29/05/2014 Question Time


David Dimbleby presents topical debate from the new Terminal 2 at Heathrow Airport. The panel includes David Willetts MP, Margaret Curran MP, Louise Bours and Piers Morgan.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 29/05/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight we are in the new Terminal Two at Heathrow Airport which opens


next week. Welcome to Question Time. Good evening, to you at home, and to


our audience here, to the panel, who don't know the questions unfill they


hear them. David Willetts, Labour's Shadow Scottish Secretary, Margaret


Curran, one of UKIP's newly-elected MEPs, Louise Bours, the journalist,


television presenter, former editor of the Mirror, Piers Morgan and


football's philosopher king, Joey Barton.


Our first question from Kevin Robinson. Will UKIP cause another


earth quake in the general election next year? Piers Morgan? It has been


very interesting watching the rise of UKIP from America, where I have


been the whole time it's been going on. Looking from the outside, my


initial reaction was, like most people, a bunch of crackpots, this


isn't going to last and slowly they gather momentum and I have tried to


work out why this was happening. I think the answer is the British


people are basically fed up with mediocrity. They look at the leaders


of these three parties and they see three very similar sounding,


similar-looking, white middle-class, middle-aged, quite posh gentlemen


who seem to have no relation to the real world. You have Mr Boring, Mr


Weird, Mr Useless and along comes Nigel Farage, who, for all his


faults - and he's got faults - he seems like a regular guy. He is a


guy who puts a pint on his head and you can kind of understand why a lot


of people in this country - particularly working-class people -


look at him and think he is making sense. He's been very clever, very


smart as a politician. Two issues. Focus on two things. Europe and


immigration. Two issues which most people have concerns about and they


are right to have concerns about them. So I think that the rise of


UKIP has been a very good thing for the democratic process in this


country. I think it's shaken up Westminster. It's shaken up the main


parties. But there comes a point where you have to say, if they are a


protest vote, I'm in favour. The moment you start to take them


seriously as a party that can govern, I think you have got massive


problems. I tried to find out what else UKIP stood for other than get


out of Europe and send all the foreigners home that we don't like.


And I just did a quick check on Google and it was... Not a great


information source. End gay marriage, ignore climate change and


bring backhand guns. I thought, are we serious? Is this a serious party?


So the question is can there be another UKIP earthquake in a real


general election? A lot will depend on the three parties and how they


respond to this threat, but UKIP - and I will be interested to hear


what the lady to my left has to say - has to take itself more seriously


and has to present policies coming on the momentum they built up which


can resonate a lot more than just Europe and immigration. Briefly, if


it does that, can it cause another earthquake? It's indisputable they


have caused an earthquake. That is a good thing. They have shaken things


up. Can they do it again? I don't know. Do they really want to stand


for more than Europe and immigration? I don't believe the


next election will be fought on that. It will be fought on the


economy. Do they want to expand to that? It is an interesting situation


we are in. I congratulate Nigel Farage for coming this far. I'm


worried by what lies underneath UKIP and whether actually it sustains


itself. We will come to UKIP in a moment. Margaret Curran? I think it


can be explained by the deep resentment by what's going on in


politics. They saw the economic crisis, they saw it caused by


bankers, but they see bankers' bonuses going, they see the energy


companies who keep saying that prices, their prices have got to go


up and our prices have got to go up. But their profits go on


unchallenged. I think people are deeply resentful of that and feel


something has to be done. Following on from MPs' expenses and such like,


people have a deep complaint about the political system and feel


politicians are not talking enough about their lives and the things


that matter to them. It is your fault that UKIP rose? Well, partly


it's the whole political class. I do feel Labour is trying to understand


and talk about the issues that affect people in this country, such


as the energy crisis and the cost of living. Ed Miliband said that this


has to be about changing the way that we do politics. OK. It hasn't


happened yet because it didn't happen in the European elections.


The question is, is there going to be another UKIP earthquake in under


a year from now? Who knows. We are asking your view. You are a


professional politician, you should know. It depends on the reasons why


people voted UKIP. UKIP are deeply wrong. We need to take on some of


the arguments of UKIP and that now needs to happen and we need to be


assertive and explain why UKIP are wrong. It is about understanding and


addressing the fundamental issues in people's lives and I think Labour


does have a programme for that and I am confident that we can answer


people's needs. We do need to make sure that we take on UKIP and expose


some of them... What would be the one wrong thing you would take on?


You say we have to expose where they are wrong. If you took one thing


that you could take to the election? This presentation - you can solve


all problems by those issues - that is the thing we need to take on. We


need to live in a much more tolerant society. We need to look at what we


have got in common with each other. That is how you address the deep


malaise. You don't do it by setting people apart against each other. OK.


We've got a lot of hands up. I would like to hear from Louise Bours.


