:00:12. > :00:19.# One love # One heart
:00:20. > :00:25.# Let's get together # And feel all right... # As Prince
:00:25. > :00:28.Harry skanks his way across Jamaica, This Week gets in the reggae groove.
:00:28. > :00:34.Hagamuffin George Osborne back home has to decide which tax moves to
:00:34. > :00:38.make in the Budget. Will anyone be dancing for joy though? Rude boy
:00:38. > :00:42.Peter sting fellow is vexed and thinks it's time for the Chancellor
:00:42. > :00:47.to spin some Tory tunes. Let's get serious. George, the very people
:00:47. > :00:54.you are attacking with your extra taxes are the very one who is can
:00:54. > :00:59.get us out of this mess - we need them and you are not doing it right.
:00:59. > :01:03.# One love... # Prince Harry tries to compete with Mr Cool himself,
:01:03. > :01:09.Usain Bolt, but with the Liberal Democrats' Vince Cable dancing to
:01:09. > :01:16.his own tune, is he trying too hard to be the Marty's Mr Cool?
:01:16. > :01:21.Westminster's Quentin Letts struts his stylee. Who's been a naughty
:01:21. > :01:25.boy then, Vince Cable refusing to play by the rules. And David Frost
:01:25. > :01:35.joins the This Week sound system. Any good interview's got to build.
:01:35. > :01:38.
:01:38. > :01:43.It's one love, one heart, here on This Week. Irie. Sorry, evening
:01:43. > :01:48.all! Welcome to This Week, the show that fiddles as Babylon burns. And
:01:48. > :01:53.if we are looking for signs of a civilisation in peril, look no
:01:53. > :01:56.further than call-me-Dave's very own babble-guru, Steve no relation
:01:56. > :02:03.to Paris Hilton who's quitting Downing Street and showing his
:02:03. > :02:11.faith in the Big Society by leaving dear old Blighty and moving to
:02:11. > :02:14.California! Cool, as the only beach bum used to explain in his
:02:14. > :02:18.hilariously groovy strategy bulletins. Steve, no relation to
:02:18. > :02:23.Paris Hilton is the blue-sky thinker who convinced Dave that
:02:23. > :02:28.detoxifying the Tory brand was the way to get elected. So, out went
:02:28. > :02:34.fox-hunting, in came dog-sledding. Out went the Union Flag, in came
:02:34. > :02:41.the green oak tree. Out went any mention of Sam Cam being aristocrat,
:02:41. > :02:49.in came dolphin tramp stafrpls and playing pool with tricky -- stamps.
:02:49. > :02:53.But with This Week's Steve busy booking his one-way ticket to
:02:53. > :03:03.Venice beach, the mask was allowed to slip and after several days, the
:03:03. > :03:07.Prime Minister we vealed he was a hip tophile. After all, that's
:03:07. > :03:15.right folks, despite protestations that he did not have sexual
:03:15. > :03:21.relations with that hars, Raisa. And that it all depends on what the
:03:21. > :03:26.meaning of is, is call me Dave eventually forced to admit that he
:03:26. > :03:31.was indeed a long lover of police horses. Speaking of those on their
:03:31. > :03:36.way to the knackers yard, I'm joined tonight by two of
:03:36. > :03:40.Westminster's tired old war-horses. The pony and trap of late-night
:03:40. > :03:45.chat, I speak of course of Michael Portillo and back, by absolutely no
:03:45. > :03:49.public demand whatsoever, and praying to heaven that we've all
:03:49. > :03:54.forgotten about her recent Twitter brain farts. Your month of the
:03:54. > :04:00.week? There was a newsite eem from Afghanistan that which maized me
:04:00. > :04:02.which was a plan for a new law in Afghanistan which supposedly had
:04:02. > :04:06.the fingerprints of President Karzai all over it, as they put it,
:04:06. > :04:11.which was to establish the place of women in Afghanistan and in short
:04:11. > :04:15.it is that they may not go out in the streets alone, they must be
:04:15. > :04:20.accompanied by their brother or husband, they cannot be in any
:04:20. > :04:22.place alongside men, which apart from anything else stops you being
:04:22. > :04:26.a female Member of Parliament because you can't go to the
:04:26. > :04:30.Parliament which has a lot of men in it. This supposedly is there in
:04:30. > :04:33.order to ingratiate the Government with the Taliban with whom a deal
:04:33. > :04:37.will have to be done to have a political settlement. Over the
:04:37. > :04:40.years, it's been said during the British presence there that one of
:04:40. > :04:45.the justifications, one of the triumphs, was the position of women.
:04:45. > :04:53.The number of who were going to school? Yes, that was never a good
:04:53. > :04:57.reason for the war, I mean the fact that it's going in the other
:04:57. > :05:00.direction is so depressing and calls so much into question what
:05:00. > :05:04.the whole thing is about. That was the day before the soldiers were
:05:04. > :05:09.killed. Hold that thought because we'll come back to Afghanistan and
:05:09. > :05:14.the implications of what's happened. Your moment? That reggae music
:05:14. > :05:18.specially for me. We didn't actually choose it just for you.
:05:18. > :05:21.didn't know you were on. We thought it was Alan Johnson. It wasn't one
:05:21. > :05:24.moment but in Prime Minister's Questions, you are increasingly
:05:24. > :05:28.seeing Tory MPs backbenchers getting up and saying who runs this
:05:28. > :05:34.coalition, you or the Lib Dems and I think that's a kind of
:05:34. > :05:39.premonition of trouble. Yes and the Budget may cause more as well.
