26/09/2013 Question Time

Tonight, we are in Uxbridge. Welcome to Question Time. A special welcome

to our audience who will be asking the questions, and to our panel who

do not know what the questions are. Conservative Education Secretary,

Michael Gove, Labour's Shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas

Alexander, cheap political commentator of the Daily Express,

standing for UKIP in next year's European elections, Patrick

O'Flynn. Journalist and financial analyst, Louise Cooper. And the

writer Will Self. I would like the first question from

Kay Bagon, please. Will read Ed's energy price freeze lead to power

shortages and blackouts. -- read Ed. The truth is, we do not know at this

stage. One thing that Ed Miliband got right is that energy prices at

the moment are too high for a variety of reasons. He is right to

draw attention to one of the worst examples of the way in which

people's cost of living is under attack. He is also right to draw

attention to the fact that the behaviour of the six major power

companies has not been entirely admirable ever since they have had a

chance to play the market in the way that they have. But I do worry that

the proposal he has put forward to address the problem he has correctly

identified is not as well thought address the problem he has correctly

through as it should be. One of the impressions I had of the Labour

Party Conference this week was that they came up with a number of ideas

Party Conference this week was that which seemed OK at first sight,

quite attract give, but when they collided with reality they started

quite attract give, but when they to fragment. There was an idea about

apprenticeships which turned out to be illegal under EU law. The very

next day, when Ed Miliband was on the radio, he acknowledged that if

there was a spike in oil prices, like in the 1970s, he might not be

able to deliver his promise. He also acknowledged there was a problem in

that energy companies might choose to hike prices before the election

that energy companies might choose and ensure that when the freeze came

in it was at a higher point. So it is right of Ed Miliband to focus on

this problem, but I do not think that this answer really, so far as

we can see at the moment, is a necessary and proportionate way of

dealing with the problem. But are the oil companies scaremongering

when they talk about the lights going off and no investment? You

take a jaundiced view of that. I take it with a pinch of salt,

because the way in which the major energy companies have behaved in the

past does not give confidence in everything that they say. There are

independent figures, including those who ran the Office of Fair Trading,

who have raised profound concerns about it. They are interested

parties. We should subject both sides of the debate to appropriate

scrutiny. What are the Tories planning to do about it? We have

already legislated to ensure that companies have to offer you the

lowest tariff. Second, I think it is appropriate to consider how the

market is structured. It is right to consider how we can perhaps --

perhaps get more entrants into the energy market, more competition, and

take advantage of the reserves of energy market, more competition, and

shale gas which are under our feet, which raised the prospect, again, of

significantly cheaper energy may be for the next 20 years. Louise

Cooper, was this scaremongering, in effect, or do you think there is a

risk of what was described? There is a lot of scaremongering. I always

prefer to see fierce competition, than you give a nation. Regulation

is never the best answer. Regulators always get far too close to the

is never the best answer. Regulators companies they regulate. It has

happened in the banking industry and looks like it is happening in the

energy industry as well. The trouble is the level of experts for which

you can pool is a very small amount. There is a very small amount of

people who understand how the regulation works, and they tend to

jump between companies and the regulators. That always happens. We

need fierce price competition. Going regulators. That always happens. We

back to the price increase, it has been astronomical. We have had

almost a 40% price increase since 2007. Over the same time, average

household income has barely gone up at all. So it is no wonder people

look at their energy prices and do that energy bill shock thing, when

you open the envelope and you go, how come it is that much? It is no

surprise. What I find staggering is that it has taken the political

class so long to catch up with it. RU four against the freeze? The

proposed freeze? I am for a complete rethink of energy policy in the UK.

I feel the Conservatives could easily steal a march on labour by

removing VAT from fuel charges. -- Labour. When we have to eat, we have

food, no VAT. When we have roof over our heads, no VAT on rent, so why

not for fuel as well. They are the basics of life. To be fair to

Miliband, his proposal is also to restructure the market. The idea is

to split into energy providers and restructure the market. The idea is

energy sources. But the real problem here is that energy is not tradable

in the market in a way that you seem to feel that it is. It is not that

kind of resource. That is why throughout the 20th century things

like power and water increasingly came under nationalised systems,

because they were perceived as generalised public goods. I do not

want to get into and argued about the state versus the market, because

it can be sterile. The problem with the proposals is that it leaves an

artificial market. The way in which the six main energy companies have

behaved, I cannot swear because I would get sued for libel, but it

looks like one and it smells like one to me. There is a great deal of

serendipitous concerted action on pricing which has led to a 40%

increase, coincidentally, in shareholder profit over this period.