Thank you. Thank you to my two panelists for completely insulting


and denigrating the 5.5 million people who did vote for UKIP last


week. I did not so thing. Yes, you did. The fact is 5.5 million people


did vote for UKIP. Obviously, what the establishment cannot understand


in any way is the disconnect that the normal people of this country


feel with the establishment. There is a total disconnect. They look at


Westminster, they look at the green leather and they see nobody at all


that represents them. Nobody who looks like them. Nobody who talks


like them. And so they have looked to something else. And that is why


UKIP won last Thursday. The fact is, people want to see people they


recognise. We want to recognise what they feel. We want to know they are


going through the things we go through on a regular basis. That is


what the political class is not doing in this country. In fact, the


political class and the establishment are - we are the


symptom of how they have treated the people of this country. The


misinformation like Piers has given out about banning gay marriage -


what utter nonsense. Wait a minute. You have had your say. Nigel Farage


said he wanted to legalise handguns. And the media in this country is


incredible. What I say to you, ladies and gentlemen, over the


summer, we will be putting together a domestic manifesto. This election


has been fought on two things. It's a European election. So, of course,


it's been fought on Europe. Of course it has. It's a European


election. Over the summer, we will have a full manifesto of domestic


policies that all of you will be able to scrutinise and so you


should. That is right. Is it not true that Nigel Farage said he


wanted to legalise handguns? That is not true. What he was talking about


was the fact that it was a disgrace that the Olympic gun team had to go


outside of this country to train and he said that was ludicrous. You are


telling me that is not ludicrous? That wasn't what he said. It is what


he said. It isn't. Let's leave guns. The man up there at the top left? In


response to Piers' first comment that all the party leaders are


similar. Is this not in response to our voting system because we have


got to have someone who compromises between the 51% and the 49% whilst


party leaders such as Farage, they are a leader for about 30%. I


personally would look at moving abroad if Nigel Farage was our


leader next year. You, over there? In my personal opinion, UKIP support


will fall in the general election when people start to focus on issues


which affect them. I live in Hammersmith and there's been a


stunning victory there from Labour in the council election because they


focussed on the local NHS. I think that when people read UKIP's last


manifesto, where they wanted to privatise large parts of the NHS, as


a doctor, I think the British public are going to reject that. They have


done. That is misinformation. Again, this is misinformation that's


perpetuated by the establishment. We have never said we want to privatise


the NHS. What we have said is we would like to streamline the NHS,


there's 48% of people who work for the NHS who aren't clinically


trained. Why aren't those resources targeted at doctors and nurses? We


don't need to talk about... The manifesto of 2010 is drivel,


according to Nigel Farage. He said, "I didn't read it, it was drivel,


486 pages of drivel." At least he is honest! It is the new manifesto we


should be concentrating on. Joey Barton? The thing that keeps getting


me about it is everyone is saying UKIP have done so well. From what


little I know about it, I don't think they have done that well. Only


34% of the people voted... Winning the election is not doing well? You


have no MPs. You can't have done that well! We won a national


election, Joey. Hang on. Do you think - I listened when you spoke -


do you think that 34% of those eligible to vote cared enough about


what they were voting for to make a drastic change? For me, they didn't.


The others didn't mobilise their vote. We did. We won the election.


You won some seats in Europe in the European Parliament that nobody


really cares about. Well, they should care about it. They should


care about it. If you make the same traction in a general election,


people will sit up and take notice. The mainstream political parties are


sitting up and taking notice. All you represent to me is the best of a


bad bunch. So if I'm somewhere and there was four really ugly girls,


I'm thinking she's not... Oh dear. That is all you are to us. I have to


say the ignorance here - he fulfils the mission that footballers' brains


are in their feet. He has proved that to me tonight. What an


offensive thing to say. Maybe you do. You have to frame your argument


a little... UKIP have not made the progress that everyone is


professing... Winning the national election... 34% of those eligible to


vote voted. They voted for UKIP. Nobody cares. It was a protest vote.


That's all it was. I call it democracy. The Lib Dems are really


bad at the minute, as everyone knows. I have got more chance of


winning a general election than the Lib Dems, or Nick Clegg! And the


other parties have failed to perform. UKIP come in, I will give


you credit for that. That is what democracy is. Whilst I agree with


the general premise of what Joey is saying, the figures are 9% of all


eligible voters so it's less than what you are saying. It even


highlights the fact that they don't have that much support in those


elections. The 27% support of those who voted comes out at 9% of


everybody who could have voted? Exactly. Is that significant? David


Willetts? It is five million people voting in the democracy, that is


significant. That is messages for all of the political parties about


the kind of anxieties people have. They have anxieties about Europe


heading in the wrong direction. They have anxieties about Europe


heading in the wrong They have anxieties about migration. I think


there's a deeper anxiety. They have an anxiety that our kids are not


going to have the same quality of life that we have enjoyed and they


expect politicians to do something to ensure our kids do have better


lives than the previous generation. So I think that is the challenge for


us. I don't think UKIP are going to be able to rise to that challenge.