:05:39. > :05:43.were so succinct, brilliant. With less than a fortnight to the Budget,
:05:43. > :05:48.our coalition Government, as Diane is saying, has been happily
:05:48. > :05:51.squabbling among itself over who should be hit by the tax man. And
:05:51. > :05:57.how hard. Business Secretary, Vince the Cable is all for slapping a
:05:57. > :06:02.mansion tax on properties worth over �2 million. He originally
:06:02. > :06:06.wanted �1 million and realised a lot of Lib Dem voters in his
:06:06. > :06:16.constituency had houses worth �1 million so upped its to two. That's
:06:16. > :06:18.
:06:18. > :06:23.principle for you. He says if Chancellor Osborne gives him higher
:06:23. > :06:33.taxes on houses, he'll go for the 50p tax rate. Peter Stringfellow is
:06:33. > :06:42.
:06:42. > :06:48.I've been in the leisure industry, nightclubs, for 50 years this year.
:06:48. > :06:51.I've been employing people thousands of them in Great Britain,
:06:51. > :06:57.America and France, and there's one thing I know and that is how to
:06:57. > :07:00.motivate them. What kind of a message is it sending out to people
:07:00. > :07:05.who aspire to a better life, want a top salary, not necessarily the
:07:05. > :07:08.ones who have it now, the ones who want to work hard and make a good
:07:08. > :07:12.salary? The message is simple, you earn more, we take it off you.
:07:12. > :07:16.What's the sense in all that? I don't understand it. The point of
:07:16. > :07:23.earning more money is to keep as much as possible. We know how to
:07:23. > :07:27.spend it, Governments squander it. I'm old enough to remember the '70s
:07:27. > :07:31.when tax was something ludicrous in 90%. We turned into a cash economy
:07:31. > :07:36.and the Government never gets anything of a cash economy. So we
:07:36. > :07:39.know it doesn't work. Keep the taxes down. Don't let's go
:07:39. > :07:45.backwards into the '70s, let's go forward, lower taxes will bring
:07:45. > :07:52.more money in and kick start the economy. Not extra taxes.
:07:52. > :07:57.Mansion tax - where's that word come from? Mansion, a �2 million
:07:57. > :08:02.that was mansion tax, do you mean a three-bedroomed apartment in Covent
:08:02. > :08:05.Garden valued at �million? The way inflation go, all our houses may be
:08:05. > :08:12.up near �2 million and we are all going to be taxed. No, no, no,
:08:12. > :08:16.mansion, what a laugh! As for the extra 10% tax over �150,000 a year,
:08:16. > :08:21.that's wrong also. It's the politics of envy without a doubt.
:08:21. > :08:24.People who earn that kind of salary are wealth-creators, they work very
:08:24. > :08:29.hard. The young people coming up want that kind of salary. The
:08:29. > :08:33.message is, don't get it because we'll take it off you. That is
:08:33. > :08:37.utterly wrong. Chi to be kick started, you need people wanting
:08:37. > :08:42.the salaries, do not overtax them, it doesn't work.
:08:42. > :08:47.Here is an idea, instead of increasing taxes, what about this
:08:47. > :08:50.one, decrease taxes. Let people keep more of their own money, make
:08:50. > :09:00.them happier, have better business environments, that's the way to get
:09:00. > :09:00.
:09:00. > :09:03.Britain back again. Try it! It will work. Peter sting fellow in his
:09:03. > :09:06.famous nightclub, now in our famous nightclub in Westminster. Always a
:09:06. > :09:13.pleasure, always. Thank you for joining us.
:09:13. > :09:16.Diane, do you agree with Peter, not on the cub stance of what he's
:09:16. > :09:19.saying, but on the point that there is a danger that all the talk about
:09:20. > :09:24.tax is dominated by the politics of tax rather than what would kick
:09:24. > :09:27.start a flat lining economy? There's no question that it's about
:09:27. > :09:31.the politics of tax and there's no question as well that it's because
:09:31. > :09:35.of people like Peter that we ran scared of the whole taxation for 13
:09:35. > :09:38.years. What I would say about tax though, there are things to say
:09:38. > :09:42.about tax. What would interest me is about the only decent policy the
:09:42. > :09:45.Lib Dems have which is take the lower paid out of tax all together.
:09:45. > :09:50.That's one thing that does interest me. Do you understand, whatever if
:09:50. > :09:54.right and wrongs about the 50p in terms of the economics of it, the
:09:54. > :09:59.difficulty of a Conservative-led coalition in these hard times
:09:59. > :10:04.cutting the 50p rate? All right. I'm no fan of the coalition. We
:10:04. > :10:07.should have just continued without them. Minority Government. If we
:10:07. > :10:14.were pushed, we should have gone to a new election. That's what I say
:10:14. > :10:18.to this day. Having said that, I believe I said -- I believe
:10:18. > :10:24.everything I said up there. If this tax was going to create �50 billion,
:10:24. > :10:28.OK, but it's peanuts in comparison. If this so-called �2 million
:10:28. > :10:33.mansion would create billion, maybe I would look at it but it's not.