What a strange thing. But it is not -- but isn't it like other

privatised industries? Haven't we got something going on in BT at the

moment which sounds remarkably similar? I don't know. I will tell

you one thing, whoever it is is lining their pockets over this, and

we are talking billions. They are broadly not sitting in this

audience. Probably in Martin eat, or something. Patrick O'Flynn? I mainly

thought of this as Ed Miliband being cynical. You can have priorities for

green energy, or you can have it for affordable energy, but you cannot

have a priority for both, because we are at a stage where green energy

demands enormous subsidies. It was Ed Miliband as energy secretary who

started this whole process and was the force behind the climate change

act, and persuaded the rest of the U2 adopt these eye watering lead

tough carbon reduction targets. -- the rest of the EE you. There is a

tacit deal that has been going on between the political class and the

energy suppliers, which is basically, if you invest in our

expensive and not yet reliable green sources of energy, we will turn a

bit of a blind eye. You are against green? Not at all. I think it is a

disproportionate response. It is astonishing that the political class

has not reacted to the massive decline in living standards until

now, and that Ed Miliband was the author of this process which

Cameron's trendy Tories and the Lib Dems went along with. Now, Ed

Miliband is standing back from the consequences of the process he

instigated. Yes, let's develop green energy, but do it in a proportionate

way, and not send people freezing to death in winter because they cannot

afford the Energy Bill. Patrick is just wrong. The proportion of the

rise in prices that can be accounted for by green energy is a small

fraction. £110 per year, rising fast. What has happened is we have

an energy market that is open. Six companies control 98% of supplies

an energy market that is open. Six Britain's households. I do not think

the public see this as a left-right issue, but as a right -wrong issue.

They are sick of watching their bills go up regardless of what

happens to the wholesale price for gas and electricity. In that sense,

I think it is absolutely right to say we need to reset a market,

ensure effective competition. In the meantime, there should be a 20 month

price freeze, so we are not in the situation after the general election

where people see bills rising ever higher ever month. -- every month.

How do you create an effective competitive market when the sources

of energy are priced beyond your control? You separate the generators

from the retail. That does not solve the problem. One of the problems is

that it is so OK quid in these the problem. One of the problems is

companies it is difficult to tell where the price point is coming from

within the companies. Secondly, we need an effective regulator because

Ofgem is not operating effectively. We need a simpler tariff system, so

Ofgem is not operating effectively. people know what they are signing up

to. It is not rocket science. There has been a failure by the government

to accept responsibility for has been a failure by the government

fact that prices are going higher and higher. And it is not a recipe

for economic ruin, as has been said? I am not sure that was said by

an entirely reliable witness. You simply do not trust the big

companies? You are playing... Centrica has one of the highest

levels of profit -- profitability and one of the lowest levels of

investment in terms of energy production in Britain. Peter

Mandelson said the danger is Labour will be seen to be moving away from

its business, its enthusiasm for business, that he thinks he

developed successfully? If we go back to the high watermark of Tony

Blair, Peter Mandelson and new Labour, there was a £5 billion

windfall tax on privatised utilities in 1997. It is not inappropriate to

windfall tax on privatised utilities take action when customers are being

ripped off. Is this not simply a cheap election gimmick to win a few

votes? Is it not time to come up with a credible answer to making

affordable living? 20 months freeze, the problem will not just go

away. We need a quality policy to help people in the long-term, not

just the short-term. In fact, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I

am. You are right that a lot of the increase since 2007 has been due to

wholesale gas prices, because North Sea oil is declining. But going

forward from now, the big increases will come from green tariffs. And my

problem with this is that it has been a cosy arrangement between all

three political parties and the energy companies. But they have not

asked you, who have to pay for it. Nobody seems to have got the tacit

approval from consumers who, by 2020, will be facing up to £300 each

year more in their energy bills because of arena energy. Now, if you

decide that is what you want, fine. But I think this has been a cosy

stitch up, where ordinary people have not been asked, do you want to

pay for this? We will go to another question. If you want to debate

these issues, text and Twitter are at your command.

A question from Emily Williams, please. Is Ed Miliband the right man

for the job? Simple question. You did not say which job,

incidentally. You mean Prime Minister? Yes. The main problem is

incidentally. You mean Prime that when the alarm goes in the

morning and that very complicated machine is meant to drop him into

his trousers, it never seems to get it right. It is partly down to the

his trousers, it never seems to get dog, who I have had my worries about

four years. But I think that is a real problem. It is easy to ridicule

four years. But I think that is a Ed Miliband for his close

resemblance to Wallace from Wallace and Gromit, and I have just done it,

because I enjoy doing it. I find him singularly uninspiring, actually. I

watched his conference speech, because I was doing this programme.

And apparently the media felt it was an absolutely inspiring performance

and were impressed by the way he spoke without notes, so I thought I

would give him the benefit of the doubt. I watched it on you Tube.

