:00:14. > :00:18.Tonight, join us at Westminster for the political Antiques Roadshow.
:00:18. > :00:23.Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls claims the programme makes him cry. Will
:00:23. > :00:27.we all be weeping if the economy doesn't increase in value? We turn
:00:27. > :00:30.to expert writer and broadcaster Samira Ahmed. There was nothing
:00:30. > :00:33.fake in David Cameron's admission to the CBI this week that economic
:00:33. > :00:39.growth is no-where near where it should be.
:00:39. > :00:42.And with the average worker feeling undervalued, top pay is pack on the
:00:42. > :00:46.agenda. Investment fund manager Nicola Horlick, who is worth a
:00:46. > :00:51.pretty penny, joins us. It would be good if we could all be paid the
:00:51. > :01:01.same, but some of us are worth more than others. And you won't hear any
:01:01. > :01:03.
:01:03. > :01:08.swear words on the AntiquesRoadshow, but are swear words just part of
:01:08. > :01:15.everyday life? Swearing isn't BLEEP clever. Hankies at the ready, Mr
:01:15. > :01:22.Balls. Good evening, all. Welcome to This
:01:22. > :01:26.Week, the show that makes the BBC's editorial complaints unit weep in
:01:26. > :01:30.anguish and despair every week, but even their emotional incontinence
:01:30. > :01:35.can't compete with the flow of salty tears cascading down the
:01:35. > :01:44.bare-faced cheek of the Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls because
:01:44. > :01:49.according to bruiser Balls he has a softer, less bledge rant side, a
:01:49. > :01:54.side we can all agree he's kept hidden from the rest of us. Yes,
:01:54. > :02:01.he's let it be known rather than pulling the legs of spiders or
:02:01. > :02:05.pulling out the fingernails Blairites or his new favourite
:02:06. > :02:12.thing, pulling Ed Milliband's pigtails, he prefers to turn on the
:02:13. > :02:22.TV and have a good blub - at the Antiques Roadshow. I can see how
:02:23. > :02:31.
:02:31. > :02:39.that can reduce you to boredom, but tears? Now, viewers may well think
:02:39. > :02:46.the idea of Ed Balls bawling his eyes out is a load of old guff, but
:02:46. > :02:52.I suppose it's more believable than his deficit reduction strategy, I
:02:52. > :02:59.emphasise the word slightly. I am joined on the sofa tonight by two
:02:59. > :03:05.of Westminster's least probable politicians. I am speaking to have
:03:05. > :03:09.Michael Portillo and currently trending as hashtag man on the left,
:03:09. > :03:16.Alan AJ Johnson. Michael, your moment of the week? Funnily enough,
:03:16. > :03:21.talking of salty tears, I went yesterday morning to see the Iron
:03:21. > :03:25.Lady, Meryl Streep's interpretation of Margaret Thatcher, and it is
:03:25. > :03:29.quite an emotional experience for a number of reasons - the portrayal
:03:30. > :03:34.of Margaret Thatcher as an old lady is quite emotional, but also to
:03:34. > :03:42.relive some of the things that with lived through which are very
:03:42. > :03:47.accurately portrayed - for example, the death of Aere Neave in the car
:03:47. > :03:53.bomb in Parliament, the Falklands War and the of course the moment
:03:53. > :03:56.she leaves Downing Street on the 22nd of November, 1990, having been
:03:56. > :04:02.deposed. I really did live through it all again and was put through an
:04:02. > :04:06.emotional wringer. Are you in this movie? I am not. Didn't they offer
:04:06. > :04:10.you enough money? Anyway, it's not the lefty hatchet job the Daily
:04:11. > :04:14.Mail once led us to believe, is it? No, I think from her career in the
:04:14. > :04:19.film, you would probably come out - I am thinking about people who
:04:19. > :04:23.didn't know much about it or were Aleve at the time or conscious -
:04:23. > :04:27.you would probably come out with great admiration of her. What is
:04:27. > :04:31.controversy is she's now portrayed as an old lady with all the
:04:31. > :04:37.feebleness of old age. That will upset a lot of jee. I am glad you
:04:37. > :04:42.got to see it first. Alan There was a role called the Chief Corpsor all
:04:42. > :04:49.parties agreed should be introduced. Before it was filled, it was
:04:49. > :04:53.abolished. It's now not abolished but not filled - Chief Coroner. I
:04:53. > :04:59.think what we have seen this week is the Government doing a U-turn on
:04:59. > :05:05.this. The frontbench have been good. The Conservative MPs like my friend
:05:05. > :05:11.Andrew Percy - have done good stuff. As a result of which, we think the
:05:11. > :05:15.position will be introduced. It's a U-turn? It's a very big stonking,
:05:15. > :05:20.badly, grinding U-turn. But you're happy with it? I am very happy with
:05:20. > :05:25.it because I like to see Parliament doing its job properly. We like you
:05:25. > :05:29.to be happy. A little smile on your face just cheers us all up. We have
:05:29. > :05:33.been in shock this week again after we learned there are people running
:05:33. > :05:38.some of Britain's biggest companies who are paid very large sums of
:05:38. > :05:42.money, and apparently, it's not related to performance at all,
:05:42. > :05:48.something Michael and Alan know all about when it comes to their
:05:48. > :05:51.salaries. We have asked our own highly paid Mistress of the
:05:51. > :06:01.Universe, fund manager Nicola Horlick to justify top people's pay.
