27/04/2017 Question Time

Welcome to Question Time, which tonight comes

from the Debating Chamber of the Oxford Union.

and Pensions Secretary, Damian Green.

Labour's former Shadow Defence Secretary, Clive Lewis.

For the Liberal Democrats, Jo Swinson, who was Business

and Equalities Minister in the coalition.

The SNP's Europe spokesman, Stephen Gethins.

And the journ Camilla alist and former policy

now in the House of Lords as a non-affiliated peer,

As ever, you can join the debate on Facebook,

Twitter or text 83981 and press the red button to see

Our first question to night from Priscilla Fisher, please. Has the

general election been called for the benefit of the Conservative Party

and not the country? Clive Lewis. Yes, quite clearly it has.

APPLAUSE And I am quite pleased to say I

voted against it because I think it's a cynical ploy.

The Prime Minister has gone into this election having said 11 times

before that she would not call an early general election. She has

worked out that her chaotic plan on Brexit and the policies she and her

government have embarked upon since 2010 mean that, also with internal

dissent in her party, she needs to go to the polls now. I think most

people will see it as a cynical, manipulative ploy to maximise on

what she is doing, when what she needs to be doing is bringing the

country together in one of the most chaotic and undermining situations

we have seen in the post-war period. She is not doing that. It is

divisive and quite simply she is out of line.

APPLAUSE So why didn't you get your whole

party to vote against it? I think the decision that my own

party made, to go and vote for this, was wrong. I went through a

different lobby to them. But I understand why, because when Theresa

May and the policies she is putting forward, day in, day out, as many on

this table will know, they are having a devastating impact in our

communities. In Norwich South I see people every week telling me about

the hardship they are in, difficulties in the NHS, the

homelessness people face and the hardship. My party, Jeremy Corbyn

and the Shadow Cabinet felt we had to take Theresa May on if she

offered this opportunity. But it was wrong. I think we should have said,

if you want to be so manipulative we will happily vote for you in a vote

of no confidence in your own government. If you want the election

badly enough, vote against yourself. Jo Swinson. Yes, the election was

called for the benefit of the Conservative Party. Theresa May was

asked, what part of the 20 point lead in the polls made you think

calling an election would be a good thing to do. But this is an election

that can benefit the country. There are millions of people across the

country who woke up on June 24 last year devastated that Britain had

voted to leave the EU, and have looked on in horror as events have

unfolded since. There were also millions of people who voted Leave

but did not vote for Theresa May's hard Brexit, which includes leaving

the single market and wrecking the economy. So there are plenty of

people who look at politics, see it is broken, see a Conservative

government that has gone for the hardest of all Brexits and has got

away with it because frankly the opposition in the Labour Party has

been hopeless. So this is the chance to change the country, to get a much

better deal for the country, and to have an opposition that can actually

hold this hard Brexit government to account.

APPLAUSE Damian Green.

I find it extraordinary to have opposition politicians saying the

Government is terrible but we don't want an election, do not want the

people to decide whether the government is any good. That is

exactly what you said, Clive, you went into an attack and then said, I

did not want an election, which is absurd. Did you not pass a law

saying there would be no election until 2020? She said she had changed

her mind for two reasons. First, because the Brexit process, as Tim

Farron said, he would come up parliament and grind down the

government. There are 100 Lib Dem peers in the House of Lords who

could do that. They would make the Brexit process chaotic. And

secondly,... I love it that nobody can get a word in edge ways when

they get together. This is the coalition of chaos made flesh, these

three. APPLAUSE

The point is that there is a window where you can have that now because

the European Union has gone away to think about its negotiating tactics.

We can have an election now, and out of this election, if people vote

Conservative, if we have a Conservative government returned

under Theresa May, we will have a stronger and more stable government

that will get the best deal for Britain in these vital Brexit

negotiations. I cannot overstress the importance. We need a good deal

for Britain, a strong and stable government under Theresa May to get

that deal for Britain. Can I pick up on this? I relish the opportunity to

do my bit to get rid of a Tory government and the damage they have

done, but we had an EU referendum to try and sort out a Tory civil war.

We are now having a general election to try and sort out a Tory civil

war. And all the time we are having more chaos, more uncertainty for

jobs and the economy. What is the Tory civil war at the moment? The

only reason you do not see a Tory civil war going on is because the

Labour one is worse. There is a hard Tory Brexit being driven by the hard

right of the Conservative Party. They have taken us out of the singer

market that will cost jobs, leaving us with uncertainty over research

funding, which is crucial in areas like Oxford and the area I

represent, Saint Andrews, as well. People's jobs rely on this, and you

are using it as a political tool to take advantage of the mess we are

in. Are you saying that Theresa May wants a soft Brexit and by getting a

bigger majority you will get the kind of Brexit that you want?

Because of the irresponsibility of Leave campaigning on a bank piece of

paper, no one has told us what shape leaving the EU will take. We will

debate this in Parliament. Having scrutiny in Parliament is a good

thing. It is the point why we are here, standing again, it is a good

thing and it makes for better government.