Clearly, other people doubt. I watched it on you Tube.

catching up because it had a colossal 2000 hit 's, which is very

high for you Tube! Much higher than people photocopying their buttocks

on the office machine. What I felt watching him at the party conference

was that there are these stand out policy ideas, and that is to be

welcomed, actually. He seems to have a lot of friends. He talked to his

friends a lot. Judging from what Damian McBride has been saying about

the Labour Party, there were not actually a lot of friends there, so

that may be a reality problem. He seemed to be banging on the same

kind of drum, the same centrist drum that is the problem that we all feel

there is with the political class. One nation Labour, it is all about

Britain, Britain can do better, all about growth and economic

performance. We can have him as Prime Minister. It is not actually

that difficult a job, you know. People rather overstate it. It is

much easier than going to the moon and getting cheese. Cameron or

Miliband? On the whole, I would give Miliband a shot at it. I would. I

would be more inclined to vote for Miliband a shot at it. I would. I

him, simply because there are actually some policy ideas. Finally

stirring in Labour's hinterland. Patrick O'Flynn? No, he is the wrong

man. This is a leader and a party that would take us deeper into the

European Union. It won't give us a referendum on getting our

sovereignty back. It won't have any cap on immigration. It won't really

do the tough stuff on welfare reform. It says it will have an

overall cap but has not identified any single cut in working-age

benefit that it is for. On a whole range of policies, it is not capable

of governing the country in the national interest. Whatever you

say... Is it the party or the man that you are criticising here? They

are almost the same thing. She a comfort blanket for Labour

activists, isn't he? He is quite crafty at finding populist ways of

making left-wing ideas sound palatable to a large number of

making left-wing ideas sound people. Whatever you say about Tony

Blair - and I have said some unkind things - at least he identified that

what the public wants to see is a party prepared to challenge its own

weaknesses and Labour's number one weakness was its refusal to control

immigration at all. Its number two weakness was its total inability to

keep a control on the Welfare Budget. Three - this belief in tax

and spend and they called it Ken's Years. Let's not have the whole

manifesto! LAUGHTER Douglas Alexander? I think Ed will be an

effective Prime Minister. You surprise me by that answer(!) Let me

explain why I make that case. For the three years since he became the

Labour Leader, he's argued more convincingly than anybody else. We

do face a cost-of-living crisis. He's talked about the squeezed

middle. This week, what we saw in Brighton were some very concrete

policies directed towards addressing those concerns. My challenge to

Michael would be if he's as confident as he is that David

Cameron would be a better Prime Minister, then will he agree on

David's behalf to debate Ed Miliband in the final three weeks of the

David's behalf to debate Ed Miliband general election when it comes in

2015? Don't get us all excited this early. Do! Do you want to see these

debates again? Debates are a good thing. The more we can engage

voters, the better. That ain't quite the answer to the question. Do you

want to see... The one thing I have learned is don't make promises on

behalf of the Prime Minister without asking him first. The precise nature

of the debate - there are lots of different people who have lots of

different views. The principle that there should be a debate, then I

agree with that. You are running scared. I think having a debate

about having a debate is a boring debate myself! Just... What is the

answer? You approve of debates? Absolutely. You would approve of

candidates for the prime ministerial job to be debated in these type of

debates? Some people thought that... Did it do a lot of design? I don't

think it did. David Cameron won two out of three. The precise design for

the debate - there is only one thing I would insist on, and that is that

you chair them, David. That is creepy. That is really creepy. I

didn't get where I am today without creepy. That is really creepy. I

knowing who to suck up to! What about UKIP? Should they be in the

debate? We were asked about Ed Miliband. Now you are asking about a

debate. I'm debating with UKIP as well. I'm happy to debate myself on

any platform at any time on any issue. What I'm not going to do is

commit anyone else. Miliband? I thought you were going to get round

to that. I don't think Ed Miliband is the right person to be Prime

Minister. It is not because I don't admire him. I do think he has

formidable gifts. He is intelligent. He's a personable figure who clearly

has a talent which many politicians don't have for being able to convey

complex ideas in ways that engage the public. He ran the best

leadership campaign any of the public. He ran the best

candidates during the Labour Leadership election and he beat

David Miliband and he deserved to do so. Even though my politics would be

closer to David Miliband's. Ed Miliband was the most professional

and compelling figure. But the big problem with Ed Miliband is that

having secured the leadership of the Labour Party, he hasn't taken it

decisively in a different direction from the direction that it was under

Gordon Brown. There's no indication, as Patrick suggested, that he

recognises that the Labour Party borrowed too much, taxed too much

and spent too much. There is no indication that he recognises that

there are difficult decisions that have to be made about public

spending that will require him to face down internal and external

critics. He hasn't courted unpopularity in his own party by

showing a degree of courage towards internal critics and critically, I

listened to the speech for an hour and 15 minutes - just a second,

Douglas. He is allowed... The critical thing is... Why have we...