:06:01. > :06:07.
:06:07. > :06:11.MUSIC I have been very lucky in life. I
:06:11. > :06:16.have had a privileged existence, a successful career. I own my own
:06:16. > :06:19.company, and, as we know, life's not really fair. Some people are
:06:19. > :06:27.born with a good brain, but when it really comes down to it, it's what
:06:28. > :06:31.you make of what you've got that really counts.
:06:31. > :06:33.# Price tag # Nonetheless, I am concerned about
:06:33. > :06:38.the findings of the High Pay Commission this week. The
:06:38. > :06:41.difference that now exists between the highest paid and the lowest
:06:41. > :06:44.paid within many of our companies is major concern, I think. On the
:06:44. > :06:48.other hand, we do have to remember that these companies are competing
:06:48. > :06:53.in a global market and have to have the best possible people, and that
:06:53. > :06:57.means that they have to be paid sometimes quite large sums of money.
:06:57. > :07:01.# Ain't about the - # Bling, bling, bling
:07:01. > :07:04.# Trying to make the world dance # Forget about the price tag
:07:04. > :07:09.# It's not about the money, money, money
:07:09. > :07:14.# We don't need your money, money, money #
:07:14. > :07:19.The Communist ideal of equal pay for all sounds great, but as we saw
:07:19. > :07:22.in the 20th century, it doesn't actually work. Capitalism is
:07:22. > :07:26.probably the best ever system we're ever going to have. We just need to
:07:26. > :07:33.work on it to make it better. I have absolutely no problem of
:07:33. > :07:43.people being paid well as long as they deliver.
:07:43. > :07:47.
:07:47. > :07:50.And there are some who have delivered. I can think of companies
:07:50. > :07:55.like Tesco and Barclay's where they have done exceptionally well in the
:07:55. > :07:58.last 15 or 20 years that means in my view it doesn't matter to the
:07:58. > :08:02.same extent about the disparity between the lowest and the highest
:08:02. > :08:08.paid because I think those people who have delivered deserve to be
:08:08. > :08:12.paid properly for what they have achieved. The problem is that there
:08:12. > :08:15.are a large number of companies where actually Tay haven't done
:08:15. > :08:19.very well, and yet executive pay has been rising sharply. As far as
:08:19. > :08:21.I am concerned, that's fault of the non-executive directors and the
:08:21. > :08:30.shareholders, and they clearly haven't been doing their jobs
:08:30. > :08:35.properly. Government has been making noises
:08:35. > :08:40.this week about jumping on the high-pay bandwagon. I would urge
:08:40. > :08:43.them not to do that. We already have people - mechanisms in place -
:08:43. > :08:53.to deal with this issue. What we need is for the people who are
:08:53. > :08:54.
:08:54. > :09:00.responsible to act. # Forget about the price tag #
:09:00. > :09:05.Nicola Horlick joins us from her sofa in Mayfair to our little sofa
:09:05. > :09:09.in Westminster. Welcome to the programme. Thank you. This position
:09:09. > :09:14.of Chief Executive of Barclay's Bank has risen - the salary has
:09:14. > :09:18.gone up by 5,000% in 30 years. That's got to be wrong. Well, the
:09:18. > :09:24.actual quantum seems have been large, and I think we have been
:09:24. > :09:28.infected a little bit by what has been going on in the USs, where, as
:09:28. > :09:33.-- US where, as you know, there are very, very high salaries paid. It
:09:33. > :09:38.sounds like a massive increase. shares of Barclay's haven't gone up
:09:38. > :09:44.by 5,000%. No, but the profits have gone up a large amount. The banking
:09:44. > :09:47.sector has been through a difficult period and share prices have gone
:09:47. > :09:51.through a difficult period. It's difficult to look at share price,
:09:51. > :09:54.but if you look at the value that has been created in terms of
:09:54. > :09:57.profitability, there are some companies - and I would say
:09:57. > :10:01.Barclay's is one, Tesco's is one, Sainsbury is another - there are
:10:01. > :10:05.some British companies that have done very well. But Nicola, 5,000%
:10:06. > :10:10.- it's crazy. I agree. The actual quantum is very high, but you know,
:10:10. > :10:13.the people who need to do something about that are the non-executive
:10:13. > :10:17.directors. They're the people who decide pay and the shareholders who
:10:17. > :10:22.own the company. Everybody says that but never do. Let's come on to
:10:22. > :10:27.that in a minute. Is there not such a thing as pay that's too high?