APPLAUSE There are a lot of hands up in the

audience. I will come to you in a moment,

Camilla. At the very back first. One of the benefits of this election is

that, as of the 9th of June, we actually stand a fighting chance of

a process of getting an opposition leader who is credible and stands a

chance of winning in 2025. Five years from now, 2022. Because it

certainly will not be happening under Corbyn. So you think the

election's achievement will be that Corbyn will resign. It will be a

disaster in the polls and we might get an effectively do. What makes

you think he will resign? I think it is a foregone conclusion, isn't it?

I don't know, I am asking you. The woman in the back row. Why was the

general election not called before Article 50 was triggered? Camilla

Cavendish. I am going to make myself unpopular and say that I actually

think it is both. Clearly, the election is for the benefit of the

Conservative Party. The little parties are cynical vote winning

machines. She's going to capitalise on the lead. But I have been really

worried that we would put ourselves in a position where the government

of the day was going to be focusing, from 2019 onwards, on winning the

next election, just at the time when they would need to be properly

negotiating with the 27 other countries that we need to do a deal

with, and that she would be under enormous pressure from her right

wing, she has quite a small majority, to do something that I

certainly would not agree with. I think she needs more room to

manoeuvre. I actually think it is a good thing if we can get a longer

period to have this negotiation. That does not mean that I don't

agree with Stephen that we absolutely need parliamentary

scrutiny of the process at the same time. But this is a very dangerous

moment for the country. We have a huge and important negotiation that

I think transcends politics to some extent. We need the best deal. It is

hard that half of it is going to be done behind closed doors. That is

hard to your head round. But I do think a bit more time might give us

a better chance. APPLAUSE

The man in blue. For months, people have complained

about Theresa May not having a mandate for hard Brexit, but now

when she has gone to get a mandate, people like Clive Lewis are still

complaining. When will Theresa May win? At the front. I think Tim

Farron brought up an interesting point at PMQs a couple of days ago,

that the legacy of this parliament will be the absence of an effective

opposition. And I think maybe the Labour Party needs to thank Theresa

May for calling the election. Because if nothing else it will sort

out the mess that is in the Labour Party, because we need the Labour

Party working and functioning as it should be, an effective opposition,

if that is where it is going to be. I do not agree with him, I'm shaking

my head. I thought you were nodding. Take up his point. I respectfully

disagree. I find it interesting that if Theresa May wanted a mandate, the

Conservative Party were busy telling us after the referendum,

interpreting what that result meant, that the British people had spoken.

She had that mandate. When she became Prime Minister, that is when

she should have caught the election. I find it laughable that you would

say you have caught the election because nine Liberal Democrat MPs,

who voted three different ways on Article 50, are going to stop the

Brexit negotiations. It is about the House of Lords, I said that. This is

more about having a 1-party state, that is what you want. Being accused

of having a 1-party state when you have called an election is absurd.

This is a democratic process. Interestingly, I campaigned on the

remain side. Nobody fought harder for Remain. But unlike the

impression I'm getting here, I am a Democrat and I accept the result of

the referendum. What is important is to get on with the best Brexit we

can have a have a prosperous Britain. You have already ruled that

out. You were on the Remain side, you must be looking at what is

happening with dismay. Theresa May is standing there and saying, before

we even talked our European counterparts, we will rule out being

in the sing the market, not even try to see if that is possible. Surely

to have that trade without all of those costs of businesses trying to

export, if you are going to say let's make the best possible Brexit,

try and bring the country together after... I respect the view. We

fought, we lost, we have to respect the view of the people. You are not

doing that because you are already rolling out what would be the best

version of Brexit. Let's respect our audience and hear from them as well.

Briefly, Stephen. The SNP has been described as an effective

opposition. Damien talks about fearing the House of Lords. The

House of Lords is a democratic abomination and will have absolutely

no impact on the House of Lords after this general election. It will

still be there, unelected, and will still have an impact on each of us.

Why not scrap it? I voted for a fully democratically elected House

of Lords when it came up a couple of parliaments ago. It is not for the

government to abolish houses of parliament. It is for Parliament to

do that. What is important is that we have a strong and stable

government to get the deal. We can argue about the type of deal but it

seems unarguable that if you have a strong, elected Prime Minister with

a new elected mandate, Britain's position will be put better in those

vital negotiations. In the middle. If we are going to have an election,

can we at least have a grown-up election? I bet my wife ?10 that

Damian Green would say coalition of chaos and strong and stable

government in his first contribution.

APPLAUSE Would that the Damien Lewis or Clive

Green you were talking about? Has he caught the cliche virus from

his boss? Can we have a more grown-up debate where we use the

language of Shakespeare with a bit more flexibility?

The general public were upset when Theresa May got into power unelected

and now when there is an election, apparently she is being

manipulative. How'd she stand a chance please anyone?

