:00:00. > :00:07.As the BBC decides to reinvent a children's TV classic, the Clangers,
:00:08. > :00:13.This Week presents the Political Clangers.
:00:14. > :00:20.Clangers were small creatures living in harmony on a planet far, far
:00:21. > :00:22.away. Back on Earth, political creatures are failing to help
:00:23. > :00:29.children from poor families climb the social ladder? Author and former
:00:30. > :00:32.speech writer to Tony Blair, Philip Jones, thinks politicians are
:00:33. > :00:41.wasting their time trying to change things. Politicians and journalists
:00:42. > :00:43.are obsessed with social mobility but changing it is completely out of
:00:44. > :00:46.their hands. Not much Clanger harmony in
:00:47. > :00:49.Westminster, with a power struggle between the police and Parliament.
:00:50. > :00:56.Sky News Political Editor, Adam Boulton, thinks this is a difficult
:00:57. > :01:01.problem to solve. Leaving Andrew Mitchell to stew, why did Boris and
:01:02. > :01:04.George Chase the soup Dragon to China?
:01:05. > :01:07.And as one TV classic is due to return to our screens, we look at
:01:08. > :01:10.how you gain classic status. Broadcasting classic Nicholas
:01:11. > :01:17.Parsons will be with us in "just a minute". I would like to say,
:01:18. > :01:22.without hesitation, repetition or deviation what a joy and a pleasure
:01:23. > :01:26.it is to be on with the incomparable Andrew Neil, the best late-night
:01:27. > :01:28.show on television. Don't worry, we'll be dropping a few
:01:29. > :01:44.clangers tonight. Evenin' all. Welcome to This Week, a
:01:45. > :01:48.Red Cross food parcel for the politically malnourished. Now,
:01:49. > :01:51.flip-flops are a common currency in Westminster - on tuition fees, on
:01:52. > :01:55.pasty taxes, most commonly on the feet of Lib Dem activists. Labour
:01:56. > :01:58.had an attack of the flip-flops this week, with wobbles on free schools
:01:59. > :02:01.and welfare. But by far the most significant was Ed Miliband's
:02:02. > :02:05.surprise reversal of policy on former This Week pundits. One minute
:02:06. > :02:08.Diane Abbott's living a life of blameless obscurity as junior public
:02:09. > :02:14.health spokesman, the next she's summoned to the Leader's yurt to be
:02:15. > :02:21.bluntly told, "It's not me, Diane. It's you. You are the weakest link.
:02:22. > :02:25.Goodbye". It was only then it dawned cruelly on Diane a truth the rest of
:02:26. > :02:31.us had known for years, that her political career was destined to end
:02:32. > :02:34.on a Blue Nun-stained purple sofa. With all the reliability of a Police
:02:35. > :02:38.Federation spokesman, Diane got her version in first, claiming Ed had to
:02:39. > :02:41.sack her because she was just too damn off-message to handle, as
:02:42. > :02:49.opposed to an invisible shadow minister with no message whatsoever.
:02:50. > :02:51.Not any longer. Here tonight, to spill the beans on three
:02:52. > :02:54.sadomasochistic years in the political wilderness, Labour's very
:02:55. > :02:57.own Mistress Pain, with secrets to tell and compromising photographs of
:02:58. > :03:00.Ed Balls to sell, back by absolutely no public demand whatsoever, in the
:03:01. > :03:02.bosom of her dysfunctional family #hackneyneet Diane Abbott and
:03:03. > :03:26.#sadmanonatrain Michael "Choo Choo" Portillo. Your moment of the week,
:03:27. > :03:30.other than the return of Diane? That is the moment of the week. I suppose
:03:31. > :03:34.the compromise reached in Washington, which means we have
:03:35. > :03:40.averted the disaster. They will have to do it again, but they are
:03:41. > :03:44.obviously not going to default on their debt obligations. The
:03:45. > :03:50.Republicans made a terrible hash of this. They managed to take all the
:03:51. > :03:54.blame upon themselves. It has been a political catastrophe for them.
:03:55. > :03:57.Obama was in a weakened position, particularly after Syria. They have
:03:58. > :04:02.put him back in a stronger position, so a real mess. But I
:04:03. > :04:07.would like to say on the half of the Republicans that the debt ceiling in
:04:08. > :04:12.the United States is $17 trillion. American national production for the
:04:13. > :04:18.year is also $17 trillion, so 100% of GDP is the federal deficit. This
:04:19. > :04:21.is fundamentally an American. America is supposed to be about
:04:22. > :04:27.small government and small state. The debt ceiling at the moment is
:04:28. > :04:32.monstrous. But the debt ceiling is coming down more quickly than ours.