:10:27. > :10:31.companies are owned by the shareholders. The shareholders are
:10:31. > :10:36.generally insurance companies and pension funds, and the ultimate
:10:36. > :10:39.beneficiaries are the man on the street, so those companies owe it -
:10:39. > :10:43.the people managing the money - owe it to the man on the street to do
:10:43. > :10:46.something about it. It's the shareholders who need to stand up
:10:46. > :10:49.and be couldn'ted here. Everybody that's at this time. For all the
:10:49. > :10:53.years I have followed this, the shareholders never do anything
:10:53. > :11:00.about it. That's not quite correct. The non-executive directers are in
:11:00. > :11:05.a club of their own. They're all on each other's boards. They all fix
:11:05. > :11:09.each other's remuneration committees. It's a con. A few years
:11:09. > :11:15.ago it used to be the case most Chief Executives had three of year
:11:15. > :11:22.contracts. Most of my clients vote against those three of year rolling
:11:22. > :11:24.contracts. They did it consistently year in, year out. Eventually they
:11:24. > :11:28.got rid of those rolling contracts. If you want to do something about
:11:28. > :11:32.it, it's a democratic process. have other examples? I agree when
:11:32. > :11:37.it comes to pay, they have not been as effective. They need to do
:11:37. > :11:41.something about it. Alan Johnson, the High Pay Commission, it said
:11:41. > :11:46.high pay in Britain had now become corrosive to the UK economy. Is
:11:46. > :11:49.that right? Well, I think it's becoming a social issue. I think
:11:49. > :11:53.the British public are remarkably relaxed about these things, but
:11:53. > :11:59.when they say a ratio of average earner to top people that was about
:11:59. > :12:04.- the pay differential was about 16, 17 times 30 years ago, and now it's
:12:04. > :12:07.75 to 83 times, and the thing that gets me - they don't only set that
:12:07. > :12:13.differential by greed sitting on each other's remuneration
:12:13. > :12:17.committees. They want it to expand further - a 49% pay increase for
:12:17. > :12:21.the FTSE 100 top directors over the last year, 2.7, if you're lucky,
:12:21. > :12:24.for the rest of the population. It actually gets wider and wider. When
:12:24. > :12:28.you come to what should be done about it, I agree with Nicola
:12:28. > :12:34.Horlick. There is an issue of how do you solve this? Is it a problem?
:12:34. > :12:38.I think it is. Has it gotten out of kilter? The ratio of the pay of the
:12:38. > :12:42.bosses in the quoted companies to the average pay on the shop floor
:12:42. > :12:46.has just got wider and wider and wider. Yes. I think to some extent
:12:46. > :12:50.it is a global problem. It's driven by the United States. It's quite
:12:50. > :12:55.interesting that the peak year, I think, of the United States in the
:12:55. > :12:58.global economy was 1970 when it had 20% of the world's economy - 20% of
:12:58. > :13:01.the world's GDP. That was the period in history when the
:13:01. > :13:05.remuneration of those at the bottom and those at the top in America
:13:05. > :13:08.were at their closest. As we have seen this period where the top
:13:08. > :13:12.payers move further and further ahead, the United States' position
:13:12. > :13:16.in the world has actually been declining. Nicola kind of brushed
:13:16. > :13:19.aside the fact that none of this supposed good performance of the
:13:19. > :13:24.companies is connected in the share price. It isn't. Share prices have
:13:24. > :13:27.been flat over a decade. It's the shareholders meant to control these
:13:27. > :13:30.companies. What they're doing giving high remuneration to
:13:30. > :13:32.executives when the share price is flat, I simply don't know, but
:13:32. > :13:37.they're not doing their job. I don't think it's good enough
:13:37. > :13:46.anymore to sit back and say, shareholders are not doing their
:13:46. > :13:55.job. Nicola? In that case, we have had numerous codes. The question of
:13:55. > :14:00.what do you do about it? We have had Cadbury's and Greenbury's and
:14:00. > :14:04.Higs - they all say the same thing - the shareholders should do
:14:04. > :14:07.something. It's not just people wonder about executive pay because
:14:07. > :14:12.the gap between the top and bottom is so wide. They worry about that
:14:12. > :14:16.even in companies that are doing very well. But they're appalled
:14:16. > :14:20.when pay shoots through the roof in companies going no-where, and that
:14:20. > :14:24.happens again and again. You're right. It has been happening
:14:24. > :14:27.an awful lot over the last few years. That is reprehensible.
:14:27. > :14:32.Something should be done. That's a clear case of non-executive
:14:32. > :14:34.directors not doing their job because how can you be sitting on a
:14:34. > :14:39.remuneration committee watching earnings going down and allow the
:14:39. > :14:42.Chief Executive's salary to go up significantly? I'll tell you -
:14:42. > :14:45.because they're conned by a different argue cult - no matter
:14:45. > :14:48.what's happened within the company, they have to be globally
:14:48. > :14:50.competitive because their Chief Executive is globally mobile. I
:14:51. > :14:55.look at some of these Chief Executives in the United Kingdom,
:14:55. > :14:58.and I know perfectly well they're not globally mobile. Absolutely.
:14:58. > :15:02.They may be good, bad or good enough, be they're certainly not
:15:02. > :15:06.about to go to New York. Outside pharmaceuticals and big oil and a
:15:06. > :15:11.couple - banking probably - they're not. Quite. My understanding is the
:15:11. > :15:17.German and French Chief Executives are not on these pay scales. You
:15:17. > :15:22.look at the pay of much bigger companies than Britain - the BMWs,
:15:22. > :15:29.Daimler's, Mercedes... Yes, but they're in family ownership to a
:15:29. > :15:34.greater extent. We went through a phase in the UK on the Stock
:15:35. > :15:37.Exchange for the families to exit. The families have ownership of
:15:37. > :15:40.those companies. That's great strength for Germany and one of the
:15:40. > :15:43.reasons they have done better than anticipated over the past couple of
:15:43. > :15:47.years. None of you seem to know what should be done about it.