APPLAUSE You, sir.

The chaos we are looking at today, it identifies exactly what we should

not be doing in this election. We do need a unified front, and I believe

Labour has some very good candidates. Clive is in front of us

today and there are others. And it should not be Jeremy Corbyn. I do

not get your point. The Labour leader should not necessarily be

Jeremy Corbyn going forwards. I think at the end of the day, you

are asking people to vote on uncertainties. This whole Brexit

thing, we don't know what we are going into, what we are voting on,

we don't know what agreement we are going to get. We have two years to

negotiate. We do not know if we can negotiate the deal that we want. How

can you ask people to vote on something they do not know,

essentially? You would rather it had waited for three years? Yes, maybe.

I don't know what the alternative is, but I think this is the wrong

time to be calling a general election.

The woman there. I mean, how will the Government's apparent lack of

clarity on the Brexit demands affect how people vote? How do they think

it won't affect how people vote? People who had confidence in the

Tories in the first place, we've had no clarity. You don't know what

you're voting for? Why would a coalition of chaos, so to speak, why

would that not be a better alternative? That's a good point. I

would like to get Simon Fisher's questions question on that. Is

tactical voting undemocratic or the only way to prevent a hard Brexit Is

tactical voting, voting for a party other than your natural allegiance.

Tony Blair was saying it may mean some Labour people voting Tory this

time round. Is that undemocratic or is the way to prevent a hard Brexit.

Jo Swinson? We have the fist past the post voting system which some

people will say can produce results which don't necessarily look like

they are respecting the will of the overall democracy. In the 2015

election half of the people in Scotland voted SNP but 56 of the 59

seats went SNP. Many people in Scotland felt they were not being

properly represented. There will be a lot of tactical voting in Scotland

and south of the border. It's up to individuals to decide how to cast

their vote. For many people, avoiding a hard Brexit is going to

be a top property because they can see the chaos coming down-the-line.

Damian Green talks about the coalition of chaos it's the pursuit

of this hard Brexit creating chaos. The Liberal Democrats are saying

this can be avoided. We have an election. It's an opportunity to

vote for something else. This is the chance to send the message to

Theresa May. Camilla Cavendish? I think tactical voting is perfectly

democratic especially because it's the only way sometimes you can break

out of the tyranny of safe seats. A lot of people feel it it is not

worth voting at all. Where they live it's always been the same way. There

is nothing wrong with tactical voting. I'm sure we have a coalition

of chaos. It's not a coalition at all. None of you entirely agree with

each other, I don't think. To go back to the lady who made the point

about uncertainty. I think what most of us would value as voters is just

much more clarity from each party about exactly what the choices are,

both going into Brexit and coming out of it? There are some things, we

don't know, because it hes a all subject to 27 other countries. I

would really like to see a bit more vision beyond Brexit. What are we

talking about? What are you offering. What do you want this

country to look like? The man up there in the stripped jacket. Yes. I

was wondering about the fact that the stated aim of Mrs May was that

she wanted Parliament to come together, or Westminster to come

together, because the country has come together. The country is

currently very, very divided. We've got to sort that question out. Where

you are saying we have to widen this beyond Brexit, yes, we do, we have

to address all of those issues. We have to start addressing them in the

debate rather than just saying - it's this or that along party lines.

Get our heads together. It's the biggest issue that we've got. Damian

Green it was the Prime Minister who said the country was united and

Parliament wasn't. What is the evidence that the country is united?

The country went to a vote last year and I think the thing - the most

decisive thing we are hearing this evening is the constant repetition

of hard Brexit and those who say - what are you about? What clarity do

you want? Read the Prime Minister's Lancaster House speech in which she

set out, in as much detail as you can before you go into a an

negotiation what she wanted to achieve with Brexit. Which included

a key phrase where she said she wanted a "close and special

partnership with the European Union." The sensible position for

Britain to take Camilla's point - where do we want to be at the end of

this process. We will be outside the European Union. That is what the

British people voted for. We obviously accept that, but obviously

it's still one of our largest trading areas. They are

neighbouring, friendly democracies. We want to have a close partnership

with them from the outside. That doesn't mean being a member of the

single market because that would involve accepting the European Court

of Justice. One of the lessons we all had to take from the referendum

was that that's an unacceptable interference in the democracy of

this country. People wanted more control over immigration to this

country, and people wanted us to have more control over our own

budget. So within those perimeters what we want to do is negotiate a

deal that makes trade flow as freely as possible and that it preserves

our friendship and co-operation on things like security. That seems to

me a very sensible and strong vision of Britain's future. If we can

achieve that, we will have achieved a lot.

APPLAUSE Do you expect though on the tactical

voting that people who voted, who were in the 48% like you, who voted

to remain will abandon the Conservative Party and go for other

parties, the Liberal Democrats or Labour or in Scotland your party?