? Could I make my final point? My point point is this. I watched the

speech for one hour and 15 minutes. He didn't mention the thing that

drew me into politics once. He didn't mention schools, education,

social mobility, he didn't mention how we can take the next generation

and improve their life chances. Why? how we can take the next generation

When Tony Blair became Leader of the how we can take the next generation

Labour Party, he said his party was committed to education, education,

education. Why was there a vacuum at the heart of what he said? I think

the reason is that he is not prepared to confront the people in

his own party who are holding back progress, who are enemies of

promise, he is not prepared to the say to his activists, "You were

wrong on education and Tony Blair was right." Your time is up. Douglas

Alexander? What I take from Michael's very long answer is you

are quite worried. You are worried about the fact that we have said in

relation to party reform there will be fund fundamental party reform. --

fundamental party reform. In relation to public expenditure, we

said we wouldn't borrow. We have accepted the envelope to 2016 that

has been set by this Government accepted the envelope to 2016 that

because of the difficulties being created by the economy today. In

because of the difficulties being relation to opportunities for young

people, you need to explain why the number of youth apprenticeships on

your watch is going down. Ed offered a solution to that in terms of

arguing for more apprenticeships. What is your policy on schools? Why

didn't Ed Miliband mention it? It is a public service question. It will

take us some time. There isn't a public service question. It will

anything there so it won't take us any time at all! This is it. This is

their policy on schools. You prefer David. What has Ed done that David

might not have done, or do you think David would have been better? He's

taken steps on party reform that Gordon Brown didn't countenance. We

have a consistent lead in the Gordon Brown didn't countenance. We

opinion polls. He's accepted that we got some things wrong. I am going to

go to some members of the audience. got some things wrong. I am going to

You, Sir? I think this discussion is taking us back to that point about

why so many people feel alienated from politicians and the political

process. I think a big thing for people is principle. There's always

a sense, which ever leader we are talking about, that what they are

sitting there doing is making that calculation, "How electoral is this

point of view?" What gives you that feeling? The only principles we have

heard so far tonight are hammering immigrants and asylum seekers and

heard so far tonight are hammering hammering people most disadvantaged

on benefits. The person who may not have the most political power, but

on benefits. The person who may not commands a great deal of interest

from the public is Caroline Lucas. She herself, over the issue which

our friend sees as a solution, fracking, has come the way of the

police for her determination to have an active democratic role in our

society, which is what most people want. You, Sir? My question to

Douglas - why is David Miliband, he is lacking in enthusiasm, he is not

grabbing the public... David or evidence? I do beg your pardon, Ed.

His popularity in the ratings is right down. Could you explain why

that would be as an opposition leader? When you come into

opposition, with the second worst result in 80 years, the public are

not going to engage with you directly. It is a fixed-term

Parliament for five years. Thirdly, we have had a Coalition for the

first time in decades. There is we have had a Coalition for the

going to be a strong focus on David Cameron and Nick Clegg. As the

Parliament moves towards the end of 2015, or the end of the Parliament

in 2015, people who were perhaps not willing to give Labour a hearing at

the beginning, they are now realising the change they voted for

has not improved their lives. The question that will dominate the

general election in months is a question that Ronald Reagan first

asked, are you better off than you were four years ago? For the first

time in many decades, in 38 out of 39 months under this Government,

people have seen prices rising faster than their pay, average

workers are £1,500 worse off than they were in 2010. They have voted

for change, but their lives have got worse. Do you think you will be able

to put behind you the squalid revelations of McBride on Brown,

Blair and those years, which you were so intimately involved in? It

is a poisonous postscript that is already behind the Labour Party, the

way that Ed Miliband leads the Labour Party, even his fiercest

critics would recognise it is different than what was going on

critics would recognise it is the past. You knew the kind of

things he was saying? I didn't know the detail. I knew he briefed

against me. Gordon Brown knew the detail. I knew he briefed

he was saying? Well, listen, you would have to ask Gordon Brown. But

I don't want to leave this hanging. Gordon Brown, if you recommended

McBride should be sacked, you had... A number of us did. Gordon Brown has

been silent, he must have known that there was this corrupt influence,

force at the heart of his power? I sought his dismissal. Why that was

not accepted, you would have to ask Gordon. You said there were a group.

Who were the group? I know Ed Miliband did. Just the two of you?

Alistair Darling did as well. Three? Anymore? Sorry, this is a political

programme and we have other things Anymore? Sorry, this is a political

to go to. The interesting thing about this is what you are saying is

that in effect, Gordon Brown knew what was happening and you have

described it as despicable, but the man who was Prime Minister knew this

was going on and took no steps? You would have to ask Gordon. OK. To me,

you talk about political would have to ask Gordon. OK. To me,

disengagement and the whole Damien McBride thing illustrates to me why

people have become politically disengaged. It's truly abhorrent.

Truly abhorrent. These are elected representatives who we have put

there, who we pay for to work hard for our country, for the betterment

of our country. We all have different political views as to what

is the best for our country. That is what a democracy is. To me, I read

it and I'm aGrasse. This, to me, is one of the reasons why I think voter

turnout is so low. -- I'm aghast. They are on the same team. It is

despicable. Why are you so aghast. Do you never switch on... Am I wrong

not to watch The Thick Of It? You are living in a naive world. I think

it is widely known that politicians brief against each other, stab each

other in the back. It is showbusiness for ugly people.