:04:33. > :04:40.Yes, and ours is the largest in the European Union. Diane, your moment
:04:41. > :04:44.of the week? My moment of the year was, as they say, stepping down by
:04:45. > :04:49.mutual agreement to spend more time with my children. Only I only have
:04:50. > :04:56.one child, he is 21 and the less cc of me the better. So that reason
:04:57. > :05:00.worked! I have never been involved in a reshuffle before and I realised
:05:01. > :05:04.everyone is unhappy after a reshuffle. Everyone wanted to be
:05:05. > :05:07.promoted, wanted another job, so presumably that is why Cameron does
:05:08. > :05:13.not want to do them. Mr Blair did far too many. Good to have you back.
:05:14. > :05:17.Now, you could say our current Cabinet are the clotted cream of
:05:18. > :05:20.politics, rich and thick. Boom boom! And there's nothing those "posh boys
:05:21. > :05:23.who don't know the price of dairy products" like to talk about more
:05:24. > :05:27.than helping the less fortunate get on in life. They call it social
:05:28. > :05:30.mobility. So when it comes to moving up the social pecking order, can
:05:31. > :05:33.politicians really make a difference? We turned to Times
:05:34. > :05:35.journalist and former Tony Blair speech writer Philip Collins. This
:05:36. > :06:03.is his take of the week. Another week, another report on
:06:04. > :06:07.social mobility. As Tony Blair's former speech writer, I know why
:06:08. > :06:09.politicians like the idea of social mobility. Every parent wants their
:06:10. > :06:14.child to do better than they have done. But it is such a difficult
:06:15. > :06:22.thing for politicians to achieve. In a century of trying, we have made no
:06:23. > :06:26.progress at all. Higher educational standards, less poverty, better
:06:27. > :06:29.childcare, all important thing is done under the name of social
:06:30. > :06:33.mobility, but there is no evidence they make a difference to the
:06:34. > :06:44.ability of working-class kids to climb the scale. Education is always
:06:45. > :06:48.seen as the key to social mobility but I can't think of a single
:06:49. > :06:52.educational reform that is made much difference. Not one. There is the
:06:53. > :06:56.myth that grammar schools really pushed social mobility but all they
:06:57. > :07:00.did really was put Michael Portillo, Diane Abbott and Andrew Neill in a
:07:01. > :07:04.TV studio together. There is no evidence they did much more than
:07:05. > :07:08.that. Comprehensive schools did even less. And the idea that free schools
:07:09. > :07:16.will make a difference is a fond delusion. Even the pupil premium
:07:17. > :07:20.will really make no difference. Or drink coffee in a greasy spoon. If
:07:21. > :07:26.that is not social mobility, I do not know what is. But what caused
:07:27. > :07:30.social mobility? The jobs market. Britain went from a blue-collar
:07:31. > :07:33.society to a white-collar society, creating more jobs for managers,
:07:34. > :07:36.lawyers, accountants. In a generation, a group of the border
:07:37. > :07:41.would have walked through the factory gate suddenly walked through
:07:42. > :07:50.the office door. -- a group of people.
:07:51. > :07:56.Politicians love the sort of social mobility where everyone is going
:07:57. > :08:00.up, but if they were honest it is not just about a rag is to riches
:08:01. > :08:04.story. Some people have to go down, too. The dull child of middle-class
:08:05. > :08:09.parents will have to go down the ladder if we are to have real social
:08:10. > :08:15.mobility. As Gore Vidal once said of his friends, it is not enough that I
:08:16. > :08:19.should succeed, others must fail. And that is not a vote winner.
:08:20. > :08:22.And from the Turk's Head cafe in Wapping to our own little greasy
:08:23. > :08:29.spoon here in the heart of Westminster, Phil joins us now.
:08:30. > :08:32.Welcome to the programme. So the huge boost in post-war social
:08:33. > :08:38.mobility that we lived through, it never happened, and we imagined it?
:08:39. > :08:43.It happened, but it was not caused by education policy. The economy
:08:44. > :08:47.changed shape. Suddenly we had more service sector jobs. We went from a
:08:48. > :08:53.manufacturing economy to a service economy. That is true, but without
:08:54. > :08:57.education, people could not have stepped into those jobs. Had I left
:08:58. > :09:02.school at 14, like my mum and dad, I could not have gone up the ladder.