No. Why the other parties - Why would they vote for you if they are

against it? I was against it. As I say, I accept - the Prime Minister

was against it. We accept - You have seen the polling shows that people

who voted that way don't accept it. They still feel as they did. Most

people haven't changed their mind very much over the year. If

anything, the latest switch was that people have moved from bricks tires

to remainers - 2%. It's a poll Polls are overrated. I'm struck by people

assume... We saw the Trump election, we saw the referendum vote itself.

We have seen polls get things wrong. (Loss of sound) The tactical voting

point is - it's a free country. You can vote tactically. Have in your

mind if your' voting tactically what you might wake up is Jeremy Corbyn

as Prime Minister. That's not credible. Jo mentioned SNP did well

not past elections on the current system. This next Parliament will be

very important in terms of our rights, the environment, what kind

of UK emerges from leaving the European Union. Now, I'm going to

say something. It's that actually it's maybe no bad thing forcing

politicians from different parties to work together. What I noticed

with the Europe portfolio is I've had to and wanted to work with

colleagues in the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Green Party on areas

where we agree. Keeping E. Nationals here and maintain research

funding and fight against austerity. When you get one party in control,

like the Tories on just 36% of the vote, you end up in a mess. Not all

of us have all the answers and that's why it's good that you reach

across the political aisle where you possibly can and reach agreement and

Westminster needs to get better at that.

APPLAUSE It's Clive's turn. Are you in favour

of tactical voting? You appear to be voting tactically by not confronting

Caroline Lucas The Green in Brighton? People have always voted

tactically. I think the electorate understand what they want to achieve

under the first-past-the-post system they can vote accordingly. Where the

Green Party, they have stood down in Ealing and they may have stood down

in Brighton. I applaud that. That is a grownup politics where they

understand actually what is at stake here in this general election.

Potentially, one of the most important general elections in the

post-war period. It transcends party politics. They should be applauded

for what they've done personally. As a national party, the Labour Party,

understands in this election it is about Brexit and it underlice

everything. -- underlies everything. It's about the future of the NHS and

education and social care. There are other issues here at stake. I think

people have to vote accordingly and think about that very carefully.

Obviously, Norwich South people will be voting, I think many people will

vote tactically. They understand after me there is a Conservative

candidate who will push through Theresa May's hard Brexit. They will

vote for a Labour MP and try to stop that. You praised the Liberal

Democrats for not standing against the Greens. Would you like to see

Labour not stand against the Greens or the Lib Demcrats in certain

seats? The problem there is that the Labour Party is a national party and

we stand in every seat, we always have. In the future though I think,

I personally also believe in p proportional representation. We have

an immature political system from the 19th Century we need to change

it and give people choice in who their politicians are and it will

make for better politics in this country.

APPLAUSE I agree that you mentioned it's more

than just Brexit. Why is he shying away? If he wanted to have that -

implement it within our country why is he not voting for a general

election straightaway? No, you can do what you like in a moment. There

are a lot of hands up. The woman there in purple. Yes. Thank you. I

just, I suppose, going back to what Damian said, I get frustrated when I

hear politicians or anybody talking about the people. I think testimony

testimonied and the Government are going on this grand quest to give

the people what they asked for. I did vote remain, but I accept that

not everyone did. But actually, in fact, the people who voted Brexit

only make up 30% of the electorate. I think that people forget this and

they are on an arrogant quest trying to impress these people that think

that they, you know, they are trying to impress. 30% if you don't count,

if you include people who didn't vote. If you include people who

didn't vote. That doesn't include children. That doesn't include

babies who will be affected more than people that will slope off this

earth. You know. OK. One more point from you, sir, in front there. I

can't understand Theresa May's position here. She's called a

general election that she clearly doesn't want to participate in

herself. Why do you say that? She is not wanting to do a debate. She's

standing back... APPLAUSE

She's standing back from doing all but minimal TV interviews. The

Tories want to talk about two things, Brexit.

We had a referendum on Brexit last year and the other thing they want

to do is just throw abuse at Jeremy Corbyn. I haven't heard a single...

APPLAUSE I haven't heard a single policy on

healthcare, on education, on welfare, on immigration from the

Conservatives. It's just that they want to focus on Brexit again and

they want to throw mud at Jeremy Corbyn.

APPLAUSE No debates. You will see an awful

lot of Theresa May. She has been campaigning around the country

meeting people in workplaces. (Loss of sound) There will be huge numbers

of TV interviews. Here you are debating, right? There are five

different opinions. If if you and I were talking to each other that is

not a debate. Why won't she do a debate? Can I talk about the

manifesto point. This gentleman said there are no policies. Wait for our

manifesto it's coming out in 10 days' time that will satisfied your

desire for policies for the future. You called the election, sure will

you you should be able to get your policies out before Labour did?

APPLAUSE OK. I want to make a point on this.