The clue was in what Nigel Farage said on election day. He said a vote


for UKIP was a free hit. He meant it was an opportunity to get a message


to the Government without any real consequences. Next year, people will


be choosing a Government. They will be choosing who are the grown-ups


who will do the long-term things that will ensure Britain keeps on


growing, that our kids have a decent education, they have an opportunity


to get on the housing ladder. On those issues, it will be a different


election than the one we have just had. It is one I look forward to


when people are choosing the Government of this country.


that, having clearly touched a nerve in the European election? Because,


if you look at their - they are touching a chord, an anxiety I


understand. As a democrat, the fact that five million people vote is


very significant. When you tilely look at what the policies are, they


are completely pass Sewell. It's not the case this nation's problems are


solved simply by leaving Europe. It's actually a kind of diversion


tactic. We have real challenges of investing more in infrastructure and


real challenges in ensuring people get high quality healthcare. Leaving


Europe is not relevant for any of that. People want to ensure Europe


doesn't head in the wrong direction. I think this Prime Minister has been


very effective in that. We have vetoed a treaty, delivered the first


cut in the European budget. They want governments that do serious


things. What Nigel Farage was offering was a kind of escape from


those real tasks that real governments have to give on with.


Why are you offering an a referendum if it's an irrelevant issue? There


are other things like health and education I doubt that anybody who


voted UKIP last Thursday knew what UKIP would do, I'm not totally sure


the UKIP MEPs agree on what they would do on health or It's a


education. European Why are election. You offering a referendum?


Why are you making a big deal about the referendum if you don't think


it's the potential to solving Europe's problems? Europe is heading


in the wrong direction. Too many powers are being taking in Brussels.


Part of the frustration is that Europe are doing things that are


better decided by national governments. Who will effectively


negotiate and who will give you a choice in a referendum and the


outcome of that negotiations? There is only one party that can credibly


offer that at the next election, that is is the Conservatives. The


person in the fourth row. The man there. Is it not very worrying that


so many UKIP associates and MEPs and people who represent UKIP have come


out as racist or making homophobic - You name me one MEP who has come out


as being racist? The gay weather fiasco? He is a Conservative


councillor. When he was a Conservative councillor spouting


that nonsense nobody heard it. A couple of days ago someone


associated with UKIP say with Downs children should have forced abortion


- I have not read that. It was in the papers. What about Dave Small.


Is he the Worcester councillor? He came out with some repellent and


hideous comments. He was suspended and expelled within three days am we


take notice of these things. We know that some of our procedures have


been flawed. We are the first ones to admit that, hold our hands up.


When the people speak out we throw them out. What about your leader who


goes on radio who says he doesn't want to live next to Romanians. He


didn't say that. You are twisting and spinning it like a media man. He


did not say that at all. He did not say that at all. Exactly what he


said. All right. You, sir. I voted UKIP for the first time. Why?


Because what Louise was saying actually. Because, I think, for the


last few years, all I've heard is talk, talk, talk, UKIP at last are


talking on behalf of the British people. They are certainly talking


to me. As long as the major parties keep on making these noises that


they are listening to us, I'm going to - well, as I say, until they


actually deliver, I want to vote UKIP at least they give us a voice


and. How can I put this? It's... Ah... It just feels as though I'm


being talked to like a naughty schoolboy. That will my vote is a


protest vote and next year I will be a good boy and come back into the


fold and vote Conservative. They don't understand it. By saying it it


is a protest vote - A free hit. What does that mean? There was a poll


conducted by ITV of people who voted UKIP at this election. 2% of those


people said they would continue to vote UKIP in 2015. We know -


honestly, I would not insult your intelligence. We know we have a long


way to go. We know we are flawed. As a political party we are a baby. We


have been in existence for 21 years our procedures and things - people


get through the net. We are working really, really hard. When those kind


of things, sir, come up that you mentioned before we kick them out. I


also think those things are repellent. Think of where we have


been. Where we are now. I tell you what, when our domestic manifesto is


launched in September you can skriet nigh it and ask questions and make


your own mind up in 2015. You, sir. As someone who values diversity and


supports gay marriage and refuses tovillify people based on their


nationality, religion or race, UKIP do not and will never speak for me.


APPLAUSE The lady over here on the right.


Yes. Yes. I thoroughly endorse what I've just heard. What I want to say,


what I feel might answer this question about a landslide and what


a party could do next year to prevent UKIP gaining any more


momentum, is for Ed Miliband and the Labour Party to take a moral stand.


Don't appease UKIP. Don't say that UKIP is not racist. UKIP does have,


I would say - You think five million people are racist in this country? I


would like to see this country... You think Labour hasn't taken UKIP


on properly? I think Ed Miliband should speak out against it. We are


a country who can take a moral stand. We are enriched by


immigration. All of us here are enriched by immigration. I would


like to see that stressed and emphasised. OK. Hold on a second.


Anybody else here who is a UKIP supporter or voted UKIP, who I would


like to hear from. A whole row there! Did you come together? No.