:09:03. > :09:11.You are saying education did not make a difference. I did not. I
:09:12. > :09:15.think it did make a difference. Imagine you run a race in 1900 and
:09:16. > :09:19.then you run it again a century later. Everybody runs faster but the
:09:20. > :09:25.outcome is the same. Of course people have got cleverer and more
:09:26. > :09:27.prosperous. People have had access to university education which their
:09:28. > :09:32.parents did not have. That is the difference. All of that is obviously
:09:33. > :09:40.true but does not make it because of social mobility. The universities
:09:41. > :09:43.were expanded and the middle-class colonised it. The expansion of
:09:44. > :09:48.universities was the colonisation by that a la middle-class. I may be
:09:49. > :09:53.dull but my family was not middle-class. Looking at the history
:09:54. > :09:56.of people I know, it was the history of access to education and made it
:09:57. > :10:01.possible for them to access jobs their parents could not have dreamt
:10:02. > :10:04.of all stop that is social mobility. I objected to the first sentence
:10:05. > :10:08.where you said every child wants his child to do better than he did. This
:10:09. > :10:13.is simply not true any more. That is the fundamental problem. In this
:10:14. > :10:17.country, so many parents and children no longer see education as
:10:18. > :10:20.a way out of their predicament of property. In developing countries,
:10:21. > :10:24.by and large, that is what parents and children universally accept,
:10:25. > :10:27.that education is the ladder to get out of their predicament. If your
:10:28. > :10:33.first sentence were true, we would have a much smaller problem. We are
:10:34. > :10:36.approaching a moment when all of a sudden that idea that you are going
:10:37. > :10:40.to do that than your parents is going to be more difficult. In the
:10:41. > :10:44.20th century, we had a lot of different jobs. If we are not
:10:45. > :10:48.creating more official jobs, more room at the top, which caused social
:10:49. > :10:52.mobility, has stopped. At that point, it is makes and ladders. For
:10:53. > :10:58.everyone who goes up, someone has to come down. We are on the eve of a
:10:59. > :11:04.period where information technology is going to be able to replace vast
:11:05. > :11:09.numbers of white-collar jobs. That will be the next revolution. You are
:11:10. > :11:13.right to say that the coming generation will not necessarily have
:11:14. > :11:19.it as easy as their parents, for all sorts of reasons. But the idea that
:11:20. > :11:22.growth is a 0-sum game, if there is more growth in one part of the
:11:23. > :11:27.economy there is less in another, that is clearly wrong. That is
:11:28. > :11:33.economic illiteracy. There is not one lump of growth. Neither is it
:11:34. > :11:37.relevant to what I said because it was not the point. The point is that
:11:38. > :11:42.unless the economy produces more jobs in the higher echelons, there
:11:43. > :11:47.are a finite number of positions. You also said that politicians could
:11:48. > :11:50.not do much about it. If you get Sweden, Finland, Germany, they are
:11:51. > :11:55.more socially mobile because they give kids from ordinary backgrounds
:11:56. > :12:00.a better education. If politicians can make a difference, if they get
:12:01. > :12:05.the right policies. They are a bit more socially mobile, not much more,
:12:06. > :12:09.given -- given how different their social policy regime is. The really
:12:10. > :12:12.interesting thing is how closely grouped countries are with social
:12:13. > :12:15.mobility. There is not much difference. I am not saying
:12:16. > :12:25.politicians can make no difference at all. It sounded like it. But not
:12:26. > :12:29.much. The more equal a society is, the more social mobility you have.
:12:30. > :12:36.And equality is something that policies can affect. That is true.
:12:37. > :12:40.There are two ways to measure it. In some cases, some of the data that
:12:41. > :12:45.you are citing with Sweden and Finland, what they are measuring is
:12:46. > :12:49.mobility on the income scale. So to say they are equal societies and
:12:50. > :12:54.socially mobile is in fact the same thing. We are talking about
:12:55. > :13:01.occupational groups, quite different. This country, in 50
:13:02. > :13:05.years, has changed enormously. Even though today's Tory party is led by
:13:06. > :13:11.an old Etonian, for a long while it was not. It had a grammar school,
:13:12. > :13:15.state school kid, leader after leader. Even with an old Etonian at
:13:16. > :13:21.the head, it is unrecognisable from the Tory party of 50 years ago. The
:13:22. > :13:26.country is completely different. That is an element of social
:13:27. > :13:31.mobility. A TV programme like this in 1959 with people like us doing it
:13:32. > :13:36.would be inconceivable. You seem to think I am denying that has happened
:13:37. > :13:41.and I am not. These days, about 45% of the economy are in the
:13:42. > :13:46.professional managerial sector. 100 years ago that was 18%. You had a
:13:47. > :13:50.huge growth of that sector. Of course, some of those jobs have been
:13:51. > :13:54.taken by people who began their lives as working class. But if you
:13:55. > :13:59.look back 100 years, the chances of ending up at middle-class, you are
:14:00. > :14:02.15 times more likely to do that if you are born middle-class than if
:14:03. > :14:09.you were working class. The odds are the same today. I do not think your
:14:10. > :14:14.thesis makes sense. You are not comparing like with like. We have
:14:15. > :14:19.moved from an industrial society to an information society. The old
:14:20. > :14:25.well-paid blue-collar jobs have gone. They were often the parents,
:14:26. > :14:30.who had not had great educational opportunities themselves, but they
:14:31. > :14:33.cared about education and the unions often encouraged them. They wanted
:14:34. > :14:38.opportunities for their kids. Today, in an age of white-collar jobs, to
:14:39. > :14:43.be in a middle-class background seems to give a big advantage than
:14:44. > :14:48.ever before. And the middle classes are getting bigger. This is also a
:14:49. > :14:53.cultural change. People that one would have regarded as being working
:14:54. > :14:59.class until quite recently are now restaurant goers, wine bar goers.