:15:47. > :15:51.High Pay Commission made a number of sensible recommendations. They
:15:51. > :15:54.point out that this business Michael rightly points out about
:15:54. > :15:59.poaching Chief Executives - they looked at the last five years of
:15:59. > :16:04.one Chief Executive... Give me an example of a British company.
:16:04. > :16:09.said the top ten British companies should be obliged to publish...
:16:09. > :16:13.What do you... The point they make is the earnings package of lots of
:16:13. > :16:19.these high earnings - it's very difficult for shareholders or
:16:19. > :16:22.anyone else to find them because it's hidden behind bonuses and
:16:22. > :16:26.share options. It's not hidden. It's there in the company accounts.
:16:26. > :16:29.Quite often, you'll get somebody just below the main board level who
:16:29. > :16:32.is earning twice as much as the main Chief Executive. I am not
:16:32. > :16:36.clear this would make a difference because the Chief Executive's
:16:36. > :16:40.salary is fully declared in the reports and accounts. Nothing has
:16:40. > :16:44.been done about that. Since you're all bereft of ideas, maybe the best
:16:44. > :16:48.attitude is simply to say in the end if Government can't really do
:16:48. > :16:54.much about this let's just take the view that if somebody is paying the
:16:54. > :17:04.Chief Executive �5 million a year, we, the people, get �2.5 million of
:17:04. > :17:09.
:17:09. > :17:13.It should happen now. It will happen in the future. Maybe that's
:17:13. > :17:17.the way it's done, that half of it comes back to the Treasury. Yeah,
:17:17. > :17:22.it does. You are screwing up your face. When you look back at your 13
:17:22. > :17:28.years in power, was it right that you were - what is the famous quote
:17:28. > :17:33.- that you spent the 13 years being intensely relaxed about people
:17:33. > :17:37.getting filthy rich. That was Peter Mandelson in the late 90's and the
:17:37. > :17:41.focus was on the low-paid. If we had set the minute numb wage at
:17:41. > :17:46.�1.50 an hour, 250,000 workers in the country would have got a pay
:17:46. > :17:49.rise. Introducing a national minimum wage for the first time,
:17:49. > :17:53.along with tax credits, concentrating on the low-paid was
:17:54. > :17:57.quite rightly our priority. If we had said, we are also going to have
:17:57. > :18:03.a high-pay strategy as well, I think it would have been wrong. Now,
:18:03. > :18:08.there's a different mood out there. There certainly is, on the left and
:18:08. > :18:12.the right. We'll leave these two to look into their pay packets. Nicola,
:18:12. > :18:19.thank you. Now, there's no point going to bed just yet. Of all it's
:18:19. > :18:25.not as if anyone is setting their alarm for ITV's Daybreak, so stick
:18:25. > :18:30.with us, because coming up from Channel 4 is Paul Choudhury, who
:18:30. > :18:36.will be trying to avoid using some very bad language. For those of you
:18:36. > :18:43.who feel right at home with swear words and blam my after your usual
:18:43. > :18:53.barrel of Blue Nun there is always the interwebsite and Tweeter and
:18:53. > :18:57.
:18:57. > :19:01.the face - pool whatever they are. -- Facepool, whatever they are. The
:19:01. > :19:06.Leveson Inquiry into media ethics is scoring more highlyy on the
:19:06. > :19:16.Totti count that Prime Minister's questions. We sent Samira off to
:19:16. > :19:26.
:19:26. > :19:30.the flicks to give us her round-up Hollywood came to the Royal Courts
:19:30. > :19:35.of Justice this week, although if you believe some of the papers it
:19:35. > :19:38.was a V for vendetta. There was plenty of discussion in court 73
:19:38. > :19:42.about brief encounters Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan were playing
:19:42. > :19:52.themselves, honest cats with complicated love lives, but when it
:19:52. > :19:54.
:19:54. > :19:58.came to the tabloids, they said they felt playing by rogues. Hugh
:19:58. > :20:03.Grant accused the Mail on Sunday of hacking his phone for one story.
:20:03. > :20:10.cannot for the life of me think of any conceivable source for this
:20:10. > :20:13.story in the mail on Sunday, except those voice messages on my mobile
:20:13. > :20:17.telephone. The Mail on Sunday denied the claim, accusing Hugh
:20:17. > :20:20.Grant of mendacious smears. The following day Steve Coogan's
:20:20. > :20:27.testimony suggested almost MAFF why-like levels of blackmail by the
:20:27. > :20:34.News of the World. It left the lawyers silent. There was a girl in
:20:34. > :20:39.the office who was going to speak to me on the phone and it would be
:20:39. > :20:46.recorded and she would try to entice me into talking about
:20:46. > :20:49.intimate details of her and my life. It's like the Mafia, it's just
:20:49. > :20:59.business. Steve Coogan said the inquiry shouldn't be seen as the
:20:59. > :21:03.Steve and Hugh show, it was really about families like the Dowlers.
:21:03. > :21:11.rang her phone and it clicked through to on her voicemail, so I
:21:11. > :21:14.heard her voice. I was - it was just like, "She's picked up her
:21:14. > :21:20.voicemail." For the often demonised parents of Madeleine McCann, it was
:21:20. > :21:24.a chance to shine a light on what they've endured. These were
:21:24. > :21:29.desperate times. We were having to try and find our daughter ourselves.