I'm really disappointed that she's not agreed to do a TV debate because

she... APPLAUSE

... She's making this election partly about strong leadership. She

should get out there and cut through the media. The great thing about a

TV debate you are not being translated all the time by the

newspapers. You can talk to the public and say Watt you think. She

should take on Jeremy Corbyn and she should do that now. Why do you think

she won't? The politicians will know better than me. Politicians are

reluctant to put themselves in that position. Sorry. It's not the same.

TV debates are not perfect, but we've now got used to them. People

expect them. She is putting herself forward as a strong leared. She

should have the courage to come and do it.

I think there is a lack of clarity from Theresa May and I have lost

confidence in the Conservative Party over the last six months. Over the

Brexit negotiations. Calling this general election. I have lost all

confidence in the Conservatives. Let's take one issue that may come

up. Robert Harris, please. Why haven't the main political parties

promised to end the rank betrayal of my generation that is the triple

lock on pensions? APPLAUSE

In other words, you think pensioners are benefiting at your expense?

It makes perfect sense to link pensions to average earnings, to

inflation. It makes no sense to commit to a minimum annual increase

of 2.5% regardless of what is going on in the economy, producing a

constant ratcheting up of costs, at a time when the average pensioner

household is better off than the average working household. It is my

generation that has to foot the bill and has to wait longer and longer to

receive our pensions as the Government tries to keep the cost of

pensions under control. Do you anticipate it may be dropped in the

Tory manifesto? I hope so, we will hear from Damian Green. He is the

boss of this bit. It has no logic, no basis in equity and is a cynical

attempt to attract a certain demographic and needs to be

scrapped. You are just out for the old vote, Damian Green. I think that

is not fair and can I break the rules by being nonpartisan for a bit

rest room at to put into perspective, first of all, young

people will grow old and want a decent pension system one day. This

dichotomy of either you care about the old all the young, that is

wrong. More importantly, the triple lock and the action on pensions

taken over the last 30 years by all parties, not just my party, but when

we were in coalition with the Lib Dems, and before that with other

parties in government, has meant a tremendous reduction in pensioner

poverty in this country. In the 1970s and 1980s, 40% of pensioners

in this country lived in poverty. That was disgraceful. We have got

that figure right down to 14%. Still too high, there is more to do, but

that is a completely unrecorded huge social achievement in this country.

We have done an awful lot in a generation to get rid of pensioner

poverty and we should be proud of that. Let him just answer you.

Robert Harris. That is absolutely true and it is crucially important

to reduce pensioner poverty but the average pensioner household now is

better off than the average working household, so there is a trade-off

between the two. The current system, when you commit, regardless of what

is happening in the economy, has to be unfair. With all the spec, I

think the Waspy women in this country would disagree on that. I am

proud that pensioners are given a decent pension. They have worked

their lives and they deserve to be looked after and I think it is right

and proper that the triple lock is there and Labour have said we will

guarantee that. I think that is the right thing to do. Rather than

playing the older generation against the younger generation, politicians

should be saying, how do we tackle those with vast amounts of wealth.

We are one of the most unequal countries in the Western world. I

know where I would be looking to make sure that pensioners have the

money they need to live decently and that young people have opportunities

and chances in life. That is by tackling those with the most wealth.

There are far too many people with far too much wealth in this country

and a future Labour government would equal that out and make a fairer

society that works for all. APPLAUSE

I have a lot of sympathy with the questioner, but I have a piece of

advice as well, which is that his generation needs to get out and

vote, and they will find that they lot of the benefits.

Accruing to them. That's a very cynical view. You mean that if his

lot voted, he would change his mind. Many of the benefits that accrue to

pensioners are because we almost pensioners get out and vote. Have

you decided whether you will keep the triple lock? Wait for our

manifesto. I asked if you have decided. Everything is under

discussion and I will not discuss the process of the manifesto either.

I would love to do this, but I am afraid we will release our manifesto

when we release our manifesto and you will see it then. It sounds like

Robert will be happy with the Conservative manifesto on this, but

probably less happy with my answer. It was the Lib Dems who brought

forward the triple lock, our policy made it into the coalition agreement

and we delivered, because over a period of many years the state

pension had fallen so far behind what average working households were

taking home. Pensioners will remember the insult under the Labour

government of the 75p per week rise. It was clear that something had to

be done about that. I think making sure there is dignity in retirement

is important. I think there are arguments about what you can do

about very excessive tax relief from high rate tax relief for people

putting into pension pots. But the basic state pension is about dignity

in retirement. So I don't think the Conservatives dithering on this is

actually helpful. But you are right to talk about working age people to,

because this is not just about one end of the age spectrum. What we

have seen under this Government have been frankly cruel cuts in welfare

on people who are struggling to make ends meet, going out and working

hard. These are, frankly, the cuts we spent five years in coalition is

stopping them making. We vetoed the ?12 billion of cuts, the tax credits

and the universal credit. You really should be thinking twice when you

are having to get officials to design an eight page form for

mothers who have experienced sexual assault and are in distress, to

fill-in to affirm that their child is the product of rape, in order to

make sure that they can get enough money to feed their children. When

you are having to design a form like that, you know your policy is wrong.