:15:00. > :15:03.They read novels. All of this is undergoing a very great change. But
:15:04. > :15:07.I do think there is a group of people entirely outside this
:15:08. > :15:10.experience. Kids who are growing up, atypical case of their parents
:15:11. > :15:17.not having jobs, they don't have jobs. They have no sense of the
:15:18. > :15:21.value of education. That is an issue but I think society has got less
:15:22. > :15:28.socially mobile. If I look at the things I am familiar with, politics,
:15:29. > :15:32.journalism, even the law, the middle classes are back. It is like they
:15:33. > :15:38.never went away. It is all about who you know, which it was not when I
:15:39. > :15:41.first came to the workforce. I think there is great social mobility in
:15:42. > :15:45.the immigrant population. -- people can come to the UK and make great
:15:46. > :15:49.successes of their lives. This will be a feature of the future, because
:15:50. > :15:53.with the growing economy and with the eurozone in the mess that it is
:15:54. > :16:02.in, we will see so many people seeking work here. If a society
:16:03. > :16:10.becomes too unequal, social mobility becomes very different. The purpose
:16:11. > :16:15.of social mobility is a mesh to being sill, if the gap is too big to
:16:16. > :16:19.begin with, it's harder? That is right. That has happened. If you
:16:20. > :16:23.have further to travel, it's much more difficult to do that. The
:16:24. > :16:26.essential point remains it's the structure of the economy which has
:16:27. > :16:30.been the pivotal thing. That has been far more important in creating
:16:31. > :16:36.social mobility than any single social policy. Feel lucky to be born
:16:37. > :16:40.in the 50s Oh, gosh yes. We wouldn't have been sitting here if we were
:16:41. > :16:46.born 20 years later. You were in the mix of that big change. We were born
:16:47. > :16:53.into a golden age. How does it feel to be the only non-socially mobile
:16:54. > :17:01.person in our studio? You don't know my background. No, but I do know how
:17:02. > :17:05.to tease you. Yes. It may be late, but thanks to that
:17:06. > :17:08.nice man, Ed Miliband, Diane doesn't need to be up for work in the
:17:09. > :17:12.morning any more. Pour yourself another jam jar of
:17:13. > :17:15.Blue Nun and stay up with us because waiting in the wings, from Norwich,
:17:16. > :17:18.actor and presenter Nicholas Parsons is here to tell us how you achieve
:17:19. > :17:21.'classic status'. Apparently, we're interested in your
:17:22. > :17:22.views, at least that's what it says here.
:17:23. > :17:32.Please share your darkest fantasies on the twitter, the fleecebook and
:17:33. > :17:35.the interweb. UK exports to China are pretty
:17:36. > :17:39.underwhelming they are increasing and that didn't change this week
:17:40. > :17:41.with the arrival of Boy George and BoJo in the People's Republic.
:17:42. > :17:45.Boy George dragged photographers half way round the world to pose in
:17:46. > :17:49.a high viz vest in front of a nuclear power plant and claimed
:17:50. > :17:52.allowing the Chinese to build one in Britain would mean lower bills for
:17:53. > :17:54.all, at least for our grandchildren. This government doesn't believe in
:17:55. > :17:56.nationalised industries unless they're owned by the Chinese or the
:17:57. > :18:00.French. Back in the real world, British Gas
:18:01. > :18:03.was raising prices by 10%! After that rise in energy costs we
:18:04. > :18:07.couldn't afford the Chancellor's Far East photo call so we sent Sky News'
:18:08. > :18:09.political editor to London's China Town instead for his round up of the
:18:10. > :18:30.political week. In this year of the Snake the would
:18:31. > :18:34.be next leaders of the Conservative Party have been on competitive
:18:35. > :18:38.visits to China. Partly because Boris Johnson and George Osborne
:18:39. > :18:45.want to prepare the way for David Cameron, who had his invitation
:18:46. > :18:52.withdrawn after meeting the Dalai Lama. Mainly, because we are hungry
:18:53. > :18:56.for Chinese cake. There are some in the west who see China growing and
:18:57. > :19:01.they are nervous. They think of the world as a cake and the bigger the
:19:02. > :19:07.slice that China takes, the smaller the slice that they will get. I
:19:08. > :19:17.totally and utterly reject this pessimistic view. If we make the
:19:18. > :19:23.whole cake bigger, then all our peoples will benefit. Now, unlike
:19:24. > :19:28.the London Mayor or the Government, the This Week budget doesn't stretch
:19:29. > :19:35.to return flights to Shanghai. We have come to London's China Town
:19:36. > :19:41.what better place than explore the looming gap between the poll lit
:19:42. > :19:46.bureau and the security apparatus. I'm talking about the British
:19:47. > :19:52.Government, the British police and Andrew Mitchell. You are a good luck
:19:53. > :19:57.charm. Mr Mitchell had to resign as chief chip and from the Cabinet
:19:58. > :20:02.after some police said he had called them "plebs" this week members of
:20:03. > :20:07.the Independent Police Complaints Commission said some of the police
:20:08. > :20:12.evidence was questionable. The evidence indicates an issue of
:20:13. > :20:15.honesty and integrity not merely naive and poor professional
:20:16. > :20:22.judgment. The first o to support Andrew Mitchell now was the Home
:20:23. > :20:26.Secretary, Theresa May. I have to say, that in my personal view, in
:20:27. > :20:32.view of the statement that has been made by the IPCC today, I think it's
:20:33. > :20:37.wrong of West Mercia not to take disciplinary proceedings against
:20:38. > :20:42.these officers. In a sign the central committee might not be so
:20:43. > :20:45.all powerful, mid level brurcrats on the police commission remain
:20:46. > :20:49.defiant. There was a thorough investigation, supervised by the
:20:50. > :20:53.IPCC, which was then the results of which were put to three senior
:20:54. > :20:57.officers, in three different force, who came to the conclusion on the
:20:58. > :21:05.facts and legal advice there was no case for levying any disciplinary
:21:06. > :21:11.action. Andrew Mitchell seems well now on the road to rehabilitation.