The question I think is that the European election that we've just


had is on proportional representation. We had effectively


virtually 30% of the voting public voted for UKIP for particular


reasons in a European election. We now have an ordinary by-election


coming up in Newark, which is my hometown, and it will be very


interesting to see whether that momentum can carry on into a


conventional election on a first-past-the-post system. I think


that's the real growing up of UKIP to extend its support, not only to


cover other issues, but to enable its MPs to, candidates, to become


successful. When, at the moment, the UKIP support is pretty well evenly


spread throughout the country and including Wales and including


Scotland. Of but it's not peaking in any particular place. There are


hotspots. It will be interesting to see whether Newark is a hotspot. The


younger are disill Lewesed. They have decided not to vote. They can't


be bothered. They haven't voted for UKIP. Everyone who votes for UKIP


are the older voter. Obviously, the fact that 34% turned out to the poll


say there is is a young of disill Lewesed voters like myself who could


never imagine voting for UKIP. Only reason you would vote for UKIP, in


my opinion, is that you were really disill Lewesed with the mainstream


parties. Two or three of you had your hands up as UKIP supporters.


Yes, the gentleman with his hand up there. I don't - I'm a Labour


supporter, but I voted for UKIP at the last election. I think the


question is - why did the five million people vote for UKIP? Why


did you as a Labour supporter? Because, I mean, this is real-life.


I mean, what UKIP are talking about, it is happening on the street. It's


not about racism. It's about the economy, accepting immigrants more


than what they can afford. When people go on - to look for a job,


and they can't find it, people get angry. It's real. People get


frustrated because they can't get housing or their kids can't get to


the next school. It's real-life. When - the answers like from David,


saying that, OK, it's a protest. We know we will sort it out. You are


forgetting, you are the ones who put us in that situation in the first


place. You know. Vote for UKIP, it's a real vote. If you don't do


something about it, I will vote for UKIP again. You say, we have to do


something about it. I would say the coalition, in the four years we have


been in Government, have been sorting out a mess. We have have


been doing things about a lot of people's worries. If you want an


effective voice in Europe, it stops keeping taking powers from us. That


is what David Cameron has been delivering. I think at the next


election - People don't believe that, do they? The reason UKIP is


attracting support in significant numbers is precisely because they


don't think David Cameron has been batting for this country in Europe.


I think that is a perfectly valid charge to We will make. Come to that


in a moment. Take the decisions we took on the economy. We took tough


decisions in the economy in 2010 - Immigration is what he was talking


about. He was talking about immigration, not the economy. We


have reduced the total amount of migration. We have tightened the


regime for migrants coming from outside Europe. We have tightened


the rules on - you mentioned housing, sir, we tightened the rules


on housing so that people who have been living in an area for a time do


have priority about - over people who arrived. We understand these are


the type of legitimate anxieties that people have. We are tackling


them. Do you want to come back on that? The Tories policy on


immigration doesn't work. Exactly. No because they cannot affect what


is happening on Europe owe immigration. They are just attacking


students and people outside the EU. You can tighten the rules. You are


absolutely right. I have been polite. In this panel you have to


talk over people. It's polite. In this panel you have to


talk over people. the only way I will get to speak. The lady here


made an important and direct point about Labour. I want to take the


opportunity to address this. I think it's current in the debate. What Ed


Miliband and Labour is saying is clear, you have to make a


distinction between UKIP as a party and the things they say and do. You


can't avoid responsibility in the way that you're trying to do tonight


to dodge the bullets, in terms of some of the arguments, you are being


irresponsible and not facing up to some of the arguments about some of


the things that UKIP have said and do stand for and what they try and


presents as politics. There is a distinction between that and why


people voted for them. I don't absolutely write off those five


million people that voted for UKIP. I will make, Labour will be out to


win your votes back. Those of you that are remotely sympathetic to our


view of the world. We would make a big distinction. For example, if


there is a problem about housing, we know housing and access to housing


caused tensions and difficulties in communitiesment we would say - don't


blame the people applying for the houses. We need to tackle the supply


of housing. I'm the daughter of an immigrant myself. I believe


immigrants have made an he enormous and important contribution to this


country. We have to say that loudly and clearly. I respect anybody that


comes here with enterprise and creativity and puts in hard graph.


We need to respond to that. We need to have a managed, fair and


effective system of immigration. We need to have an honest debate about


that. You can do that in a progressive way and the Labour way


not the way the Tories have done it. We need to answer people's deep


concerns about politics. On their issues we can provide answers to


them. It is not stigmatising people and not getting into the (inaudible)


of politics. You, sir. I'm young. I did vote UKIP. I'm passionately


interested in politics. You voted UKIP? Yes. The reason I voted for


UKIP wasn't for immigration. I believe the UK should be a sovereign


nation which shouldn't have to be part of the European United States


project. I don't feel personally European. If you look at everyone in


the European Commission they talk about a European dream and European


state and European armed forces. I don't want to be part of that. Joey


Barton says young people don't vote. I think the reason people don't vote


isn't because they are disill Lewesed they haven't been educated


in politics. I'm one of only a very few number of people in my school


who do politics. A lot of people did vote at the last general election


and because of what Lib Dems were promising. The reason they don't


vote is because they haven't been informed about politics at Do you


all. Think there will be an earthquake in the general election?


No, I don't. The first-past-the-post system you have absolutely no hope.