LAUGHTER Is that OK? Can I say one thing? It is easy to generalise. The

stuff we read in the papers is horrific. I knew Douglas before I

got involved in politics. One thing I know about Douglas is he doesn't

countenance behaviour like that. He would never do it. It's wrong to tar

all politicians with the same brush. Douglas is incredibly talented and

it is wrong to say that all politicians behave in that way and

it is right when there are folk who believe in things and who are

it is right when there are folk who willing to put their reputation on

the line as Douglas has to acknowledge that.

So you've had no collection -- no connection with this issue on

Twitter? This business of a Freedom of information search being denied

by your department when it was revealed you were using private

e-mail accounts to revealed you were using private

government business, that is nothing to do with you? You are not involved

in of that? I am not on Twitter. You had better edit your Wikipedia page,

then. I will leave that to Chuka Umunna. You are not managing

information on yourself in the public arena very affect Tivoli,

because it makes you out to be a little master of the dark arts,

actually. I mean, I have never heard such ridiculous and spurious

sanctimony emanating from a politician in all my born days. You

sanctimony emanating from a are well-known for it. Well, you are

well known for playing to the gallery, populist position taking

well known for playing to the and for trying to denigrate

politicians. I am standing up for a politician, different party against

the sort of cynicism you pedal in the hope it will make you popular

with this audience, more people will buy your books and you will have a

stronger characteristic. And as far buy your books and you will have a

as I am concerned, you are the king of cheap shots, and I am not going

as I am concerned, you are the king to join you. Very sweet, the idea

that people will buy my books more because of anything I say on

Question Time. I think in the circumstances, Ed Miliband is doing

a pretty good job but it is all down to credibility, credibility with the

public and also within the Labour Party. It stems from the lack of

credibility in the process in which he was elected, when he defeated

credibility in the process in which David Miliband on the basis of the

block vote. That needs changing. Do you think that has a lasting effect?

I think it does. It goes to the core of the system. I think

I think it does. It goes to the core accepted the rules under which the

leadership contest was fought. We are not going to reopen it. In that

sense, the reforms that Ed has set out are the right ones. It is

remarkable how Michael Gove keeps hammering on about Labour's

education policy when you yourself are the only Secretary of State for

education who has actually been given a vote of no-confidence by the

education who has actually been National of teachers. There is so

much criticism against your new national curriculum. Michael

probably regard that as a badge of honour, and I would agree with him.

But Michael is certainly a more consumer orientated, parent

orientated Secretary of State van Ed Balls, and I think that is a good

thing. But I do agree that you will not bring back academic selection in

thing. But I do agree that you will the state system to grammar schools

so that ordinary kids can give the old Etonian is in your party a run

for their money. On that note, with Michael Gove, it shows that he is

not whipped by the unions. They do not want to change. I have seen

education standards drop. My colleagues are dropping out of

school. It is ridiculous, and the teachers cannot do anything. The

unions want to take power away from the schools itself. But the reforms

for better standards, they want to chuck that in the bin. So it is

actually a good thing that the unions have said they do not like

you, because everybody else has made everything worse. A question from

Tina Rich. What has the government learned from the siege in Kenya, and

Tina Rich. What has the government can the British public feel

confident it could not happen here? The ghastly events in Nairobi.

Louise Cooper. In an environment of austerity and cuts, I think what it

has reminded us of is the importance of our security policy. And this is

probably one of the few areas, big cuts in defence, actually we need to

maintain spending in this area. I think terrorism is possibly a war

that will never be won. It is a war that we find very difficult to

fight. It is going to go on for some time, possibly forever. Which is not

a very positive message. Like I said, we need to invest in the

technology that enables us to fight it as best as we can. I think in so

many ways we have to rely on our political class to balance the need

to protect us, but also the freedoms that we enjoy in this country. And

that balance is a very difficult thing to achieve, and I think the

only way we, as an electorate, have two say, actually, you have got the

ala -- the balance wrong, is at the Allott box. We have had our

political disagreements this evening but the government has got its

response to the Kenyan tragedy right in offering immediate assistance in

terms of security support for the Kenyan government in what was a

horrendous situation. In terms of, could this situation happen here,

you can never have 100 cent certainty when it comes to security

issues. -- 100%. That is why there has to be vigilance, but we can feel

confident and pride in the work of the police in the UK and in our

intelligence agencies. It is inherent in the work of intelligence

agencies that they conduct their work in the shadows, free from the

glare of publicity, but every day they are working hard to keep us

safe. It is in the nature of these organisations, Al-Shabab in Kenya,

Al-Qaeda in other circumstances, that they work across international

borders. It is vital that we have intelligence sharing operations

across borders with other law enforcement agencies. The final

point I would make is that it is not simply a job for intelligence

agencies. One of the things we have learned over the last difficult

decade is the important role for teachers, spiritual leaders,

parents, leaders in trying to counter radicalisation in the UK.