APPLAUSE The workplace pension scheme was

brought in, ably and idea to help young people build up a pension for

later in life. 7.5 million people are now using it.

It is a great success. On the triple lock pension, this is where I would

respectfully disagree. Those who would be impacted when the Tories go

ahead with their plans to cut that, like so many things, will not be the

richest pensioners, but actually the poorest pensioners, those struggling

to make ends meet. This is where we see disgraceful practices. It is

like the Waspy women, pension inequality, these are women for whom

it makes a big difference. Not being told you're pensioners being cut.

People were planning for their pensions for a long time, and the

Waspy women have a point and that is the sort of area where we should be

pulling together and giving the quality they deserve. You have the

power to do that in Scotland, the government can do that. If you

really cared and did not just want to whinge, you would do something

about it. I keep hearing this from the Tories. It is like the rape

clause that Jo Swinson brought up, it is a disgrace. We keep hearing

that we can sort it out. That affects everybody. The Scottish

Government has put ?300 million into offsetting some of the worst

decisions made by a Tory government, by getting rid of the bedroom tax.

Do it. What was your point? The Scottish Government, which likes to

complain about the fact that the pension age has been equalised,

which is sensible and was actually done as far back as 1995, but you

make a big issue of this. But you know that you have the power in

Scotland, if you say Scottish women of a certain age deserve higher

pensions, you could pay those pensions. You would much prefer to

whinge about it then do something about it. Women were told they would

receive pensions by certain dates, and they did not. It is an absolute

disgrace. And the Scottish Government has been going through

times on the bedroom tax, cleaning up your mess. Do it. Do it! If I am

hearing him right, use -- he says you could do something about

pensions but you choose not to. Well...

APPLAUSE The Scottish Government has had its

budget cut by ?2.9 billion. On the rape clause, do you know what

the Tory answer was, it shouldn't matter, you can just offset that.

Why don't we just vote against the rate clause and get rid of it at

Westminster and it solves the problem for the body in the UK. The

young man who asked the question over here, there is a young man

there. What is your view? I would like to agree with Clive and also Jo

Swinson and Stephen to an extent. Since 2010, the number of people

relying on food banks has gone up from tens of thousands of two

millions. The number of rough sleepers has doubled. Everyone knows

Oxford has a huge homelessness problem, a huge number of people,

the most marginalised in society, and if you talk to them, they

include pensioners, but also young people. The fact is, making it an

intergenerational conflict ignores the point of huge wealth

inequalities in our country and the fact that no one is talking about

that. APPLAUSE

Camilla Cavendish. Robert, how old are you? So you

basically have student debt, you are having to pay rent, you will

probably have how many more years before you can get on the housing

ladder? Too many personal questions. I wasn't sure. I think I agree with

you. These are really difficult decisions. The triple lock, at 2.5%,

is unsustainable, given all the other demands on public spending.

And there is a younger generation that are having to bear enormous

burdens of debt and cuts. And I actually think, I know a lot of

pensioners have suffered from low interest rates, people who are

dependent on savings have suffered since the financial crisis. But if

we move to a double lock, which would still index the pension to

wages and prices, we would not get rid of that, it would still be

indexed, giving some guarantee, that would be fairer. I think we have to

move on, because 40 minutes have gone.