Would you vote UKIP again in 11 months' time. I will try to vote to


get Vince Cable out of Twickenham. can't remember what they decided


about that. Let's go on to another question. You can, of course, join


in this debate, as you well know, text, Twitter - #bbcqt, you can


follow us @bbcquestiontime or you can go to the website -


www.bbc.co.uk/questiontime. One day, we hope to get Twitter on to the red


button. We will catch up. It will be great. You are scared of it. The


comments people make. A question from Cliff Barrowman. Should full


details of discussions between George Bush and Tony Blair in


respect of the Iraq War be made public? This is the row that's been


going on over the Chilcot report and the decision that was announced


today in a letter that they have now reached an agreement on what can and


can't be published. Who would like to start on this? Piers Morgan, you


start on this. When I was editor of the Daily Mirror, we fought long and


hard a campaign against the Iraq War. Nothing that has happened since


has persuaded me War. Nothing that has happened since


has persuaded that it was not a valid campaign. I had lots of


dealings with Tony Blair at the time at Downing Street and was into his


mind a little bit. I always believed - my brother was fighting for the


British Army in Basra, so I had a vested interest on all sides of


this. I always believed that basically Tony Blair had said to


George Bush, "I'm in whatever happens." And I believe when he


didn't get the second UN Resolution that he had already told George Bush


and the Americans, "We are going in." That, to me, turned our


involvement in the Iraq War into an illegal involvement in the Iraq War.


And I think that what you are seeing now in terms of selective details of


the conversations between the British Prime Minister and the


American President is absolutely outrageous that we are not going to


get all the details which can determine once and for all whether


that agreement was made without authorisation from the British


Parliament or not. There is only one we are not getting them - it's a bad


reason - it is because the details that are contained in those


conversations would be deeply embarrassing to Tony Blair, not so


embarrassing to the Americans. To the British Prime Minister, Tony


Blair, at the time, who led us into that war, a war that I believe was


illegal, I think this is fundamentally important and we, as


the British public, have a right to see the details of those


conversations. He said last week it is not me who is holding it up, the


sooner it's published the better. Somebody is holding it up. Tony


Blair can say that with the safety of knowledge, I don't know - I don't


think it is Tony Blair personally - maybe he has knowledge that we don't


about what has been going on behind-the-scenes. I don't think


there is anyone in this room, or anyone watching at home, who when


they heard today that we are not going to get the details of those


conversations didn't think this stinks. Yeah. I can't understand


what the point of the Chilcot Inquiry is if we are not going to


get the full truth. We have been involved in the Hillsborough sort of


campaign that was going on a while back and is still ongoing. It smells


a little bit of the same about what was going on. You can't give


information but say we are are only going to give select information. It


has to be the whole truth. I have read on the way over that it is over


100 pages of direct conversations between Blair and Bush in the


lead-up to us going into the war. I mean, how can we - what is the point


of the inquiry if they don't have this information? I agree with Piers


and Joey. You will be glad to know! We have a fundamental right as


British people to know what is in those papers. Our men and women in


the armed forces went out and fought and died because of those decisions.


I think it highlights the disconnect between the politicians and the


public. They forget that they work for us, actually. We have elected


them into office and they are public servants, they are there on our


behalf. We have a fundamental right to know why we were taken into what


I believe was an illegal war. Even - I think it is quite insulting to say


that we will only get the gist, we will only get excerpts... Margaret


Curran, a Labour supporter and supporter of Tony Blair, why do you


think it's not all being published? Why has Sir John Chilcot accepted


that it won't all be published? I have not seen all the details of


what has been said today. I saw the word "gist" being used and it won't


be everything. That's my understanding of what's happened. I


think the principle of disclosure is important and I think the principle


- and that is what Chilcot is trying to do for the British people - and


some of the previous inquiries have tried to do that. People are aware


of what happened in Iraq and why we went to war and why leaderships and


governments behaved the way they did. I assume that part of the


explanation for not full disclosure is about secrecy and protocols of


Government and secret shared security and that is part of the


explanation. I would have to say that Tony Blair has been through


full investigations through Chilcot and through some of the other


inquiries. It is obviously still a deeply important issue to Britain


and obviously of course to the Armed Services who served so significantly


for us. I do understand the depth of feeling there is still about Iraq. I


think we would need to look and see the security arguments as to why


there is not full disclosure. It doesn't seem to be just security.


There is a line in it about not attempting to explain George Bush's


position, which is very curious. That is because the Americans have


to explain their own position. What about explaining Tony Blair's


position? I think this is what has to be explained. If they don't


quote, if you don't quote from telephone conversations, you just


give the gist of a telephone conversation, you know what that


means, that is what people do in ordinary life, they give a gist of


something and you don't get a real flavour of what the people were


saying? You can't imply they are misleading or deceitful. There has


to be a guarantee that it's the truth that is being exchanged. Do


you not think the families of those soldiers or people who served in the


war, who died, have the right to say why their children's lives were


lost? Of course. We must have full disclosure. That is what Chilcot is


about. You are going to get the reasons why... But... We can't - to


protect Anglo American relations we can't say we can't, you know, we


can't show that because it will damage this, it will be the secret.