That is a job which does not end and in which we all have a role to play.

Is it a job which is gaining ground? Or losing ground? Counter

radicalisation? We have genuine concerns, and I still have

concerns, that most of the counter radicalising work done in Britain is

done by the police. We used to have a system where if there was a

significant Islamic population in a a system where if there was a

local authority area they would be funding for the local authority to

work with local mosques, community leaders and other organisations to

help good people in communities across the country counter the

dangerous effects of young people being radicalised. Alas, that money

has been cut back. It is not a cheap point, but it is important because

we continue to face a threat of young people being radicalised

either within communities or online. It is being reported, Michael Gove,

that some British citizens were involved in this attack. First of

all, is that true? I do not know. We know that six fish people died, but

all, is that true? I do not know. We there have been different claims

made. -- six British people died. We do know there have been British

citizens who have gone abroad to train with radical groups, and we

know that some of them have subsequently been involved in the

plotting and execution of terrorist atrocities. So it is plausible, but

I do not know. What do you think could be done, or could be learned

from what has happened not just there but in other parts of the

world? By a British government, by a Secretary of State for education?

There are two specific areas. There are specific issues to do with

security, intelligence and resilience, making sure we learn the

terrorists took over and penetrated the shopping centre, and how the

Kenyan support -- the Kenyan security forces dealt with it. We

can learn from any country that has been the victim of a terrorist

atrocity about how to make public spaces safer. There is a broader

lesson, countering a poisonous narrative which has a witched young

minds worldwide. And that is that -- that is that democracy is somehow

the enemy of Islam and the only way you can prove yourself to be a true

follower of the profit is by following a litter clean radical

follower of the profit is by version of Islam, which finds

expression in the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda and all these

other extremist organisations. And we need to take it on. And it is not

just a matter for people within them British Muslim community. The

overwhelming majority have no time for these people, but we need to

take on that narrative as well, and we need to point out that we have

intervened abroad to liberate Muslims from tyranny, and that also

we continue to provide, not least on the borders of Syria, humanitarian

assistance to people in terrible circumstances. Unless we engage

positively in that argument and support voices within the British

and global Muslim community who believe in peace and draw proper

spiritual nourishment from their religion, we will always be on the

back foot. If it turns out that the so-called White widow is involved,

the former British citizen, is it not worrying that someone like that

can disappear off the radar, being not worrying that someone like that

that her previous partner was involved in the 7/7? It is more than

worrying. We should also remember the victims of the atrocity in

Pakistan, where the Christian minority suffered a mass murder this

week. And we should not forget Christian minorities across the

world living in predominantly Christian minorities across the

Islamic countries. We do not tend to dwell on what is happening to them,

but what a terrifying existence they live. On the White widow and the

various atrocities across the world in which we find a petition

connection, that really is shameful. -- Abe Ritt -ish connection.

Journalists like Melanie Phillips were warning of this phenomenon, and

thus not taking seriously the radical Islamic scene that was going

on in our own capital city. The birds are coming home to roost here.

People like me maybe go on about the trendy liberal left a bit too much,

but in this instance there was a cultural norms set up over the last

40 years of crude multiculturalism, which held that there should be no

effort to integration at all. I do not want a society where everybody

has to eat roast beef on Sunday not want a society where everybody

go to the football on Saturday, but we do need to work harder on

establishing a common culture of values that we all subscribed to,

whether it is equality between the sexes, freedom of speech, respect

for everybody's right to self-determination. There is a huge

decades long chasm which, for reasons of political correctness,

has had terrible consequences. We need to be much more proactive. The

last government took some steps and this government is carrying them on,

but we have a long way to go on that score. Oh, well, as far as I am

aware, the Kenyan army were involved in cross border measures against

Al-Shabab, and your government would never do that, launch a military

incursion in a foreign country and then be surprised if there is

terrorist fallout? That does not happen around here. I find it very

difficult to sit here and listen to happen around here. I find it very

all of this, actually. I find it physically painful. Because, yes, it

is a terrible thing that happened in Kenya, and terrorism is in no way to

be condoned. But to drag it down to this domestic political battlefield,

where I am harder about terrorism than you, I would do this, I would

do that. We live in this excessively than you, I would do this, I would

survey the society already. I am not taking a pop, aiming at the approval

of the gallery, because you may taking a pop, aiming at the approval

catch call me, but the only thing that boosts these guys up is sitting

here and saying, more guns, more power, more

here and saying, more guns, more is will we need. Nobody says that.

Yes, we do. You are not even a politician and you are saying we

need to spend more money on security. She was the only one who

said it. You do not believe there should be more money on security?