:21:12. > :21:19.For the rest, PMQs was a clash between the Cameron revisionists and
:21:20. > :21:23.the red Ed Miliband, it was put into place by the veteran of the long
:21:24. > :21:33.march as he tore into the benefits system. The farmer and a butcher
:21:34. > :21:40.went to ats to in December 2012 and was stripped of his benefit. For 11
:21:41. > :21:46.months he waited for an appeal. Then his aggressive cancer took his
:21:47. > :21:54.sight, took his hearing and then, last Friday, took his life. Isn't it
:21:55. > :22:00.time that we put an end to this system where people that are really
:22:01. > :22:08.suffering should not be allowed an appeal having to live on ?70 a week?
:22:09. > :22:12.He rightly raises what is clearly a sad case. Everyone who has
:22:13. > :22:15.constituency surgeries know that is. We have to improve the quality of
:22:16. > :22:19.decision-making about this issue. Where I would take issue with him,
:22:20. > :22:23.it's important that we carry out proper assessments of whether people
:22:24. > :22:29.are qualified for benefits or are not qualified for benefits. For once
:22:30. > :22:35.David Cameron remembered that rule number one in China is venge rate
:22:36. > :22:41.your elders. Moving quickly from east to west this week, the American
:22:42. > :22:47.Congress agreed a last-minute deal to avert financial disaster, restart
:22:48. > :22:54.government services and to lift the debt ceiling. That should please the
:22:55. > :22:59.Chinese, who own most of the debt. Here, the British Government was
:23:00. > :23:06.caught on the hop again by Emmanus's energy price freeze promise. When
:23:07. > :23:11.British Gas put up its prices. Two years ago the accountancy firm BDO
:23:12. > :23:15.warned that the big six energy companies could be under reporting
:23:16. > :23:19.their profits and they recommended tighter rules. The Government and
:23:20. > :23:23.Ofgem failed to act. We are pushing competition. I would urge customers
:23:24. > :23:29.of British Gas who are unhappy to change their supplier. It was enter
:23:30. > :23:33.the dragon into the British Energy market as George Osborne gave the
:23:34. > :23:35.green light for China to invest in the next generation of British
:23:36. > :23:49.nuclear power stations. It seems certain David Cameron will
:23:50. > :23:54.soon be getting his own invitation to the Forbidden City, unless the
:23:55. > :24:04.security crats stitch him up. But then, it doesn't matter if you
:24:05. > :24:15.travel slowly, provided you don't stop. Boris and George, auto please
:24:16. > :24:24.note. You are very tight. That is life in Westminster. The police are
:24:25. > :24:29.coming out of this plebgate affair, they couldn't come out of it worse,
:24:30. > :24:32.could they? They have come out of it badly. Some people might say, if
:24:33. > :24:40.this is what police do when they want to fit up Tory Cabinet members
:24:41. > :24:44.what do they do to a hapless black youth? I wouldn't say that. I think
:24:45. > :24:47.you did. We haven't got to the main meal yet, which is what happened
:24:48. > :24:51.outside the gates in Downing Street. That is yet to unravel? No. It's
:24:52. > :24:54.very damaging for their reputation. People who have always had
:24:55. > :24:58.confidence in the Metropolitan Police are going to be thinking,
:24:59. > :25:03.well, what really goes on? It's not just the Metropolitan Police these
:25:04. > :25:07.officers are from West Mercia. That is true. This meeting in Bird, we
:25:08. > :25:11.would not have known if Andrew Mitchell hadn't taped, what we have
:25:12. > :25:14.seen of the Channel 4 investigation of what happened outside Downing
:25:15. > :25:19.Street, it looks like we are heading for a conclusion, whether there were
:25:20. > :25:22.elements of the police, and the Police Federation, at a time when
:25:23. > :25:25.the Government was trying to reform the police in the way they didn't
:25:26. > :25:30.like, they decided to stitch up, fit up in the old Sweeney language, a
:25:31. > :25:34.Cabinet Minister? That's... If we had written a script about that, the
:25:35. > :25:38.BBC would have said, that doesn't happen here? They almost got away
:25:39. > :25:44.with it, actually. It's bizarre. It is so undermining because, not only
:25:45. > :25:48.does it mean possibly the police are lying, the wrong people are going to
:25:49. > :25:52.prison. It means that people who should go to prison will not go to
:25:53. > :25:57.prison. Juries will not be believing policemen. The policemen who lived
:25:58. > :26:02.in this case will be back in court next week giving evidence in
:26:03. > :26:07.criminal cases. I was looking back. The mens mens mens case, Ian
:26:08. > :26:12.Tomlinson case at the G20 demonstrations. The Hillsborough
:26:13. > :26:20.inquiry. Worst of all. Over many years. There is a real pattern there
:26:21. > :26:24.is a section of the police prepared just to lie? I think it's really
:26:25. > :26:27.fundamental, as Michael says, trust in the police without that the
:26:28. > :26:33.criminal justice system can't function at all. It's very, very
:26:34. > :26:37.destabilising for a population, like ours, which is is it is actually
:26:38. > :26:42.used to having faith in it is police force. Indeed. We were brought up to
:26:43. > :26:46.think we had the best police force in the world? Absolutely. If you
:26:47. > :26:49.want to know the time, ask a policeman. Hillsborough is the
:26:50. > :26:55.worst, you are right to point it out. The calibre of the policemen
:26:56. > :26:59.you deal with are better. There are bad practices still flourishing.