There's people who have lost their sons and daughters. They have the


right to know why their lives were taken. You, Sir? Your party took us


against the will of the people into an illegal war. We deserve to know.


The people of the world deserve to know what happened. We don't deserve


to get a gist. We deserve to know every single thing that went wrong


and why we spent billions going into an illegal war and why it has


worsened our national security. David Willetts? I think... Do you


agree with him? I don't believe that the war was illegal, no. I do think


there is all the key questions that people are asking about the war and


Piers got, he put a fair and crucial question, which is what exactly was


going on between Prime Minister Blair and President Bush and what


assurances ordeals were being done. That is a crucial part of Chilcot.


We do need to know that. That is absolutely essential. The Chilcot


Inquiry is an independent inquiry, it is not - I believe that the


people on that Chilcot Inquiry are going to try to get to the bottom of


that. Hang on. On that point. Why has he then accepted the deal that


he's been offered, simply giving the gist of conversations? I don't know


what has been - the details of this arrangement. My understanding of


what has been agreed between Chilcot and Prime Minister Blair is that


there will be extracts so that there will be real words in quotation


marks, but it will not be a transcript of everything that was


said between Blair and Bush. I would assume that one of the issues is,


what is going to happen in any future conversation between a


British Prime Minister and an overseas... I absolutely agree - and


you are correct in what you say about the parents of people who died


needing to know everything about the circumstances of this war. The


question is whether we can answer that question which is absolutely


right and crucial whilst, at the same time, and a future American


President able to say things to a British Prime Minister without his


feeling that what I say in the next few years is going to appear in a


transcript. If that, I assume that one of the issues is what kind of


conversation - when our Prime Minister is talking to President


Obama next week about what they are going to do in Nigeria to help with


the security issue of the school kids that have been abducted in


Nigeria - at what point can people say this is a conversation that we


are having in confidence? Someone has to reach that judgment. It is a


difficult judgment. I'm not privy to it. Clearly, Blair and Chilcot have


tried to reach some sort of agreement. Hang on a second. When


you have a war that is fought on an entirely false pretext that Saddam


Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. I have never accused


Tony Blair of lying. I think he probably did believe that Saddam had


those weapons. I'm sure George Bush believed it, too. When it turned out


that he did not have them, at that point this inquiry becomes


incredibly important because the lives that Joey talked about - the


soldiers, including my brother who went on the frontline and risked


their lives, they are doing it for the wrong reasons. That is why this


transcript could clear up whether Tony Blair, the British Prime


Minister, gave assurances which he did not share with the British


people or with the British Parliament. If you don't reveal


them, everyone is going to assume that is what is on them. To pick you


up on one point, David. You say it was an agreement made with Tony


Blair. The letter Chilcot has written is written to the present


Cabinet Secretary and... He has responsibility. He is not a party


figure. He has responsibility for the crucial question which shouldn't


be decided by any politician, which is are there any conversations that


a British Prime Minister can have with the President of the US that


the President of the US should be able to think the text is not going


to be revealed? We shall never know the answer to that. The challenge is


whether Chilcot can answer the crucial question - they are


reasonable questions - whether he can answer those questions by he and


his independent members of his inquiry looking at everything that


was said between Bush and Blair in so far as we have any record of it


anywhere in Whitehall. The thing that gets... This is what Jeremy


Hayward has to decide. Whether that should be word-by-word publicly...


Alright. You, Sir? I think Piers has hit the nail on the head. I think


the reason we are not going to get the full conversations made public


is one, we will find out the reasons we went to war. Two, I think this is


the crucial thing, the public will realise that the national interest


is not synonymous with the public interest. They will realise the


national interest, whenever the establishment talks about the


national interest, it is about protecting those people at the


highest end of power in Whitehall. It is not about the public interest.


How could anybody argue that fully publishing in full these


conversations is not in the public interest? It shows one more thing.


Why are we not talking about declassifying the conversations


between the joint Joint Intelligence Committee over here and the Director


of National Intelligence in the US? The intelligence was proved false,


the dodgy dossier. The decision was taken at the top between two people


who had a phone conversation where one probably said to the other, "I'm


with you all the way, pal." You will get them, but it will just be 30


years. The key thing is when Blair said after 9/11 we stand by the


shoulders of our brothers or whatever the words were. I would


like to see if it's Blair following through on that to say we would


stand by you and the Americans using the premise of the 9/11 attacks to


go and do what they want with the ridiculous foreign policy and


whether Blair has tried to talk Bush out of it, whether Blair has agreed


with him. I would like to see that. People have lost their lives. I want


to know why they have lost their lives. The woman there on the left?


disconnect that people feel with their parties. A quid pro quo that


needs to happen if our phone calls and our emails and our communication


is going to be tapped at will, surely that transparency should work


both ways. We are in the age of Big Brother. That should work both ways.