:21:29. > :21:35.We needed all the help we could get and we were faced with and I now we
:21:35. > :21:42.are coming on to headlines, corpse in the car. Then body fluids in the
:21:42. > :21:46.car. When it's repeated so often it becomes fact. The darkness took the
:21:46. > :21:49.spotlight ow the economic crisis, but it feels like we are held
:21:49. > :21:57.hostage by financial bandits. Where is the action hero when you need
:21:57. > :22:03.one? I'm glad to be back from Berlin. I left my bazooka behind.
:22:03. > :22:06.He told the CBI on Monday that things aren't going according to
:22:06. > :22:11.plan. We are trying to cover from a deep and difficult recession. Yet,
:22:11. > :22:15.growth is slow, not just in Britain, but in France and Germany too. In
:22:15. > :22:18.the last quarter, we grew faster than many EU countries and faster
:22:18. > :22:25.than the average, but we are frankly well behind where we need
:22:25. > :22:32.to be. Yes, getting debt under control is proving harder than
:22:32. > :22:37.anyone envisaged. Still, at least we can take comfort in scenes the
:22:37. > :22:40.bromance back in action. In their field of dreams if you build it,
:22:40. > :22:50.they will come. If you underwrite the mortgage for first-time buyers
:22:50. > :22:51.
:22:51. > :22:56.of course. Cliff Richard once told British sen ma goers, young ones
:22:56. > :23:03.shouldn't be afraid by Ed Miliband told PMQs on Wednesday that they
:23:03. > :23:06.should. He's been looking at the youth unemployment figures. However
:23:06. > :23:11.high it goes and however bad it gets it's a price worth paying to
:23:12. > :23:18.protect its failed plan. I tell him there - unless he changes course
:23:18. > :23:23.next week, unless he changes course next week, one million young people
:23:23. > :23:26.will become the symbol of his failed economic plan and an out-of-
:23:27. > :23:32.touch Prime Minister. Let me remind him of actually something he
:23:32. > :23:38.brother said last week. He said clearly, "This Government did not
:23:38. > :23:44.invent the problem of youth unemployment." I think we should
:23:44. > :23:54.have that candour from this brother. As several Labour MPs still
:23:54. > :23:55.
:23:55. > :24:01.secretly think oh, brother where art thou? The other said he cried
:24:01. > :24:08.at the antique road show, Ed Balls, but it's reaching branching out as
:24:08. > :24:13.a mime artist that's enough to make anyone weep. This is absolutely key.
:24:13. > :24:20.He's at it again, I'm afraid. No wonder the Shadow Chancellor has
:24:20. > :24:27.stopped saluting, he's started crying! The real horror movie
:24:27. > :24:31.moment of the week though, goes to Andrew Lansley whose face appears
:24:31. > :24:37.on a continuous loop at hospital TVs urging the people to thank the
:24:37. > :24:40.staff for looking after them. I can't watch. I'm passionate about
:24:40. > :24:45.the NHS and the quality of care. Some of the most compelling images
:24:45. > :24:48.of the past week came from Egypt. Watching protesters back in Tahrir
:24:49. > :24:51.Square, defying rubber bullets in the name of democracy was a
:24:51. > :24:58.powerful challenge to our doe mess sick obsessions, as reporters there
:24:58. > :25:01.made clear. They thought they had beaten the old regime back in
:25:01. > :25:06.February, but now they think they have to fight it all over again.
:25:06. > :25:11.This crisis has been brewing for months. When the light go up, it's
:25:11. > :25:14.back to reality in Britain. The autumn statement is next week. The
:25:14. > :25:19.Government -- will the Government carry on regardless? Certainly we
:25:19. > :25:29.are in the bus teetering over the bus of an economic abyss and unlike
:25:29. > :25:37.
:25:37. > :25:41.Michael Caine, this Government has no new great idea. The department
:25:41. > :25:47.of full disclosure. Can we get it on the record that the coalition is
:25:47. > :25:57.not now going to meet its debt reduction targets? The deficit
:25:57. > :25:57.
:25:57. > :27:06.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 68 seconds
:27:06. > :27:09.reduction targets. Obviously not, Right. Alan, given all of that...
:27:09. > :27:13.Full disclosure. Why is the Labour leadership making so little impact
:27:13. > :27:17.on economic policy? It's a funny thing about when a Government is in
:27:17. > :27:22.trouble and when the economy is in trouble that a lot of the focus
:27:22. > :27:25.goes on to the opposition that - why aren't you making more of this?
:27:25. > :27:30.What's the answer? The answer is that the focus is on Government,
:27:30. > :27:34.not on what the opposition are saying, and I think what we fail to
:27:34. > :27:39.do - we lost that crucial six months or so after the general
:27:39. > :27:44.election because we were fuffing around with our leadership election.
:27:44. > :27:47.It went on for too long, and the Conservatives and the Liberal
:27:47. > :27:52.Democrats were very successful at getting this credit card message
:27:52. > :27:56.home. That is actually changing as far as public perception is
:27:56. > :28:00.concerned. Take the ICM poll in Tuesday's Guardian - it shows that
:28:00. > :28:06.the public - a lot more people blame the problems of the economy
:28:06. > :28:11.today on, quote, debts racked up by Labour than they do blaming the
:28:11. > :28:17.coalition. Of course. We were in power at the time that deficit
:28:17. > :28:22.emerged, but... Emerged! As by magic! Wonder where that came from?
