the same time that you are cutting VAT, you are
:51:33. > :51:36.millions of pounds, at the same time cutting Working Tax Credit and
:51:36. > :51:41.making life harder for most families is the way to go when we have got
:51:41. > :51:51.this huge cost-of-living crisis. Alright. You, Sir? Recovery based
:51:51. > :51:56.solely on artificially inflated house prices is hardly a recovery to
:51:56. > :52:00.be proud of. Looking at working people where I live in East London,
:52:01. > :52:06.seeing a public sector pay freeze that is punishing them, rising house
:52:06. > :52:10.prices, making it almost impossible for them to make ends meet. If this
:52:10. > :52:19.is the best he can do, he needs to try a lot harder. I agree. Justine
:52:19. > :52:23.Greening? I think we are seeing unemployment now lower than when
:52:23. > :52:25.this Government came into power. Employment is at an all time high.
:52:25. > :52:28.There have never been more women Employment is at an all time high.
:52:28. > :52:33.employed in the job market. We have seen businesses create 1.4 million
:52:33. > :52:36.jobs. Ed Balls said it was a fantasy that the private sector would create
:52:36. > :52:41.more jobs than were going to be lost. It's created three times more
:52:41. > :52:45.jobs than have been lost in the public sector. We are getting growth
:52:45. > :52:49.back into the economy. The economy is turning the corner. We are on the
:52:49. > :52:54.right track. The argument that's been won by George Osborne is to
:52:55. > :52:59.totally torpedo Labour's strategy which is that you borrow your way
:52:59. > :53:03.out of a debt crisis. The only answer they have to problems in our
:53:03. > :53:09.economy is spend, spend, spend. They want more spending, more borrowing,
:53:09. > :53:14.more debt and the British people have made huge sacrifices to take
:53:14. > :53:18.the steps we have done - let me finish - to take the tough choices
:53:18. > :53:22.we have made to reduce the deficit by a third. In a year-and-a-half, we
:53:22. > :53:27.will all have the choice about where we want to go next with our country.
:53:27. > :53:31.We should not make the same mistakes that we have before. Hold on. I want
:53:31. > :53:38.to come to the man with the spectacles there? I'm a public
:53:38. > :53:43.sector worker. I'm also part of an endangered species, a public sector
:53:43. > :53:48.trade unionist. Frankly, my colleagues at work, at a council in
:53:48. > :53:52.North London, have paid the price for this so-called recovery. Over
:53:52. > :53:57.the last four years in our council, we have seen more than 630
:53:57. > :54:03.redundancies, most of them compulsory. We have seen a dramatic
:54:03. > :54:09.erosion in living standards. My real pay has gone down by 15%. My wife is
:54:09. > :54:13.a teacher of the deaf in East London. She has seen her real pay go
:54:13. > :54:18.down and her pension contributions go up. At the same time that we are
:54:18. > :54:28.seeing an upward redistribution of wealth in this society. Recovery for
:54:29. > :54:32.whom? OK. Caroline, I will come back to you. I suspect you will agree
:54:32. > :54:37.with much of what he said. David Aaronovitch? I don't think there is
:54:37. > :54:43.any vindication of George Osborne in what has been an incredibly slow and
:54:43. > :54:50.almost inevitable recovery after the crash of 2008. Of course, we have
:54:50. > :54:53.got some element of recovery. What's imponderable is whether or not the
:54:53. > :54:56.relatively small policy difference that Labour has with what the
:54:56. > :55:00.Government has done in overall terms would have made any great difference
:55:00. > :55:04.or not. That is the imponderable. I can't say whether it would or
:55:04. > :55:09.whether it wouldn't. Somebody said to me, "I have read a lot of what
:55:09. > :55:13.you write but you don't write about the economy." That is because I
:55:13. > :55:17.don't know what to write about the economy. I don't know whether it is
:55:17. > :55:22.true that we have been like Greece if we had borrowed a little bit
:55:22. > :55:24.more, or whether we would become like chin that if we managed to pay
:55:24. > :55:31.back our debt quicker. Is this like chin that if we managed to pay
:55:31. > :55:37.because you are ignorant? Or that it is unknowable? It is both. As far as
:55:37. > :55:42.I can tell - people occupy these great entrenched positions,
:55:42. > :55:47.political positions and we have to try and guess who is right about it.
:55:47. > :55:50.Caroline Lucas? I do want to come back to the gentleman from the back
:55:50. > :55:53.who was talking about the experience in his community of how it is
:55:53. > :56:00.essentially the poorest people who have paid the highest cost for
:56:00. > :56:05.getting us out of this deficit. For the Government to somehow pat
:56:05. > :56:09.themselves on the back when they have absolutely suppressed recovery
:56:09. > :56:12.for so long by their Draconian measures and now we are supposed to
:56:12. > :56:16.be grateful to them, maybe there is a small change happening, I think it
:56:16. > :56:21.is ludicrous. It is like Osborne crashing the car and bringing the
:56:21. > :56:24.wreck back and we are supposed to be terribly grateful to him for doing
:56:24. > :56:29.it. Over the past few years, what I have seen is a growth of food banks,
:56:29. > :56:34.a growth of people on zero contract hours, a growth of people who can't
:56:34. > :56:38.afford to send their kids to school with uniform. It is a terrible
:56:38. > :56:44.situation. Do you think Osborne crashed the car? I think it was the
:56:44. > :56:47.response - there was an international debt - there was an
:56:47. > :56:50.international banking crisis. What happened was that this Government
:56:50. > :56:55.has made it ten times worse. Alright. We were living beyond our
:56:55. > :57:00.means. We were not. This was a banking crisis. That is what you
:57:00. > :57:03.call a structural deficit. It was a banking crisis, it was a crisis of
:57:03. > :57:16.banking and this Government made it ten times worse. Alright. Time...
:57:16. > :57:22.Time... I have to call time. Our hour is up. We are in Rochdale next
:57:22. > :57:26.week. We have Harriet Harman and Shirley Williams among those on the
:57:27. > :57:33.panel. The week after that, we will be in Uxbridge. You can apply via
:57:33. > :57:41.www.bbc.co.uk/questiontime. If you have been listening to this on Radio
:57:41. > :57:46.Five Live, you can continue the debate on Question Time Extra Time.
:57:46. > :57:50.My thanks to our panel and to all of you who came here tonight to take
:57:50. > :57:53.part in this programme. From Question Time, the first in the new
:57:53. > :57:57.run, in London, good night.