:10:33. > :10:38.It's all envy stuff to make Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives and
:10:38. > :10:44.Labour who're in it, as you well know, they love the taxing. They
:10:44. > :10:47.are terrified of people hike you. How could you be terrified of
:10:47. > :10:51.Peter? I don't know. When the Conservative Government came in,
:10:51. > :10:56.they should have dropped the 10%. It was a spoiler brought in by the
:10:56. > :11:00.last Labour Government. So you think they should tough it out? Do
:11:00. > :11:06.you think because you believe it's economically right, hang the
:11:07. > :11:12.politics, argue the case? Let me keep some more of the money and
:11:12. > :11:15.I'll employ more people. I employ 160 people and not including the
:11:15. > :11:20.self-employed dancer. You want me to make more money, fine, I'll do
:11:20. > :11:25.that. People like me like the idea. I'm on a hiding to nothing, I know
:11:25. > :11:29.that. Hiding to nothing. I'm backing up, don't tax us.
:11:29. > :11:32.Everyone's frightened to death. Our own Conservative MPs, Michael, you
:11:32. > :11:37.were and I hope still are a Conservative. Where are the people
:11:37. > :11:41.standing up and coming against the tax, the Conservatives? Is Peter
:11:41. > :11:47.right? Should the Conservatives have the guts to just argue the
:11:47. > :11:52.case if that's what they really believe or is it political
:11:52. > :11:57.impossibilities to cut the 50p rate now? I entirely agree with Peter
:11:57. > :12:01.that it hangs up a big sign saying that we are anti-business, I think
:12:02. > :12:05.it does destroy enterprise, but unfortunately, the vast majority of
:12:05. > :12:08.the population don't share our perception or our understanding of
:12:08. > :12:13.that and in these very, very hard Timms when people are paying a lot
:12:13. > :12:16.of money in tax, I think it would be very damaging. That is the point,
:12:16. > :12:21.the economic context where a lot of people are frightened for their
:12:21. > :12:25.jobs, seeing the costs of basic things go up, the political optics
:12:25. > :12:27.of dropping the 50p tax rate would be disastrous. Vince Cable has
:12:27. > :12:34.opened up a possibility I think for the Conservatives which otherwise
:12:34. > :12:38.they wouldn't have. Which one? which one? That property in this
:12:39. > :12:44.country is vastly undertaxed. I designed the council tax and I
:12:44. > :12:46.compressed the bands so that people at the top would pay
:12:46. > :12:52.disproportionately little. True confessions! Why do they do that,
:12:52. > :12:57.because a lot of people have expensive properties who don't have
:12:57. > :13:02.high incomes or any incomes at all. It remains the case that property
:13:02. > :13:06.is undertaxed, so if Vince Cable is saying I'm happy to give up the 50p
:13:06. > :13:10.if there is a property tax, there is an opportunity there. Are you in
:13:10. > :13:14.favour of the 50p? I think my Shadow Finance Minister, the great
:13:14. > :13:19.Ed Balls, has said that he's in favour of a mansion tax but not if
:13:19. > :13:25.it's a trade off for the 50p tax rate. What are you in favour of?
:13:25. > :13:31.think the mansion tax is not the greatest idea. You could do it by
:13:31. > :13:36.fiddling with council tax bands for more expensive houses, yes.
:13:36. > :13:40.council taxs - let me put this to you, the great British public know
:13:40. > :13:45.if they own a house how much collateral they have. Oh my God,
:13:45. > :13:49.they check it out, if I sold it tomorrow I would have �50,000 and
:13:49. > :13:53.no capital gains tax, it's free. The Government will aim at that
:13:53. > :13:58.next. If we let this go, they would be after the other houses and
:13:58. > :14:05.anyone who makes any money - tax. Would you not be in favour of the
:14:05. > :14:10.trade-off that Michael talked about whereby you cut the tax on striving
:14:10. > :14:14.and aspiration, cut that back to 40%, but increase the property tax,
:14:14. > :14:19.whether it's a mansion tax or council tax band, that's a detail,
:14:19. > :14:27.but those who live in big expensive houses should pay more because you
:14:27. > :14:31.are taxing their wealth rather than A tax is a tax. A tax on a mansion
:14:31. > :14:36.and what a silly word, nobody's got a mansion, do you, I don't. I know
:14:36. > :14:40.big houses, but not mansions. Council, I agree. Have a look at
:14:40. > :14:44.council, pay a proportion of council tax. I don't think people
:14:44. > :14:48.who own big houses is going to argue with that too much, Michael.
:14:49. > :14:53.The problem is on the council tax front, all the valuations of the
:14:53. > :14:59.houses are currently based on 1991 property prices. As you said a
:14:59. > :15:03.moment ago that's a detail. It's not, because... I agree it's an
:15:03. > :15:05.important detail. The real problem with the property tax, the value of
:15:05. > :15:11.property is not related to somebody's income, that's where
:15:11. > :15:16.rates came to grief in the end and that's why we invented... You got a
:15:16. > :15:21.rebate. The advantage of a property tax it's almost impossible to evade,
:15:21. > :15:26.that's the great advantage and it brings in the non-doms. Never mind
:15:26. > :15:31.the tax, explain to our viewers how putting more money in your pocket
:15:31. > :15:34.would help the economy. It's not putting more money in my pocket.
:15:34. > :15:39.It's leaving money - no, because sreu had 40% for years. Thatcher
:15:39. > :15:43.brought it down to 40%. I have reminded people in the 70s, it was
:15:43. > :15:49.a black market cash economy. That's what happens. I am sorry, but
:15:49. > :15:54.people are people. They want to keep as much money, whether Liberal
:15:54. > :15:57.or Labour. Real people in the real economy, it's quite different.