We're in Wigan next week, and the week after

A question from Rosanna Mills, please. With tensions rising, should

we be more concerned about Kim Jong Un, or Donald Trump. Who is more

concerning? Can't we be concerned about both of them? One thing that

strikes me, and I heard Boris Johnson raise a good point today,

trying to give the US government carte blanche over how they deal

with Syria. Syria and North Korea are extraordinarily complicated

international situations and I am not sure Boris Johnson is the best

person to be dealing with them as far as I'm concerned, but there you

go. These are horribly, catered situations whereby simply advocating

military action all the time does not work. -- these are horribly

complicated situations. The conflict in Syria has been going on for six

years. That should shame all of us. That is not that far-away. That is

why we have a refugee crisis at the moment, when we have Tories trying

to block people out of the country, because we have a mess in Syria, and

a mess we caused in Libya as well, which is costing lives. This should

be the concern of each and every one of us, but that requires investment,

investment in international development, and I am afraid that is

over decades, in terms of investment, and I don't have a huge

amount of confidence that, as this government is focused solely on

dragging us out of the European Union, it will have the wherewithal

to start tackling these problems sensibly. You are answering a

serious question but a different one from the one that was asked, which

was about North Korea. No reason for you not to talk about Syria. Do you

think from your point of view that we should take part if the Americans

ask us, in bombing Syria? Just because the Americans ask you to

bomb somebody, no, I don't think you should go and bomb them. You have a

situation in Syria which is multipolar, with troops from

different countries on the ground and a competitive situation. A few

years ago we were asked to bomb one side and last year to bomb another

side. Maybe the answer is not bombing people, but bringing people

round a table to talk about it and investing. We have invested in

Bosnia over the past 25 years, and it is only now, after that decades

long commitment to that country, that you are seeing some progress

towards the European Union. Ironically, we are encouraging them

to join the European Union just as we turn our backs on it. Let me drag

us back to North Korea, Clive Lewis. The differences between Donald Trump

and Kim Jong Un are quite a few but as far as I know it, Kim Jong Un is

not waiting with his knife in full to take over the NHS. With his

corporate colleagues in the United States, if we get the hard Brexit

that Damian Green and Theresa May want to see. To draw it back to

foreign policy, on the issue of North Korea, I am unhappy that we

have someone like Donald Trump, a thin individual in the White House,

on a hair trigger issue with North Korea. I think we need a government,

a Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister prepared not just to suck

up to the United States but to stand up to them. If you look at Syria, I

think many people, when they saw what happened in Syria, understood

that something very nasty, very bad happened. I understand people wanted

to do something and I get that because that is what the British

people are like. They embrace justice. But there are two things.

First, there was no evidence. Chilcot taught us important lessons

about evidence. I imagine it was him but I have not seen the evidence.

Second, there is no strategy. You have religious wars across the

Middle East, 15 years of the war on terror that has cost trillions and

hundreds of thousands of lives and nothing has happened so far. In

terms of international law, if you are going to bomb a country, after

the Second World War we said as a nation, we got together and said

having big, unilateral decisions made by big players on the world

stage does not end well. It ended in the Second World War. We want the

rule of law. If you want to look other countries in the eye, you have

to operate within the rule of law. That means what Donald Trump did on

Syria, although we might like it because we think it feels good, it

set a bad precedent. We need to go through international institutions

because that is what the rule of law is about and we have always said we

believe in. How confident are you about Jeremy Corbyn's leadership on

this issue, because you resigned as Shadow Defence Secretary? So now you

are supporting him for this on an issue like this, a serious issue,

Syria, North Korea and what happens there.

Is No I didn't resign. You were kicked out? I was shifted over.

Because you took the wrong line. I knew what the policy was on Trident.

I read the autocue. I was aware of what the policy was. The world needs

more people like Jeremy Corbyn. There is a lot of brinkmanship going

on at the moment. And, quite frankly, when I heard the Defence

Secretary boasting about how he would launch a first-strike, a first

nuclear strike on another country, in a matter of way. What does it

come to in politics when a politician gets to boast about the

fact he is prepared to launch a first-strike on innocent civilians.

One of the most dangerous things about Donald Trump is the fact that

his opinions and his morals are reaching people all over the world

and they're not particularly respectable morals, especially

towards women, for instance. I think it's truly disgusting his comments

towards women and about them, and why aren't our politicians doing

more to stand up against that and say - no, this is wrong. We are

being left to JK Rowling to tweet and call him up on it. Why aren't

the people leading our country standing up against him? Damian

Green? The last time I was on Question Time was just after he made

some of his terrible wrong remarks and I said so at the time. So I'm

more than happy to repeat that. Come on, let's get a sense of perspective

here. It the sounds like, if you listen to the last ten minutes of

discussion, that Donald Trump is worse than Kim Jong-un. He's a

democratically-elected leader of a country where, as he is discovering,

there is the rule of law. There are independent institutions that mean

that any American President has to obey the law. And America is a

friendly democracy and the idea that in anyway you can equate that. Let

us take the question seriously. Who should we distrust more. Kim Jong-un

is a dictator at the head of one of the world's most mad regimes that

has starved many of its own people and is trying hard to develop a

nuclear capacity with which it wants to threaten its neighbours. There is

no equation there. Stephen raises the important point of Syria. Any

British Government would look at individual situations as they

develop. It is perfectly possible, it seems to me, that Assad is evil

enough to use chemical weapons to kill tens of thousands of his own

citizens if he thought they would get away with it. Frankly if British

or western military power was used to save those tens of thousands of

lives I would think that was the morally right thing to do.

APPLAUSE Jo Swinson. Clearly, without doubt,

the North Korean regime is horrific and a, but I think there is a

difference in terms 67 actually how much global power the American

President and Kim Jong-un have got in the world. That is what makes me

so worried about President Donald Trump. We have been used to a

situation where America has helped to keep the world order, has been a

very positive role in world affairs. We now have this very unstable

situation where people can't predict what the President is likely to do.

I think this issue really does boil down to international law because,

actually, the chemical weapon attack in Syria was one that I do think

required a response. I think we have that line in the sand very clearly

drawn since after the First World War that chemical weapon attacks are

absolutely unacceptable. What worried me about it was that it

unilateral action. It wasn't done through the international community.