:27:00. > :27:05.Andrew Mitchell has had the biggest reversal in his reputation since the
:27:06. > :27:13.miscarriage over the case at the... It was the Drafis case I was
:27:14. > :27:18.thinking to. We haven't sent Mr Mitchell to a horrible island. It
:27:19. > :27:23.has been raised who should apologise to Andrew Mitchell, the whole of
:27:24. > :27:25.Westminster... The Prime Minister should apologise. The Prime
:27:26. > :27:30.Minister, the rest of the media should apologise as well as the
:27:31. > :27:38.police. We all just assumed that was it, his reputation had gone. We
:27:39. > :27:43.didn't per sum. Mr Portillo said it didn't... Stack up. I heard him use
:27:44. > :27:48.that word in private conversation. I did not believe he could have used
:27:49. > :27:53.it, the pleb word, I didn't believe he could have used it at the gates.
:27:54. > :28:03.You heard him use it in private? I think I did. Not in a bad context.
:28:04. > :28:08.It's going against Andrew Mitchell again. It's all going wrong! Some
:28:09. > :28:13.policemen thought that a word that people believe Andrew Mitchell might
:28:14. > :28:16.have used, but not in that context. He was a good development secretary,
:28:17. > :28:20.those who are in favour of international aid thought, so we
:28:21. > :28:25.were sad to see his downfall for that reason. Anybody can be a good
:28:26. > :28:30.development agent if you are doubling the amount of money you are
:28:31. > :28:38.getting. You cynic. Energy prices. We saw Ed Davey visibly angry at the
:28:39. > :28:42.rise in British Gas prices. Why he should be surprised, he may have
:28:43. > :28:46.been angry, I don't see this coalition coming out with anything
:28:47. > :28:50.to match Labour's energy price freeze? It's a terrible political
:28:51. > :28:55.fix they are in with this. They keep trying to point out that Emmanus's
:28:56. > :29:00.wheeze won't work and that it's a con, actually what they have is they
:29:01. > :29:04.are in charge of a market that is supposed to be competitive, but it
:29:05. > :29:07.doesn't compete in any functional way in the interests of the
:29:08. > :29:13.consumer. There are two... There are two things going on. To make things
:29:14. > :29:17.worse for the coalition, some energy company puts their money up. It was
:29:18. > :29:22.funny. I went to conference, at the beginning of conference everyone was
:29:23. > :29:28.downbeat. We had a bad summer. Then the energy price freeze, then
:29:29. > :29:33.Emmanus's -- Ed Miliband's fight with the Mayor put us in a really
:29:34. > :29:39.good place. Extraordinary. Politics is up-and-down. Not in the opinion
:29:40. > :29:48.polls. Labour ten ahead, neck and neck. It may be self-denial that we
:29:49. > :29:56.should ignore polls. Micro economic numbers are better, ordinary people
:29:57. > :30:02.don't feel better off. There is an expression, feed them louder, so
:30:03. > :30:06.wait and see. If it looks angry with the energy companies every time they
:30:07. > :30:12.put up their price that is seems to put Ed Miliband in the right. If you
:30:13. > :30:15.are angry with him - What should they do? The reason it will come
:30:16. > :30:21.back in the end for Ed Miliband is that the policy is to redibth louse
:30:22. > :30:25.that if the press get their act together and every time they
:30:26. > :30:29.interview Ed Miliband they say, tell us exactly how this will work? What
:30:30. > :30:34.will you do after 20 months? What are they allowed to do before and
:30:35. > :30:39.afterwards? The policy will unravel. What should Government do, Michael?
:30:40. > :30:42.You don't know. They should wait for Ed Miliband to get his come uppence.