:15:57. > :16:02.real economy is reality and there's a lot of hypocrisy, as you well
:16:02. > :16:08.know, in the Labour Government and the Liberals and I don't like
:16:08. > :16:11.hypocrisy in my own party, Conservatives and that is let's
:16:12. > :16:17.keep our money and parade it around. Just about hypocrisy, one word,
:16:17. > :16:25.before you attack the coalition and David Cameron for having a 50 pers
:16:25. > :16:33.- 50% tax rate, remember Margaret thatch her a 60% -- Thatcher had
:16:33. > :16:42.60%. If We are being serious about inventives one has to remember she
:16:42. > :16:46.had a 60%... It came down from 90 to 60%, 30% drop and it's been 40.
:16:46. > :16:50.Labour Government came in and squandered the boom money. Now we
:16:50. > :16:53.are back again. David Cameron has a lower rate of tax than Margaret
:16:53. > :16:59.Thatcher had. Before we get carried away on rewriting recent history,
:16:59. > :17:04.let's look to the future. Yes or no on this, will the Chancellor in the
:17:05. > :17:11.Budget indicate, not necessarily do, but indicate that he is going to
:17:11. > :17:14.cut the 50 p rate? He will hint it, he won't do it. It will be suicide.
:17:14. > :17:20.He will hint it to keep backbenchers quiet but won't do it.
:17:20. > :17:24.I entirely agree with Diane. should do it. Do you think he will?
:17:24. > :17:27.He should do it. The property tax, do you think you might see a deal
:17:27. > :17:30.where he will say in a couple of years I am going to introduce
:17:30. > :17:35.higher property taxes and that's when I will cut the top rate,
:17:35. > :17:40.chances of a deal on that? Chances are good, although we wouldn't
:17:40. > :17:44.support that deal. I think he will indicate he is going to reform
:17:44. > :17:48.council tax. If he does, a disaster, we will lose voters. At least you
:17:48. > :17:52.got on This Week tonight. I am going to the club for a drink!
:17:52. > :17:57.done you, we will be follow you go later. Thank you very much.
:17:57. > :17:59.My pleasure. Now, it may be too late to stop
:17:59. > :18:03.those dastardly Iranians building a bomb capable of wiping out Nether
:18:03. > :18:05.Wallop in 45 minutes, but at least we've enough time left to say hello,
:18:06. > :18:09.good evening, and welcome - to broadcasting legend David Frost,
:18:09. > :18:16.who'll be with us to talk about the art of the interview; and for those
:18:16. > :18:22.of you deluded enough to think the BBC actually cares what you think.
:18:22. > :18:30.You mad fools! There's the Twitter, the Facebook and, of course, the
:18:31. > :18:33.good old Interweb. Crufts is starting in Birmingham tomorrow,
:18:33. > :18:36.but you don't need to go there to witness, preening creatures,
:18:36. > :18:39.prancing around, full of their own importance. Westminster's full of
:18:39. > :18:45.them. Messing up the pavements and barking up the wrong tree, giving
:18:45. > :18:48.their handlers the run around. And as for our own little Rottweiler
:18:48. > :18:53.and Bichon Frise - I wont tell you what happens when they're let off
:18:53. > :18:56.the lead! It's not a pretty sight. We've asked the Daily Mail's
:18:56. > :19:06.Quentin Letts to go dog in hand and give us his round up of the
:19:06. > :19:19.
:19:19. > :19:23.political week. # Walking the dog...
:19:23. > :19:27.Good morning. The politicians at Westminster are starting to tart
:19:27. > :19:31.themselves up ready for big decisions of the Budget. But there
:19:31. > :19:34.should always be money for pampering, even in times of cuts
:19:34. > :19:38.and Patchy here reckons he knows where he is heading, the winners'
:19:38. > :19:41.platform at Crufts, provideding this grooming session goes
:19:41. > :19:45.according to plan. Cabinet Ministers have been chewing each
:19:45. > :19:51.other's ears over child benefit proposals. The Chancellor managed
:19:51. > :19:56.to brush aside criticism from Ed Balls over the issue, what had
:19:56. > :20:01.happened to Labour's old commitment to the less well-off? If we now
:20:01. > :20:09.have a Labour Shadow Chancellor who thinks it's not fair to ask people
:20:09. > :20:16.in the top 15% of the income tkrrb to -- then I think he is completely
:20:16. > :20:20.lost sight of his party's values. Why is Labour opposing this? Their
:20:20. > :20:24.position on it does seem a bit whiffy. They need to freshen up
:20:24. > :20:33.their thinking, don't they, Patchy? Do they want to trim the deficit or
:20:33. > :20:36.not? We will get back to you. That most unlikely, but determined
:20:36. > :20:41.of rottweilers, Business Secretary Vince Cable, has been savaging the
:20:41. > :20:45.coalition as well. There was a leaked letter in which he talked
:20:45. > :20:53.about lack of vision by the Government, and then he went on the
:20:53. > :20:58.radio to give us his views about the Budget. Budget. My colleagues
:20:58. > :21:03.are not idealogically wedded to the 50p tax rate, if that were to go it
:21:03. > :21:07.should be replaced by tax taxation of wealth because wealthy people in
:21:07. > :21:12.the country have to pay their share. Mansion tax actually is an
:21:12. > :21:17.economically sensible way of doing it. No choccie drops for Mr Cable.
:21:17. > :21:24.Vince has been a naughty boy and needs to go back to dog school. The
:21:24. > :21:29.Tory pack feel he shouldn't be doing his dirty business in public.