It wasn't as if the approaches were tried. It was just done unilaterally

by President Trump. That is worrying. When I hear our Foreign

Secretary saying it would be hard to say no, I get Sinn Feiners because I

know what it's been like in the past when we have acted as America's

poodle in terms of military affairs in the world. I marched against the

Iraq war in 2003. We don't want to go back to that situation. There

might be circumstances where such as to prevent chemical weapon attacks

you might be able to have that discussion. It needs to be done

through those proper international channels and to have the Foreign

Secretary, you know, coming out with - looking up his thee saw suss for

medieval insults for the Leader of the Labour Party and blindly saying

it would be hard to say no to President Trump. I find that

absolutely terrifying. Plagues plus One more question in. If you can be

brief on this one that would be a help. It's a great question. Kim and

Trump are unpredictable. There is a horrifying similarity. We are at

this bizarre stage of history, aren't we? Trump is

democratically-elected and leads a country which has long been our ally

and it is still an ally even if it's led by somebody who many of us feel

uncomfortable with. I don't agree that North Korea and Syria is

similarly complex. I'm concerned about the statements about investing

in international development for Syria. Syria is in total crisis.

Tens of thousands 678 people are dying. In 2013 President Obama

backed away from his red line when he thought Assad had used chemical

weapon because the British didn't support action. Obama used that as

an excuse not to confront Assad. I do actually think that the use of

chemical weapons is horrendous and it has to be, I'm afraid, a red

line. North Korea is an abomination. That is the best way to deal with

it. It weighs on the Lib Dem and your watch watch. On Libya we spent

as much bombing it on reconstruction afterwards under your watch. It laid

to a failed state which leads to the problems in the Mediterranean today

exasperating the humanitarian crisis. Simon Warren can we have

your question? Is it right for Theresa May to maintain the foreign

aid budget? We have three minutes left. Is she right to maintain that

when the NHS and other places need additional funding? You go on this.

We have to be quite swift on it. Yes, she is. I think ultimately,

it's like the pensioners against young people. It's not a choice in

playing our party we have a better, fairer world where developing

nations. Many of these countries ares countries where many people in

this audience and at home have come from. Our country has benefitted

very much throughout its history from the developing world and

Empire. What we are doing here is part of that long-term strategy. We

are making sure these countries can come up and join the developed world

and actually stop poverty, top stop those things which can create

terrorism. The 0.7% is right and proper. We can afford both that and

to have a decently funded public services like the NHS. Do you agree

with that, Camilla? APPLAUSE

I started my career as an aid worker. I have a lot of friends

still in aid. I believe aid can do absolutely marvellous things. I also

believe having a fixed budget is a recipe for some misuse of funds

because the agencies know they've got the money and they don't always

spend it wisely. We need to, I'm afraid, we need to get an awful lot

better at spending it. OK. Thank you for being brief. Jo, be brief, too.

We can't go for more than two minutes? We should maintain it. For

?100 this country has in wealth it's spending 70p. We have that

responsibility more broadly as well as within our own country. I'm proud

it was my Liberal Democratic colleague who brought in the Bill to

to force the Government to stick to the 0.7% every year. What do you

think? Charity begins at home. ?12 billion is a lot of money every week

you are hearing about crisis after crisis in the NHS. ?12 billion? We

need more in the NHS. We don't need to export it to other countries. I'm

glad there is so much consensus. The Prime Minister has said we will

stick. Not consensus from him. Around here. I think you are quite

right, charity begins at home. Charity doesn't need to end at home

Wen can afford. We can continue to afford to put the extra money, we

are putting it into the NHS and other public services, only because

we have a strong enough economy to do that. That's one of the key

questions facing this country over the next few weeks is - do we want

to preserve the strong economy that allows us to do these good and

generous things or do you want to put it at risk? This is about the

kind of country we want to be. We have international obligations we

should have. It's a good use of money and a fraction of the amount

of money we are about to spend on weapons of mass destruction. There

is a clear choice there. APPLAUSE

OK. You have ten seconds the man at the

back. You have been trying to get in. Thank you very much. My arm has

been dying all evening. It's well and good to have a foreign aid

budget. You mentioned that we might be a

poodle in the face of America. One way we maintain our stayed status as

a world power is by having an effective nuclear deterrent. I can't

see us remaining a serious world power as long as Jeremy Corbyn is

potentially going to be Prime Minister and get rid of the whole

lot. All right. APPLAUSE

You raised something we didn't get to. We do have to to stop. Our hour

is up. We're in Wigan next week

with, among others, the Shadow Chief Secretary

to the Treasury, Rebecca Long Bailey and the Leader of Plaid Cymru,

Leanne Wood, on our panel. The week after we'll

be in Edinburgh. To come and take part

in our audience in Wigan or Edinburgh go to our website

or call 0330 123 99 88. If you are listening tonight

on Radio 5 Live, the debate goes My thankses to that panel and all of

you who came here to the Union Building in Oxford. Until next

Thursday, from Question Time, good night.

This is all Roz, she's trying to frame me!

This is the final push, we cannot fail.

He sent you, didn't he? Are you expecting someone else?