The second point I want to make. Joey Barton, I was with you some of


the things he said, the analogy he may of four ugly girls will be on


Twitter. Tomorrow you will be buried for. It I do apologise. I couldn't


think of a better one. It's the first time I have ever done it. As


Louise pointed out, my brains are in my face. J On your face it realise


what had you said. I was nervous, I apologise. Let's go on to another


question. Melissa Hughes. Should Heathrow Airport have a third


runway. Here we are sitting in Heathrow. The great debate about


whether there should be an extended runway, Gatwick runway, governments


can't make up their minds. A report that won't be decided on until


safely after the next general election. The Joey Barton without


bringing in four girls, what is your view? I will never live that down,


will I? No, you're not. I'm biased in this, in terms I live on the


flight path. I'm dead against Heathrow having a third runway. And,


I mean, am I right in thinking the last three parties at the general


election had in their manifesto they were going to be against the third


runway. From what little I've seen about it or what little I know about


it, I've seen the Gatwick proposal, the Heathrow proposal. I travel on


the Tube and seen Gatwick wanting to expand. As somebody who lives on the


flight path I'm against it. Surmising most of the people who


live around Heathrow don't want the extra traffic. Don't want the extra


pollution. Somebody else should have it? Gatwick. They were talking about


making Heathwick - People live around Heathrow and have houses -


They seem to want it. Has anyone done research. People in this region


are against it. I don't understand why the other parties on the


manifesto were against it. What has changed? Have we got silent planes,


less pollution. What has changed now? The woman up there, second row


from the back. I think they should have a third runway, more economical


than HS2, provide more jobs, bring in international jobs. It would be a


lot better for the UK as a whole. You live one way or another close to


Heathrow. Are you in favour of it? I'm in favour of Heathrow and


Gatwick. Since Gatwick has been the nationalisation was taken off, I


think Gatwick should be given a chance for being a global hub. They


have restrictions until 2018. Their local council is in favour of it. I


have done research as part of my management course. A lot of the


debate was that Heathrow needs another runway because of the


capacity is at maximum. Also I think Gatwick, they have a new CEO who has


also been City of London Edinburgh he should be given a chance to give


Gatwick another What is runway. UKIP's policy on it? There is a


north/south divide on this one. I represent the north-west. When we


had the lead story on the news about the Tube strikes. We really don't


care if you have a Tube strike in London, it doesn't affect us in


Manchester. It's like this with the Heathrow runway. The capacity point,


sir, I was reading a little bit about that. As far as I can see,


capacity, talk about capacity, that will create more demand. They had a


really good example of that was in Frankfurt in 1984, the same


problems. They built the third runway. Now, two years ago, they


have now built a fourth runway. If you increase capacity, you will


increase demand it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. The lady


mentioned HS2 this is meant to be dispersed economic activity across


the country. Heathrow, you get another runway, it will again suck


everything into London. You know what, there are lots of things going


on outside of the M25. I know it's really incredible. We have flushing


toilets, we have running water in the north-west. Manchester is a


great city. Liverpool is a great city. I would like to see, come on,


let us see some of that economic activity diverted to other areas.


Picking up on what Joey said. You know, I believe passionately, UKIP


believe, that the people should have say. You will be affected, the


people who live in this area. It's absolutely vital that you are


consulted. You have to have that through a role referendum. The


people affected in London don't want it, it shouldn't happen. Piers


Morgan. Job creation where? It seems a classic British debate we are


having. We are finding endless excuses not to do something which is


absolutely overwhelmingly in our interest to do. Heathrow is the


number one aviation brand that we have in this country. America, where


I live most of the time, they love Heathrow. They don't talk about


Gatwick. It doesn't have the same prestige, nothing against Gatwick.


Heathrow is our blue ribboned airport, if you like. We need the


capacity. We want to encourage the people who will be flooding from in


from China, America, other countries, the Far East,


predominantly. They will come from their own airports which are


sensational. I have been to Shanghai, I have been to the Middle


East, their airports are way ahead of most of us go. To Terminal 5 here


at Heathrow, a fantastic terminal. Recently voted one of the best


terminals in the world. I've used it all the time. Tremendous. Terminal 2


about to open is modelled on Terminal 5, it looks fantastic. We


should be proud of this. We should say - right, we have something


special here. We are redeveloping Heathrow to become a genuinely


world-class airport. Let us give them a third runway, let us become


not just one of the best airports in the world, let's become THE best.


Let us not be British about it and say, oh, it's noisy. Oh, the traffic


will be bad. Oh, the pollution... Joey. Let's be the best! Piers, you


know if you travel in Heathrow or in - I live under the path too. It will


go over my head. I thought you lived in New York? At the moment I'm back


here for reasons that are slightly beyond nigh my control. I have a


house that be under the flight path. The 747 was the noisest hair


aircraft in the world. It's one of the quietest. Right. You have to


work out, the planes are getting quieter and quieter. Planes are


getting quieter. Technology will mean they will continue to get


quieter. Do not let noise, pollution and traffic stop us being a


world-class airport that makes us - What about the rest of the country.


Build another one in Manchester and Birmingham where ever else you want


to build one. I don't see you begging to do it. They should let


these people decide. I have to tell you how wonderful Glasgow is. Build


one everywhere! The trick and difficulty in this is you have to


balance out economic development. Piers made that argument strongly.