:21:29. > :21:32.Another who is off to doggy school across the Atlantic is Steve Hilton,
:21:32. > :21:38.David Cameron's former advisor. He is the one who used to pad around
:21:38. > :21:42.Downing Street in his his his bear paws, he is off to spend more time
:21:42. > :21:47.with his wife and puppies. Afghanistan is back in the news for
:21:47. > :21:51.all the wrong reasons. Six soldiers killed, the biggest single loss of
:21:51. > :21:58.UK life there since 2006, taking the number of British deaths in the
:21:58. > :22:01.conflict to over 400. David Cameron paid tribute. It is a reminder of
:22:01. > :22:05.the huge price that we are paying for the work we are doing in
:22:05. > :22:09.Afghanistan, the sacrifice that our troops have made and continue to
:22:09. > :22:12.make. I do believe it's important work for our national security
:22:12. > :22:16.right here at home, but of course this work will increasingly be
:22:16. > :22:19.carried out by Afghan soldiers and we all want to see that transition
:22:19. > :22:25.take place. Elsewhere in the animal kingdom
:22:25. > :22:34.that wonderful saga horsegate is rumbling on. Former top police
:22:34. > :22:38.sniffer dog Lord Blair was at the Leveson inquiry.
:22:38. > :22:43.I think some top police officers just wish that sleeping dogs would
:22:43. > :22:51.lie. What I understand he will say is
:22:51. > :22:54.that he was telephoned by Rebecca brooks, asking about this
:22:54. > :22:59.arrangement that she had heard this arrangement existed and that then
:22:59. > :23:05.he arranged for her to go down and see the inspector in charge of
:23:05. > :23:09.horses and then have a discussion about it and this actually seems to
:23:09. > :23:13.have happened on the day that I had lunch with her and what I
:23:13. > :23:18.understand he is going to say is that this was discussed at the
:23:18. > :23:23.lunch, I have absolutely no recollection of that.
:23:23. > :23:33.Horsegate is absurd on one level but the perception is a little bit
:23:33. > :23:42.
:23:42. > :23:46.In some ways it's a pity that Patchy is a cocker spaniel and not
:23:46. > :23:53.a corgi because the Commons was in high Royal mode this week. A debate
:23:53. > :23:58.on the Diamond Jubilee and we heard from the father of the House, Sir
:23:58. > :24:08.Peter Tapsell. I once asked a courtier how she did it, to which I
:24:08. > :24:14.received a characteristic reply, by not eating salads, shellfish, and
:24:14. > :24:18.watermelon while travelling. Meanwhile, the Queen's grandson,
:24:19. > :24:28.Prince Harry, best of breed, has been in Jamaica, wowing them with
:24:29. > :24:35.
:24:35. > :24:39.his diplomacy skills. Good boy. Poll sticks leads us here --
:24:39. > :24:43.politics lead us here and there, make no bones about it, the party's
:24:43. > :24:53.fortunes will come down to one question - the economy. Tell us
:24:53. > :24:59.
:24:59. > :25:02.what, Patchy, I am a bit peckish. Wonder if I have worms. Oh, no.
:25:02. > :25:06.Michael, Afghanistan, you mentioned it earlier at the start of the
:25:06. > :25:12.programme, we know the tragic events of this week, the pictures
:25:12. > :25:18.of the six young men. This really brought it home to everybody, six
:25:18. > :25:21.at once. Should we still be there? I think the case is pretty tenious.
:25:21. > :25:26.This is not going to make any difference to our being there, we
:25:26. > :25:30.are going to be there until 2014 which is Notarantonio so very long
:25:30. > :25:35.to wait. -- now not so very long to wait. What it increases the focus
:25:35. > :25:38.on is what is the explanation for being there. And I don't think most
:25:38. > :25:43.of the public by now really understand what it's about. You say
:25:43. > :25:49.it won't make any difference if we stay there until 2014, it's not
:25:49. > :25:57.long away, well, we are not due to be out before the end of 2014, so
:25:57. > :26:00.it's two years away. Two years away in which the sod of young men who
:26:00. > :26:06.lost their life on Tuesday will be at risk and we will lose more young
:26:06. > :26:10.men like that. If the case for being there is tenious, why would
:26:10. > :26:13.we keep them in harm's way? Well, the Government of course doesn't
:26:13. > :26:16.say it's tenious. The Government says it's strongly connected to
:26:16. > :26:20.security in this country. I am saying that I think a large number
:26:20. > :26:27.of the population find it quite hard to understand that. It sounds
:26:27. > :26:32.like you you it is tenious too? tkoeu actually, -- I do actually.
:26:32. > :26:36.If you think the case is tenious and it's not our lives, we are
:26:37. > :26:41.sitting here in a comfortable studio, it's not our lives at risk,
:26:41. > :26:45.why would you put these young men and women, their lives at risk?
:26:45. > :26:49.Because you have to attempt some sort of orderly withdrawal and
:26:49. > :26:59.training up the Afghan army is the best possible orderly withdrawal
:26:59. > :27:01.
:27:01. > :27:05.that you can get organised. issues with indiscipline and
:27:05. > :27:09.corruption are endemic. I would say this, and I have to tell you
:27:09. > :27:13.official policy, we have to say that, it's not just young men are
:27:13. > :27:17.dying, Afghanistan has a disproportionate number of people
:27:17. > :27:27.being maimed and crippled, much more than any other battlefield
:27:27. > :27:29.