The anti-terrorist structure in place is seen as an unreservedly

good thing. We are stopping one pot each month on average from taking

place in our country. Surely that has to be money well spent. Do you

know what, I do not actually believe that. It is a heresy. I do not

believe that. Do you know what, I do not want my child dying because my

belief that the government is lying to me was actually wrong. I do not

want to take that risk. My family are very precious to me. Lets not

speak from the high moral ground of your own anticipated future loss.

Why do we have to live in a society in which this debate about terrorism

completely conditioned everybody's mentality? Why don't we look at the

objective reality, which is that what you were saying, Patrick is

such a crude example of mental division and confusion about these

things. We can give humanitarian aid to refugees in Syria. But on the

things. We can give humanitarian aid other hand, we want to start

things. We can give humanitarian aid dropping bombs on Damascus. That is

a classic double bind. Why can't we just be the sort of country that

gives the humanitarian aid and leaves the bombing of foreign

countries and wandering around the place with guns, and being big Dick

militarists? Michael Gove, do you want to come in

on this? I can't believe - I was listening to Will there. Why? Don't

you know the sort of things that I say, Michael? I do now. Do you think

that 9/11 and 7/7 were fictions? No. Have you taken the trouble to talk

to anyone in the security or intelligence services about the

to anyone in the security or plots that have been disrupted? Have

you listened to the transcripts from those reported to have bombed

nightclubs because girls are slags. I'm staggered that you can treat a

serious subject with the flipness that you have had. It is not flip at

all. We will leave the audience to decide. I don't doubt some of these

plots have been foiled by our Security Services. Good. What I'm

talking about is the terms under which we live, the kind of society

talking about is the terms under we want to live in. Do we want to

live in a society that ups its sense we want to live in. Do we want to

of anxiety? This woman sitting here on the panel who is anxious about

her children being killed by terror. I live in London. You should be

anxious about your children being knocked down and killed by a car.

You, Sir? I think what happened in Kenya was unacceptable. As you all

understand, Al-Shabab has claimed they have conducted that exercise.

Kenya has suffered. Kenya is the only country that is hosting an

equivalent of a million Somalis who have been displaced by the war in

Somalia. Kenya has gone into Somalia to restore, to restore and to get

rid of Al-Shabab. That will have made us suffer here in on. I think

our Government, the British Government, has not done enough to

support materially the Kenyan government to rid Kenya of

Al-Shabab. That is what this Government needs. We need more

support, more resources. I don't agree with what you have said. Those

people are evil. They don't represent any faith on this Earth.

APPLAUSE I'd like to take one more point from

the woman in the second row from the back? Does anybody else not find it

shocking that as soon as we start to have a conversation about terrorism

that Michael and Douglas started talking about Islam? It seemed to me

that this Government is always peddling Islamophobia, blaming

violence on everything. Is it not surprising that one in four people

are always suspicious of Muslims? Why can't we talk about terrorism

without bringing Islam into it? There is a fairly obvious answer to

that question. It was an Islamist terrorist attack and it tends to be

these things. OK. Do you radicalise Islamic youth in this country? You

are not on the right territory. This university has the highest ethnic

minority student body in the country and it is very proud of it. Are you

trying to conflat being - look, you don't know what you are talking

about in this area. We have had enough, frankly. I haven't had

enough. Let's take it outside, where you like to do your thing. Alright,

gentlemen. We will move on. We have time for one more question. It is

from Charlotte Jones, please. It is a question that affects everybody in

this room. Following on from Ed Balls' speech this week, and the

heavy criticism for the HS2 project, isn't it about time this Government

scrapped HS2? APPLAUSE HS2 of course being the high-speed

railway line that is planned from London, it goes through Ruislip and

sets off and will set off, if it is built, to the North, to Birmingham

and to Manchester and points beyond. Patrick O'Flynn? My party is against

HS2 and wants it scrapped straightaway, completely. Alright.

Can I say, we have a clear position on it. I think Ed Balls was very

cynical because he's kind of sitting on the fence, but the effect of what

he said will make it very hard for the project to make much progress

he said will make it very hard for anyway over the next couple of

years. I think it is an enormous vanity project. The money could be

better spent on ten large projects or 20 medium-sized projects updating

our whole public transport infrastructure. It is the wrong

project. The Cost Benefit Analysis hasn't been done correctly. It is

ludicrous. Michael Gove? I don't think we should scrap it. It is the

right decision for Britain. On Patrick's point, of all places in

Uxbridge it is going to be a contested proposition. At best. But

on Patrick's point about investing in other transport infrastructure,

he is right. We should invest in oth transport infrastructure and this

Government is. Three times as much public money is going into other

transport schemes as HS2. The reason why we need another rail line on the

west coast is that the capacity constraints under which our rail

system operates means we need another line. If we didn't have HS2,

they would re-create the existing West Coast Main Line with all the

problems, the lack of speed, West Coast Main Line with all the

lack of capacity that we have already witnessed. One of the sad

things in this country is that every time a major infrastructure decision

has come forward, there have always been people who have tried to find

reasons to say no. They have always tried to find a rare bird, they have

always tried to find reasons if this work goes ahead, the money could be

better spent elsewhere. I think that building High Speed 2 would also

ensure that we can take goods and individuals around this country more

quickly and more efficiently, it would also ensure that the

inequalities that exist in our country, with the South

disproportionately wealthy, disproportionately a place for

inward investment, that could be redressed because it would bind the

nation and it would make the North and Scotland easier places in which

inward investment could be attracted. Point made. The woman

here? Can I say don't you want to spend the money on more teachers and

books and schools? We are. You can't spend the same money twice, Michael.