You can't always throw things out because a certain group of people


don't want them. As a country and across the globe have to take


account of aviation emissions too. That is a challenge. I think it's


right, believe it or not, what the Government have done through the


Davis Commission, the proper way to come to this conclusion is to look


at evidence-led policy. Where we look at the different arguments and


you try to come to a conclusion that allows you, hopefully, to look at


noise pollution and do something about CO2 emissions. I wouldn't be


in a position where we are under cutting developments in the


south-east. I do think point to point air travel and our airports


across (inaudible) are important. David Willetts can you answer


briefly. That's why I do think having Howard Davis looking through


the options will assess these arguments we are hearing about


noise, pollution or global hubs best to give him the objective analysis


and look forward to his report. That is the only way we will ever resolve


this. I live on the flight path. It's noisy. It is. Maybe they will


get quieter. Anyone who lives on it will testify to it. You hear them


going over. Is all right. The thing that strikes me is expanding Gatwick


theory. You can - they were talking about putting 15 minutes or 20


minutes high-speed link between the two. Gatwick essentially becoming


Heathwick. London is our capital city. It should be the pride of the


country. It should be should be the one we work hard to make the best. I


will bow to Louise Bours, not everybody is obsessed whether


Heathrow has its extra runway. I will take a question, if we can just


do it in a few minutes, from Robert Benjamin, please. Yes. Are NHS


funded slimming clubs really the best way towards a healthier nation?


This is a kind of big story. You are a nutritionist, aren't you? Yes. The


NHS will pay for you to go to Weight Watchers and lose weight. Are you in


favour of that or not? I think it's a nice idea. I fear it's not


preventative enough. Obesity is a very big problem. UK girls ranked -


One for Joey Barton. The third heaviest girls, is that right? You


are a health freak, are you in favour? Am I? I thought you were.


I'm struggling to see how the NHS we should subsidise. I really am. I


have written about the carrot-and-stick argument about


introducing a "fat tax" people obviously are aware of the kind of


things they are are ping in their mouth. What gets me, this may be


where the Government can help. I know a lot of people (inaudible)


they would really like to eat healthily, eat organic, it's very


expensive. The alternative for them, they have to feed the kids. The


stuff that is really cheap is the stuff that is pretty crap. If the


Government could introduce something where maybe people on low income or


benefits can receive a coupon or a token or something that allows them


to get fresh vegetables, fresh fruit and veg and give the kids a healthy


diet. I think that would be a good ?5 billion thing. Every single year


the NHS spends on obesity-related illnesses. If someone is willing to


make the effort to try, I believe Weight Watchers and Slimming World


change to how you look and cook food. That has to be cheaper than


spending ?5 billion on gastric bands and type two diabetes etc, etc. Why


not look at the alternatives. You have to take it further. Why are so


many girls in particular, the boys figures weren't much better, so


obese in this country compared to other European countries? The answer


is, we have become a sedatory country. My four kids love their


sport. They play it all the time. It keeps their weight down. A lot of


orchids don't get sports at schools. I have banged this drum for a long


time. The one thing I agreed with Boris Johnson about, more than


anything else, bringing 90 minutes or two hours of compulsory sport in


school. They are on laptops and phones all day. Get them running and


losing weight. David Willetts. We have an obesity problem. It's


serious. I agree with Piers. We have added an extra hour of sport across


all our schools because people do need more examiner countries. After


the Olympics we are actually doing more sport. You are in favour of the


NHS putting slimming clubs - No, I think - it is their decision for


local individual authorities. I'm not convinced that is a good use. I


think examiner countries is the right way. Whether that would be a


long-term solution I don't know. We need to get people into looking at


food. The world has changed. How you eat for the long-term, not just some


of the short-term fads which some of the slimming clubs are guilty of. If


I agree with Louise about this, if it helps you think about food, that


is good. It's not just young people, maybe we could show by example about


some of the way we behaviour - Did you point to me as a sign of fine


physical fitness. What a perfect way to end the show! We all have to wise


up and show by example. We are all guilty. You should look at what they


did in Dubai? What did they do in Dubai They gave a gram of gold for


every kilogram of weight lost. They spend ?400,000 - Something for the


UKIP manifesto. Something for the manifesto. Once more, you can yo-yo


you get a gram every other year. I will sign up for that one now. That


is it. Next week Question Time will be in Wales. The following week we


will be in King's Lynn. The website is there on our screen You can call


the number: If you are listening on 5 Live the debate goes on on


Question Time Extra Time. My thanks to my panel, all of you who came to


take part in this programme, in this brand new Terminal 2. Until next


time, from Question Time, good night.


David Dimbleby presents topical debate from the new Terminal 2 at Heathrow Airport. On the panel are Conservative universities and science minister David Willetts MP, Labour's shadow Scottish secretary Margaret Curran MP, newly elected Ukip MEP Louise Bours, journalist and television presenter Piers Morgan and footballer Joey Barton.

Download Subtitles