:27:29. > :27:33.because of these bombs that go go The problem with saying we have to
:27:33. > :27:37.stay there to train them, is that the controversial NATO report which
:27:37. > :27:42.the BBC got hold of several weeks ago concluded that the Afghan Army
:27:42. > :27:48.and the police were riddled with corruption Yes. Riddled with the
:27:48. > :27:52.Taliban, infiltrated by the Taliban in a number of areas. Yes. So what
:27:52. > :27:57.is the case for staying a moment longer than we need to or, what is
:27:57. > :28:04.the case for again simply getting out in the next three, four, five,
:28:04. > :28:07.six months? My turn? Sorry. What is the case? I'm not sure what the
:28:07. > :28:10.case is frankly. The kind of endemic corruption in the Army and
:28:10. > :28:16.police have been known for some time and we know, history teaches
:28:16. > :28:20.us, no Western Army's ever won in outright terms of war in
:28:20. > :28:26.Afghanistan. If you are a mother and you lost your son in the Second
:28:26. > :28:29.World War, hundreds of thousands did, you took comfort from the fact
:28:29. > :28:35.that you were standing up to a great evil and that you had lost
:28:35. > :28:38.your son in a great cause. If you lost your son in retaking the
:28:38. > :28:44.Falklands, you could say we are liberating a British Island from
:28:44. > :28:49.fascism, if you lost your son in Kosovo you could say, we were there
:28:49. > :28:54.to protect innocent people from evil aggressors. You lose your son
:28:54. > :28:59.in Afghanistan, what do you say? You're certainly fighting a great
:28:59. > :29:02.evil, no doubt about that and we are fighting in a country which
:29:02. > :29:04.housed Al-Qaeda and from which Al- Qaeda launched the terrorist
:29:04. > :29:10.attacks. It's important that Al- Qaeda shouldn't use that country
:29:10. > :29:13.again in the future. So this thing is not devoid of reason. There's a
:29:13. > :29:19.different between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban? Of course there is.
:29:19. > :29:24.woman who lost her son today said it was a pointless campaign? I saw
:29:24. > :29:28.that woman actually earlier before I came in. It was very, very
:29:28. > :29:32.moving? And very, very sad. We have to offer a rational to women like
:29:33. > :29:37.that and I'm not sure that we can at this moment. David Miliband
:29:37. > :29:40.talks about not having a political strategy or anything like that. But
:29:40. > :29:44.what is a political strategy? My understanding is that the Americans
:29:44. > :29:51.and the British are talking to the Taliban and trying to get something
:29:51. > :30:00.in place. The Taliban have opened an office in Doha, in Qatar where
:30:00. > :30:05.we are dealing with them. That is going on but in the end people I
:30:05. > :30:09.know, they tell me we take bets on how long the Karzai government will
:30:09. > :30:13.survive when NATO leaves, is it four days, four weeks or four
:30:13. > :30:17.months? The point you made that the Taliban's not the same as Al-Qaeda
:30:17. > :30:21.is important in this ; to us it doesn't particularly matter, I'm
:30:21. > :30:26.afraid, if the Taliban are very influential in Afghanistan in the
:30:26. > :30:29.future as long as that doesn't pose the threat to us. That is the
:30:29. > :30:33.situation they're trying to arrive at in a plitle settlement. The
:30:33. > :30:43.Taliban may be very influential in Afghanistan, but if they are not
:30:43. > :30:44.
:30:44. > :30:49.threatening us directly or hosting Al-Qaeda that accomplishes a
:30:49. > :30:55.mission -- political settlement. We have the disentangle. I think we
:30:55. > :31:00.can agree that it's hard to be optimist ck about the future?
:31:00. > :31:04.Is it right or wrong to withdraw child benefit from the higher rate
:31:04. > :31:09.taxpayers? Well, we are saying it's wrong because we are worried about
:31:09. > :31:14.the squeezed middle and there's this odd discrepancy whereby if
:31:14. > :31:18.there's two of you and you both earn less than �46,000 or whatever
:31:18. > :31:27.it is put together, you don't lose it, so there's a discrepancy so we
:31:27. > :31:31.are saying it's wrong. What are you saying? I'm saying that we are
:31:31. > :31:37.saying it's wrong. Are you enjoying collective responsibility?
:31:37. > :31:41.working on it. Can I suggest there's a fair bit of work to be
:31:41. > :31:45.done for you to sound convincing. Do you think George Osborne will
:31:45. > :31:48.stick to his guns? He was the chap who originally came up with the
:31:48. > :31:53.plan at the Tory conference, not last year I think the year before
:31:53. > :31:58.actually? Yes. I think it looks as if he will. It's very anomalous,
:31:58. > :32:02.but every now and again, life is, I suppose.
:32:02. > :32:06.His problem is those backbenchers, they're really mute on this.
:32:06. > :32:09.there is the problem of the exam pi which is a blatant unfairness and
:32:10. > :32:13.they have no answer to that -- example. Steve Hilton, probably not
:32:13. > :32:17.many people will have heard of him, but he was an important figure to
:32:17. > :32:19.Mr Cameron, particularly in opposition, but he took him into
:32:19. > :32:24.Downing Street. Do you think it matters to David Cameron that he's
:32:24. > :32:31.going or is it just a kind of inside the belt waist or
:32:31. > :32:35.Westminster village story? imagine if Steve is in touch with
:32:35. > :32:40.the Prime Minister, he would be by telephone. If you are sitting on
:32:40. > :32:43.Venice beach, you become a declining asset? I agree. He's been
:32:43. > :32:50.backwards and forwards because he has to spend some time with his
:32:50. > :32:54.wife who's out there. Good or bad that he's gone? Will the Government
:32:54. > :32:58.be diminished by his departure or not? Slightly. I think he was a
:32:58. > :33:04.great comfort to the Prime Minister and one wants the Prime Minister to
:33:04. > :33:09.have those comforts. Diane, is Prince Harry going to change the
:33:09. > :33:13.Jamaican mind about getting rid of the monarchy as Head of State?