:28:22. > :28:27.There is a big deficit! It did emerge. The structural deficit was
:28:27. > :28:32.1% and falling in 2008. It was 2008 and the following three years that
:28:32. > :28:35.caused the problem here and around the rest of the world, but if you
:28:35. > :28:42.look at what the public think about cutting too far too fast, you'll
:28:42. > :28:46.see a big change from 60% thinking that was wrong a year ago to now a
:28:47. > :28:51.reverse of that. So I think that's a message. It's going to become an
:28:51. > :28:56.irrelevant argue yult, though. is. But they're all going to be
:28:56. > :29:01.irrelevant by 2015. Everybody's base figures are going to be shot
:29:01. > :29:05.to hell if we go into recession, but why do only 25% of voters think
:29:05. > :29:11.Ed Balls and Ed Milliband would do a better job on the economy? After
:29:11. > :29:15.all, about 40% of us are saying we'd vote Labour, but only 25% say
:29:15. > :29:19.they think Labour would do better. The first statistic is important so
:29:19. > :29:24.far as it goes - this far off a general election. That's important.
:29:24. > :29:28.Even the people voting Labour don't think you would do better. The
:29:28. > :29:33.arithmetic is clear. Around 40% of people say they would vote Labour,
:29:33. > :29:39.but only 25% of people think that Labour would do a better job.
:29:39. > :29:47.but if you talk to Labour supporters on that statistic, they
:29:47. > :29:51.- you'd see them... By definition, simple arithmetic... I thought it
:29:51. > :29:55.was fairly simple. I'll show you later. May I say I think the
:29:55. > :29:59.political argument is important because the coalition's point is if
:29:59. > :30:02.we hadn't committed ourselves to the austerity measures, we would
:30:02. > :30:06.have to pay 70% for our new borrowing in the way Spain and
:30:06. > :30:09.Italy are doing, and we'd be staring into the abyss, and it's
:30:09. > :30:13.because we're talking austerity measures that we're in a better
:30:13. > :30:16.position, and then the counter argument is, no, no, that's not
:30:16. > :30:20.really what's going on because the United States is borrowing cheaply
:30:20. > :30:22.as well. The real difference is we're allowed to borrow cheaply
:30:23. > :30:27.because we're not in the euro, in other words, we control our
:30:27. > :30:30.currency. Therefore, these people say, you, Britain, ought to borrow
:30:30. > :30:35.more money because then you can stimulate the economy. That I think
:30:35. > :30:40.is where the political argument is. Let's move on. Big public sector
:30:40. > :30:45.strikes on Wednesday - St Andrew's Day, a fitting day for a strike.
:30:45. > :30:51.Absolutely. Do you back the strike? Yes, I do. The ceiling didn't fall
:30:51. > :30:56.in! Actually, it did - just on its way in slow motion. If independent
:30:56. > :31:01.free trade unions can ballot under very strict laws that Michael's
:31:02. > :31:05.Government introduced - maybe the unions should have introduced
:31:05. > :31:11.themself themselves - if they can't do that over an issue as important
:31:11. > :31:14.as their pensions, then what can they take industrial action over?
:31:14. > :31:18.On this issue I think the Government generally want to
:31:18. > :31:22.negotiate a settlement, but they started off badly. They imposed
:31:22. > :31:25.this 3% increase without any negotiations whatsoever, and I
:31:25. > :31:28.think that's created the difficulties they now can't get out
:31:28. > :31:31.of. Strikes good news for the Government at a time when it hasn't
:31:31. > :31:36.got much good news? Yes, I think the Government will win this
:31:36. > :31:39.argument because the numbers of people who benefit from these
:31:39. > :31:42.public sector pensions is a minority, and the rest of the
:31:42. > :31:49.population will think it's unfair, and they won't like being disrupted.
:31:49. > :31:53.The Leveson Inquiry into the media, which was concentrated above all on
:31:53. > :31:58.the tabloid press - let me put a proposition to you both to get you
:31:58. > :32:04.to react. When you listen to the testimony of the McCanns and the
:32:04. > :32:08.testimony of Milly Dowler's parents, and you hear what the tabloids got
:32:08. > :32:13.up to in both these cases, it's over for the tabloid press.
:32:13. > :32:16.Something major is going to happen to them. It's over - the free-
:32:16. > :32:23.wheeling days are finished. Discuss. Well, they should be. They should
:32:23. > :32:30.be because just as the issue didn't take off, when it was celebrities
:32:30. > :32:35.and star, it did when it was Milly Dowler. Leveson took off when Milly
:32:35. > :32:39.Dowler's parents appeared and the McCanns appeared. The disgust
:32:39. > :32:44.people feel about those stories - equate it with the Press Complaints
:32:44. > :32:49.Commission. The Daily Press were quoted over and over again. Which
:32:49. > :32:53.rather puts regulation out of the window. I still prefer - I started
:32:53. > :32:58.off thinking self-regulation. did I. I am now beginning to doubt
:32:58. > :33:03.it. Just to another case - sienna Miller today - you tend to discount
:33:03. > :33:07.sort of the famous - the loveys - the film stars. She made a good
:33:07. > :33:12.point. She came out of a house at night, is chased up a dark street
:33:12. > :33:16.by ten men. The fact that they have cameras makes it all right. One
:33:16. > :33:20.woman being chased by ten - if they didn't have cameras, the police
:33:20. > :33:24.would arrest them. It's finished. am not as optimistic as you,
:33:24. > :33:28.because for instance, of course chasing someone with cameras is not
:33:28. > :33:32.illegal, not going to be made illegal. She's got a court order to
:33:32. > :33:36.stop it now. Yeah. Most of the things that the newspapers have
:33:36. > :33:41.done apart from the hacking of the phone messages have been legal
:33:41. > :33:44.activities. I think some of the things... Publishing Mrs McCann's
:33:45. > :33:50.private diaries which were basically a private conversation
:33:50. > :33:53.with a little girl who had been... Listen. I am not... Kidnapped.