Education spending has been protected. We could have a debate

about how effectively it is being spent. Efbl in very tough times,

when there have been some incredibly tough decisions, we have not only

been able to protect... HS2? Louise Cooper? Cost Benefit Analysis? I'm

been able to protect... HS2? Louise letting you into a secret. It is not

that great a secret. Economic models are rubbish. APPLAUSE Are you in

favour of it being scrapped? It cost £42 billion, they will come out with

a Cost Benefit Analysis that is greater than £42 billion. Should it

be scrapped? I think the money in austere times could be better spent

elsewhere. The chap at the very back? I travel a great deal by train

and one thing I notice is that on most of the long distance rail

routes there is a train every hour, or there are two trains an hour. I

can't believe that making those existing routes run a train every 15

minutes, every 20 minutes isn't vastly cheaper than building a new

massive railway line. I would also comment, I happen to be a pilot, I

fly myself on business, there are routes in this country where I can

fly myself in my own airplane to a meeting cheaper than going by

second-class rail. And for as long as that is the case, we don't want

to be spending a vast amount more money on additional railway lines.

Is Labour coming, trying to come out from under this HS2 project with

what Ed Balls said at the Conference? It may disappoint

members of the audience, but we support a North-South railway. It is

sensible to say the cannot be a blank cheque for this project. Last

month we saw the project cost go from £32 billion to £42 billion. Any

responsible opposition should be saying you have to properly

scrutinise the cost. Do you support £42 billion? The new chap has been

appointed today. He has to look at the £42 billion. We are not clear as

to why we have seen the inflation we have seen. That is why Ed Balls was

right. To an audience here of people who are directly involved, would you

be saying the likelihood is we will go for it? That depends on the

costs. We see the merit in taking forward this project, but it can't

be on the basis of it costing ever larger sums. Let me explain why I

support it. One of the reasons train fares are going up is because of the

level of congestion on the railway. The West Coast Main Line that people

see as an alternative was built in 1837 for Queen Victoria's

Coronation. Are we saying when most of the train paths going out of

Euston at peaktimes are now full, that we are relaxed at the prospect

of Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and that we are relaxed at the prospect

London not having greater connectivity? There is an issue of

congestion that cannot simply be addressed by existing train fleets.

There is a question in terms of whether this is an affordable

project given the uplift in finance that we have seen recently. It is

right that it should be explored. OK. The woman in the pink? We know

how much it is going to cost, or at least how much it is going to cost.

No, the benefit of it is up in the air. Who knows what the economic

benefit is. When are we going to see some robust numbers? When I spend

benefit is. When are we going to see money, I want to know what I'm going

to get back from it. You, Sir? This will be the biggest vanity project

ever brought forward in this country. All it is for vain

politicians to put their name to it and then years later, they will

think, "What a great project." It will be unattainable, it is not

going to be effective, it will be too expensive. There will be things

like video Conferencing which allows people to talk to each other. They

don't need to travel by train. You, Sir? Would the Labour Party tell us

before the next election what their final view is on this and stick to

what they say? I expect we will set out our position when we see whether

this £42 billion is robust enough. Will Self? It is the same companies

who costed the Olympics so well! They have already trousered £50

million in consultancy, of your money, by the way. It is - you wait

for a high-speed service to come along and then it is the wrong one.

The arguments that are presented by the panel don't add up in my mind.

It seems to me the problem with our rail infrastructure goes way back

into the depths of time and into the reliance we placed on road. Where we

lagged behind on our continental cousins was that they saw that

freight should be carried by train and we didn't and the Government is

still in the pocket of the road lobby. There is a lot of weird stuff

going on at the Department of Transport over massaging figures on

car use. So, you know, it is all weird. The cost, there are not going

to be these robust figures, but don't be all NIMBYISS about it, it

is a crap idea where ever you live. Time is up. We have to stop there.

Birmingham next week. Grant Shapps and Yvette Cooper will be on the

panel. The week after that, Cambridge. So Birmingham next week,

Cambridge the week after. Go to our website - www.bbc.co.uk/questiontime

- or call: My thanks to our panel and to our

audience here. Thank you all very much indeed for coming to Brunel

University in Uxbridge. From Question Time, good night.