:33:13. > :33:19.the Jamaicans believe they've come of age as a great society. But he's
:33:19. > :33:22.had a great trip and I loved the pictures of his hugging the
:33:22. > :33:28.Jamaican Prime Minister, Portia Simpson. So you think Jamaica will
:33:28. > :33:33.become a republic? Not sure because a large amount of people love the
:33:33. > :33:39.Queen, more so than many British people. I think the Queen's pretty
:33:39. > :33:44.popular now? Yes. No be fair, yes. She's done very well in Leicester
:33:44. > :33:48.today, got a great reception. you think Jamaica should become a
:33:48. > :33:52.republic? Yes, 50 years after independence it's time. They can
:33:52. > :33:55.stay within the Commonwealth, it wouldn't affect that. I understand
:33:55. > :33:58.that. The next generation is having a fantastic time in the Royal
:33:58. > :34:03.Family, you know. We see Kate Middleton today out with the Queen
:34:03. > :34:07.as well. It really is a great step forward. Here is the question to
:34:07. > :34:15.really test collective responsibility, Diane. Hand on
:34:15. > :34:21.heart, who is cooler? Prince Harry or Ed Miliband? Ed Miliband. Do I
:34:21. > :34:27.get a badge?! No, you go to the tower, straight to the tower!
:34:27. > :34:33.I'm speechless. It came out there, the microchip
:34:33. > :34:36.clicked into her head, who's the greatest, "Ed Miliband". She's
:34:36. > :34:40.getting the hang of it now. We like to ask the big questions here on
:34:40. > :34:46.This Week as you have just seen. For instance, if Iceland can put a
:34:46. > :34:51.former Prime Minister on trial for economic negligence, why is five
:34:51. > :34:57.CID taking so long to read Gordon Brown his rights? How does Diane
:34:57. > :35:00.square her claim that taxes don't stop for black people with the jaw-
:35:00. > :35:04.dropping number of taxi receipts she's submitted over the years to
:35:04. > :35:11.the Commons authorities? Just asking, that's all. And just
:35:11. > :35:15.exactly what are the rules of the infamous This Week drinking game,
:35:15. > :35:20.partly played up and down the campuses of this nation? Will
:35:20. > :35:25.someone please explain? We need the answers. So we've asked none other
:35:25. > :35:33.than legendary David Frost to put political interviews in This Week's
:35:33. > :35:38.spotlight. Any good interview's got to build.
:35:38. > :35:42.Did you always want to be a movie star? No, I wanted to be Queen.
:35:42. > :35:49.It's not the questions that matter, it's the answers they trigger.
:35:49. > :35:55.Married when you were 16? Widowed before I was 17, pregnant and a bun
:35:55. > :36:03.in the oven. No, leave it. haven't started yet. And of course,
:36:03. > :36:08.for God's sake listen. Let me get a word in. The truth of it is...
:36:08. > :36:13.Marriott was not suspended. I did not... Did you overrule him or
:36:13. > :36:21.threaten to overrule him? I tack advice... Or maybe I could learn a
:36:21. > :36:25.few tricks from this young man. What a nice picture to finish on
:36:25. > :36:29.there. Yes, a happy ending. People are
:36:29. > :36:34.diving behind their sofas as we speak and switching out the lights.
:36:34. > :36:38.Your grace, welcome. My Lord, very good to be with you. Is the set
:36:39. > :36:44.piece interviewer a dying art? because as long as there is
:36:44. > :36:48.conversation, as long as two people who like to ask questions to one
:36:48. > :36:52.another anywhere, the interview fortunately for both of us will
:36:52. > :36:59.live on. So we have still got a job? Definitely. That's a relief.
:36:59. > :37:03.What, in your view, makes for a great interview? Oh, well some form
:37:03. > :37:07.of relationship between the two people, it may be mutual respect or
:37:07. > :37:10.mutual dislike or whatever, but some real relationship between the
:37:10. > :37:17.two people, asking questions they haven't been asked before and of
:37:17. > :37:21.course listening to the answers as well. But above all, it's got to be
:37:21. > :37:24.that rapport of some kind between the two people and ideally, you
:37:24. > :37:28.asked questions they haven't answered before or they give a new
:37:28. > :37:38.answer to the question. If I asked you what your favourite interview
:37:38. > :37:38.
:37:38. > :37:45.was, I would have assumed you would immediately say the famous
:37:45. > :37:49.interviews, but it's not? We had been talking about interviews for
:37:49. > :37:54.15 minutes, so when another interview that I cared about was
:37:54. > :37:59.asked for, I talked about George Bush I, not Nixon. Why had that
:37:59. > :38:02.made a great interview? Because before we did our first interview,
:38:02. > :38:07.people had said he didn't communicate at all on television
:38:07. > :38:12.and amazingly exwe'd met for 20 minutes and within 20 minutes to
:38:12. > :38:18.have first interview, he was sharing things very personally to
:38:19. > :38:22.do with family and the loss of his daughter, Robin and so on, and for
:38:22. > :38:27.the first time, he showed what he was really like in an interview.