:33:53. > :33:57.not arguing with you about how disgusting this is. What I am
:33:57. > :34:00.saying is most of the dreadful things newspapers do are not
:34:00. > :34:03.against the law. This has only ended up where it is because one of
:34:03. > :34:08.the things they happened to do, which is hacking phone messages, is
:34:08. > :34:12.against the law. I am not at all convinced when we come out of the
:34:12. > :34:16.Quinn rirry we're going to see changes in the practisings of
:34:16. > :34:22.newspapers. Fair point. We'll see if we're still around. It's going
:34:22. > :34:27.to take ten years to get there. Now, when a court ruled this week that
:34:27. > :34:29.swearing at the police here in Britain, otherwise known as being
:34:29. > :34:34.filthy to the filth, was not necessarily a public order offence
:34:34. > :34:37.- and by the way, I do not advise that you try it with the NYPD, we
:34:38. > :34:42.heaved a sigh of relief here on This Week. After all, for many
:34:43. > :34:48.people, politics is the dirtiest of words. You should see the looks you
:34:48. > :34:51.get in Hackney when you utter the phrase Diane Abbott. Talk about
:34:51. > :34:56.unparliamentary language. So with this in mind, we decided to open
:34:56. > :35:06.our potty mouths, wash them out with a bar of soap and put bad
:35:06. > :35:11.
:35:11. > :35:16.How times change, but should swearing be an arrestable offence?
:35:16. > :35:20.When a judge this week overturned a conviction for using the "F" word
:35:20. > :35:26.in front of the police, the head of Scotland Yard said he still expects
:35:26. > :35:34.his officers to slap on the cuffs, while another high-profile judge,
:35:34. > :35:44.Strictly's Len Goodman thought he should get away with using language
:35:44. > :35:44.
:35:44. > :35:52.some still think offensive. Superstar got in touch for wearing
:35:52. > :35:57.these shoes on the X Factor. FIFA President's Sepp Blatter was forced
:35:57. > :36:02.to backtrack by saying racist language should be forgiven with a
:36:02. > :36:06.handshake on the field. I am working now for 30 years in FIFA. I
:36:06. > :36:11.started to work in Africa. There is no discrimination in my feeling.
:36:11. > :36:17.This is one open goal even Nick Clegg can't miss. When Sepp Blatter
:36:17. > :36:23.trivialises racism on the pitch, his comments are rightly met with
:36:23. > :36:32.public outcry. Which leaves us with bad sign language. We all know how
:36:32. > :36:37.We should put that on a loop, just run it again and again. Paul
:36:37. > :36:42.Chowdhry joins us. Welcome to This Week. Good to see you. Good to see
:36:42. > :36:46.you too. Why is it now so many stand-up comedians depend on four-
:36:46. > :36:51.letter words? It's almost a default position in the standup comedy
:36:51. > :36:56.circuit. Lat of the time we perform to different audiences a lot of
:36:56. > :37:01.times - late-night crowds - not the kind of sophisticated audiences you
:37:01. > :37:05.play to. You have not met our audience, I assure you. We have to
:37:05. > :37:10.tame them somewhat. You know, when you go out on a night out and you
:37:10. > :37:13.have a couple of women around you in your evenings out, that's the
:37:13. > :37:17.kind of crowd we sometimes appeal to. We have to hit them down
:37:17. > :37:23.sometimes. Wasn't that always true? I mean, the old comedians in the
:37:23. > :37:29.'60s and '70s, they didn't use this kind of language. They did. I think
:37:29. > :37:36.they used worse. It's now used on TV a lot. Certain shows. Yeah.
:37:36. > :37:40.EastEnders, you hear the word "bastard" now. Really? 20 years ago,
:37:40. > :37:48.you couldn't say that after 10.00pm. I would be interested to see if the
:37:48. > :37:52.C word makes it in in 20 years' time. Do you censor yourself in
:37:52. > :37:56.language? If I am doing shows to MPs or a corporate event - it's the
:37:56. > :38:01.crowd you're in front of. You have to tone it down on This Week. I am
:38:01. > :38:05.not going to go all gangster on you. Do you think swearing - you hear it
:38:05. > :38:10.on buses and trains, people often speaking on their phone, and
:38:10. > :38:15.they're swearing away as they do it, has it now become part of everyday
:38:15. > :38:20.life? Yeah, it's become - it's within our culture now. It's kind
:38:20. > :38:28.of street language, even what David Starkey was talking about. I think
:38:28. > :38:32.he was misunderstood by a lot of people. Street culture has
:38:32. > :38:36.transcended into society. It's strange because you hear all sorts
:38:36. > :38:43.of four-letter words on various late-night comedy shows on the BBC
:38:43. > :38:51.or Channel Four,ed a yet Len Goodman on Strictly says "sod" and
:38:51. > :38:57.gets 600 complaints. Easy with that. I was talking about grass. It's a
:38:57. > :39:03.bit strange, isn't it? In the 19th century, if you said that, you
:39:03. > :39:09.would be put in prison, even now, calling a police officer a sod - he
:39:09. > :39:12.could put you into a position where it could happen. I wouldn't do that.