:30:43. > :30:53.Which I think he will. There is something hypocritical
:30:54. > :30:56.about politicians in all three parties ganging up on energy
:30:57. > :31:00.companies while they are agreeing to green levies which are going to
:31:01. > :31:04.involve huge increases in the price of energy in years to come. We are
:31:05. > :31:10.on the brink of agreeing one with EDF and the Chinese, in which we
:31:11. > :31:14.will sign up to them getting twice the market rate for electricity than
:31:15. > :31:20.is current, and we will all pay for it in our bills. And the offshore
:31:21. > :31:24.wind, they will get three times. All of that is reflected in the bills.
:31:25. > :31:29.But there is an important policy imperative behind it, which is
:31:30. > :31:31.energy security. We have two ensure that in future the country has
:31:32. > :31:37.access to these different sources of energy, because we do not know how
:31:38. > :31:40.things will develop. We have to back each horse in the energy race
:31:41. > :31:45.because we do not know which will be the winner. The policy in the
:31:46. > :31:48.short-term is one of energy insecurity. It is about closing
:31:49. > :31:55.plant very fast and opening plant very slowly. We are told by the year
:31:56. > :31:59.2015 we will have a 2% margin of electricity supply. By the way, I
:32:00. > :32:10.agree with you. I read the other day that we are each paying ?180 a year
:32:11. > :32:14.for green policies. It will be closer to ?250 by 2020 in today's
:32:15. > :32:20.prices. It is not currently the larger portion of price rises. It is
:32:21. > :32:25.10% of the bill, which is a big chunk for families on average income
:32:26. > :32:32.to have to take. And it is all set to arise. Every one of these levies
:32:33. > :32:37.gets higher. Some of these levies are also to do with subsidising the
:32:38. > :32:42.fuel bills of the very poor. Because their fuel bills are higher in the
:32:43. > :32:45.first place. You can argue about whether the charges should be put on
:32:46. > :32:50.bills will be funded through taxation, which seems to be
:32:51. > :32:54.something which is rising. Michael, we do not like nationalised
:32:55. > :32:57.industries in our energy unless they are French nationalised industries,
:32:58. > :33:03.or Chinese nationalised industries bringing to say technology which 50
:33:04. > :33:08.years ago this country led the world, peaceful generation of
:33:09. > :33:15.nuclear power. We can only have led it for a year or two. Our nuclear
:33:16. > :33:21.industry was pretty disastrous. We went to advanced Gaskill reactors
:33:22. > :33:24.which were failures. Now we have to import technology, pressurised water
:33:25. > :33:29.reactors, developed in the United States. The EDF technology is
:33:30. > :33:34.different and they are building two reactors, one in Finland, one in
:33:35. > :33:39.France. They are about eight years behind and two times over budget.
:33:40. > :33:45.Your nostalgia for the British lead is out of date. All predictions
:33:46. > :33:49.about the energy market turn out to be wrong. We thought 30 years ago we
:33:50. > :33:53.will be abandoning coal but we're not doing anything of the kind. We
:33:54. > :33:59.are closing every coal station in the country. Every growing economy
:34:00. > :34:02.is relying on coal. Now, it was announced this week that
:34:03. > :34:05.Waitrose, the former supermarket of choice for the squeezed middle, is
:34:06. > :34:09.to start selling bone marrow once again, believing old recipes that
:34:10. > :34:12.have fallen out of favour and don't appeal to modern tastes are
:34:13. > :34:22.deserving of a comeback in austerity Britain. I think I know what they
:34:23. > :34:40.mean. So we've decided to put classics in This Week's spotlight.
:34:41. > :34:46.Maurice C's autobiography is out, and the ray of sunshine's life story
:34:47. > :34:51.is ready considered a modern, literally, with the book published
:34:52. > :34:59.today as a Penguin classic. That is an honour usually reserved for the
:35:00. > :35:05.likes of Oscar Wilde. Can he be granted such distinction before
:35:06. > :35:12.anybody has read it? The winner of the Booker prize will be hoping her
:35:13. > :35:18.book obtains similar status. But should this privilege be conferred
:35:19. > :35:23.by experts, rather than the public? I would like to thank the man Booker
:35:24. > :35:26.prize and the judging panel for considering my work alongside the
:35:27. > :35:34.work of such wonderful and important writers. The return of classic TV
:35:35. > :35:38.shows certainly would not happen without public approval, but perhaps
:35:39. > :35:43.it is nostalgia as much as anything that dictates our fondness for
:35:44. > :35:46.childhood memories. So what are the requirements of a classic and who
:35:47. > :35:52.gets to decide. At the end of the day, is it about popularity,
:35:53. > :35:58.quality, or both? If that is the case, where is our BAFTA? There
:35:59. > :36:12.really is no justice in the world. No justice at all. None. Zero.
:36:13. > :36:16.I did not think they were going to keep in that last bit. That was just
:36:17. > :36:23.a joke. We have a man with classic status with us. Nicholas Parsons.