:38:27. > :38:31.From that point onwards, we did several more during the presidency
:38:31. > :38:40.and he was always... Talking about going into the jungle with anyone,
:38:40. > :38:45.I would go into the jungle with George Bush I any time. Probably
:38:45. > :38:51.going in there to escape the second George Bush? The third one is
:38:51. > :38:55.coming along now. We'll see, there could be a brokered convention. Has
:38:55. > :39:00.familiarity bread contempt in the sense that I can remember when you
:39:00. > :39:04.or Robin Day or alstaur Burnett would interview the Prime Minister
:39:04. > :39:08.or the Chancellor or the Leader of the Opposition, that was a big vent
:39:08. > :39:12.-- Alastair Burnett. With 24 news now, they are all over the place?
:39:12. > :39:18.There's more competition, certainly, but at the same time, when there's
:39:18. > :39:21.a real cut and thrust or whatever sort of interview, it still has
:39:21. > :39:24.much impact. Of course you are right and more people can do more
:39:24. > :39:28.interviews because there's nor channels. Stpwh and television.
:39:28. > :39:31.It's more difficult for people to make an impact with 300 channels,
:39:31. > :39:34.rather than two. Has the for gone out of political
:39:34. > :39:37.interviews for politicians? No, I don't think so. For example, you
:39:37. > :39:43.would never get the Prime Minister or the Chancellor or any other
:39:43. > :39:47.senior minister going with pax month on Newsnight, you would never
:39:48. > :39:52.see it -- Paxman. They are not prepared to take the risk, 8009,000
:39:52. > :39:58.people make it but if you make a mess of it, it's the headline next
:39:58. > :40:06.day. Was there anyone you feared or were wary of being interviewed by
:40:06. > :40:11.when you were in the Cabinet? mentioned Brian Wallden and I was
:40:11. > :40:14.pleased with my performance, but David was apparently the
:40:14. > :40:18.friendliest and softest of all interviewers and you would take the
:40:18. > :40:23.break for the news in the middle of the interview and David would be
:40:23. > :40:26.saying to you "super, wonderful" and this would lure you into an
:40:26. > :40:29.absolute false sense of security and just as you described your
:40:29. > :40:34.relationship with George Bush, we'd then be dying to tell you things
:40:34. > :40:39.that we shouldn't be telling you because you have got us so relaxed.
:40:39. > :40:44.Yes, that's right when people are more relaxeded they say things. The
:40:44. > :40:48.interview special that goes out next week, Michael Heseltine says
:40:48. > :40:53.that technique was, whether by me or anybody else, was a very
:40:53. > :41:01.effective way of then toing that. The other thing he said which you
:41:01. > :41:05.don't think of, he said it's war. Interviews with politicians are war.
:41:05. > :41:09.It's war. But there are two types of spwe views. There's the
:41:09. > :41:14.interview as theatre which is like Paxman or John Humphreys jumping
:41:14. > :41:17.all over somebody which is good fun and par for the course --
:41:17. > :41:22.interviews. There are interviews where we learn something about the
:41:22. > :41:26.person and that's an art and when it works it's brilliant. An
:41:26. > :41:32.American woman does the big seat piece interviews. Eddie Mayor on
:41:32. > :41:35.Radio Four is very good, very low- key, very charming. On the PM
:41:35. > :41:39.Programme? Yes. Excellent interviewer. Do you think it's
:41:39. > :41:43.become more difficult for people like you and me because politicians
:41:43. > :41:49.have become so professional now, they are trained to avoid answering
:41:49. > :41:53.the questions? Yes, it is I suppose in a sense. In one sense, we were
:41:53. > :41:57.saying that because interviews and political interviews have got
:41:57. > :42:03.tougher or stronger compared to the original ones with Clement Atlee
:42:03. > :42:08.and people and so on, so there is more variety and so on in them, but
:42:08. > :42:13.I still think that people can come through with something fresh,
:42:13. > :42:19.something new. Therefore it hasn't got impossible. Anybody you are
:42:19. > :42:25.feared to be interviewed by? Lord Chief Justice in the High
:42:26. > :42:31.Court I should think. And I think he's on his way! He wants to see
:42:31. > :42:35.you furs thing tomorrow morning. You've done this documentary on
:42:35. > :42:40.interviews. -- first thing tomorrow morning. It starts with someone
:42:40. > :42:45.called Andrew Neil who's in fantastic form. Did I hit the
:42:45. > :42:52.cutting floor? You are there safe and sound. 11 interviewers, Michael
:42:52. > :42:56.Parkinson. Tuesday night, BBC Four? Yes, 9 o'clock. And you will see
:42:56. > :43:01.your man Andrew Neil. If you tune into BBC Two at 9 o'clock on
:43:01. > :43:05.Wednesday night, you will see me documentary on human rights called
:43:05. > :43:08.Rights Gone Wrong. We are dominating the airwaves. Time for a
:43:08. > :43:12.drink. Can I have a railway journey next week. I think that was the
:43:12. > :43:18.train spotter speaking there. It's not the lot for us though, if Diane
:43:18. > :43:22.could just keep her gob shut for long enough, we'll be grabbing a
:43:22. > :43:27.Hackney carriage back to her Hackney mansion for some Blue Nun
:43:27. > :43:34.punch and the late-night game of divide and rule. You know how us
:43:34. > :43:40.whiteys love to play. We leave you with Catholic, cardinal Keith