:39:12. > :39:17.Is language now a lot more acceptable? Yeah, and kind of
:39:17. > :39:22.working class communities where I come from - you would go to
:39:22. > :39:27.football, and people would be F'ing and blinding. You wouldn't swear in
:39:27. > :39:31.front of a child or a woman, although some of the women would
:39:31. > :39:37.swear... Wouldn't swear at home. Certainly wouldn't. It was ironic
:39:37. > :39:41.that the judge saying it was OK to swear at the police was called Mr
:39:41. > :39:44.Beans, Justice Bean - that's ludicrous, because the police are
:39:44. > :39:48.obviously going to attract people - it's not about comedians swearing
:39:48. > :39:53.in front of a crowd that accept that's going to happen when they go
:39:53. > :39:59.for a night out. This is about policemen who must routinely listen
:39:59. > :40:05.to the foulest language, and this Mr Bean has said it's fine. In that
:40:05. > :40:09.case they should do what comedians do and have heckle put-downs, the
:40:09. > :40:14.add yes, sir - cut the people back, so it becomes like a "yo mama"
:40:14. > :40:17.competition. What, on the streets? Yeah, the streets of London. Street
:40:17. > :40:22.theatre? Yeah, street theatre. like it. What do you think,
:40:22. > :40:31.Michael? It's all a matter of context. Swearing down by comedians
:40:31. > :40:35.is very funny. Four Weddings and a Funeral I think starts with the
:40:35. > :40:38.same word uttered four times. It's hilarious, but in another context,
:40:38. > :40:42.it wouldn't be. It's interesting that the word we keep talking about,
:40:42. > :40:47.the "F" word, relates to a daily activity. I don't understand how
:40:47. > :40:53.this has become THE word. If you look back maybe a generation, a
:40:53. > :40:58.word you couldn't say was "damn." Daily activity? Well, you know!
:40:58. > :41:03.has been taking the pill, so don't worry. Damn refers to eternal
:41:03. > :41:08.damnation. I can see why that would be a bad word. Bloody isn't such a
:41:09. > :41:11.bad word to say. Used to be. Because that has a religious
:41:11. > :41:17.connotation. There is a kind of different rule now for what is
:41:17. > :41:25.acceptable and what isn't. Many words that were not acceptable -
:41:25. > :41:31.the "F" word, the C word are now more commn. Even the C word on some
:41:31. > :41:37.TV programmes, whereas words related to race which were common
:41:37. > :41:44.are now completely taboo. Racism has gone underground. People are
:41:44. > :41:51.more clever the way they use racism. Instead of being up front. The word
:41:51. > :41:56.that has caused the problem is the word black, which is a word they
:41:57. > :42:02.would use to describe himselfs or herselfs, yet that is the word that
:42:02. > :42:09.gets you into trouble. I think it was the "N" word. He didn't say the
:42:09. > :42:13."N" word. The lip reader saw it. I asked a couple of friend, and, well,
:42:13. > :42:19.they signed it. Swearing - when I was young, swearing was quite edgy,
:42:20. > :42:27.and only certain people did it. Is it now just cool to swear if you're
:42:27. > :42:33.young? The NME, I am told, named the World's Coolest Person as a
:42:33. > :42:37.female rap artist whose songs are so full of bad words, they can't
:42:37. > :42:41.even play them on television. Justice Bean - no, I am reading
:42:41. > :42:51.someone else. Is it cool? I don't think it's koo. It's the way
:42:51. > :42:51.
:42:51. > :42:56.youngsters talk to each other. a class thing partly. Well, as you
:42:56. > :43:00.- made a reference to Hugh Grant... He doesn't swear a lot. Middle
:43:00. > :43:06.class and upper-class people, particularly if they use very
:43:06. > :43:09.strong language, can be quite funny. But when the Sex Pistols... Exactly.
:43:09. > :43:13.The researchers told me that. That's it. We have run out of time.
:43:13. > :43:17.Paul, thank you for coming on tonight. I am glad we got through
:43:17. > :43:22.that without having the BBC come down on our necks. That's your lot
:43:22. > :43:27.for tonight, folks. We leave you with yet more tales of the
:43:27. > :43:31.unexpected from the ever generous wife of the Speaker, Sally Bercow,
:43:31. > :43:35.the gift that keeps on giving, who has been sharing just a little bit
:43:35. > :43:42.too much with the nation once again. This time an interviewer asked her
:43:42. > :43:48.what was her favourite gadget, as you do. Let's say her rather risque
:43:48. > :43:50.reply certainly wasn't "sewing machine". Nighty-night. Don't let
:43:50. > :43:56.Sally's Rabbit bite! # Big John
:43:56. > :44:00.# Every morning at the mine # You could see him arrive
:44:00. > :44:04.# Stood 6'6" # And weighed 234
:44:04. > :44:07.# Kind of broad at his shoulder # And narrow at the hip