:36:24. > :36:26.You have classic status. No one is going to argue with that. Is it not
:36:27. > :36:32.a bit mad that they book should come out as a classic before anybody has
:36:33. > :36:36.read it? I think so, because a classic as to achieve longevity.
:36:37. > :36:43.Take the programme I do on radio four, Just A Minute. When it started
:36:44. > :36:46.it was a disaster and they did not even want a series. We got the first
:36:47. > :36:50.series and over the years we have worked at it and Holland it, applied
:36:51. > :36:56.our creative interest and so forth, and turned it into a very long
:36:57. > :37:03.running show, running for 46 years. Before Michael was born! You can say
:37:04. > :37:08.it is a successful show, but because of its longevity, you can probably
:37:09. > :37:15.say it is a classic. It has earned its classic status, like the great
:37:16. > :37:23.authors. You have to earn it. And he has not earned it. He has earned
:37:24. > :37:28.lots, but not for the book. Unlike for a radio programme. I think it is
:37:29. > :37:33.extraordinary Egypt as that used one to have your new work published as a
:37:34. > :37:44.Penguin classic. -- extraordinary egotism. And humility is something
:37:45. > :37:49.you know a lot about. You are the one who called herself humbler the
:37:50. > :37:53.start of the programme! You talk of a classic dish, but you do not make
:37:54. > :37:58.a new dish and say, this is a classic. A dish that has been going
:37:59. > :38:04.for a long time as a classic. I would suggest that a classic needs
:38:05. > :38:08.two qualities. It has to be of sufficient quality, but it also has
:38:09. > :38:15.to have a certain popularity as well. It has to be popular as well.
:38:16. > :38:19.I gave the example of Just A Minute, but it is popular and it has been
:38:20. > :38:24.going so long it can be called a classic. I am sure there are other
:38:25. > :38:30.examples of that as well. The judges in the Booker prize cannot alone
:38:31. > :38:35.decide what is a classic. They can choose a winner but it does not make
:38:36. > :38:38.it a classic. Absolutely not. Some of the winners have become classics
:38:39. > :38:43.because it has been going for a long time. But they would never claim
:38:44. > :38:50.they were manufacturing classics. Not at all. I just want to say that
:38:51. > :38:55.I am not easily impressed but I am so impressed to be on the programme
:38:56. > :39:02.with Nicholas Parsons. I remember you in the Arthur Haynes show. Just
:39:03. > :39:07.A Minute is one of my favourite programmes. When someone is charming
:39:08. > :39:18.and attractive as users that to me... No, no, I have had it! The
:39:19. > :39:21.Arthur Haynes show started as a disaster but we turned into a
:39:22. > :39:25.success. It is Robbie called a classic. I don't know. That
:39:26. > :39:31.established me as a name with the general public. You are the first
:39:32. > :39:35.person she has not savaged all been rude to. That was a classic piece of
:39:36. > :39:41.licking up to a national institution. I have never been
:39:42. > :39:46.called an institution before. Some people say, he should be in an
:39:47. > :39:50.institution. That was classic television from Diane. We will never
:39:51. > :39:54.see that again. Sometimes the memory plays tricks and things we thought
:39:55. > :40:00.were classics, you see them again and you think, did I really think
:40:01. > :40:05.that was so good. Well, it was a classic at the time but then it
:40:06. > :40:10.falls out of favour. Things do have fashions, don't they? There is such
:40:11. > :40:15.a thing as a fashionable show, and it has run long enough to be called
:40:16. > :40:21.a classic. This show has been going so long now we could say that it is
:40:22. > :40:26.a classic television show. Almost there, just another 50 years. We
:40:27. > :40:31.have not been going for a court of the time that your show has been
:40:32. > :40:35.going but we are working towards it. -- a quarter. It is a unique record.
:40:36. > :40:39.I did not want the job to begin with. I was going to be on the
:40:40. > :40:44.panel, but the chairman they asked was never available so they asked me
:40:45. > :40:52.to do the pilot. He mysteriously got lost on the way to the first
:40:53. > :40:56.programme. You sent him the map! The producer said, you do the pilot and
:40:57. > :40:59.if we get the series we will put you back on the panel. Afterwards, they
:41:00. > :41:02.did not want it but the BBC hierarchy said the only thing we
:41:03. > :41:09.liked was Nicholas Parsons chairmanship. Because it is you, it
:41:10. > :41:13.is a while since we had a quiz. Now, it's been a while since the
:41:14. > :41:23.This Week Quiz saw the light of day. Too many delicate egos to bruise.
:41:24. > :41:28.It is not a quiz but a game, because Just A Minute is a game. You had to
:41:29. > :41:33.speak without hesitation, repetition or deviation, which is very
:41:34. > :41:37.difficult. I have been asked to do this with you. I will give you a
:41:38. > :41:40.subject, one close to your heart, trains. Can you talk without
:41:41. > :41:48.hesitation, repetition or deviation for as many seconds as you can? On
:41:49. > :41:52.trains, starting now. I like to go to the station and buy myself a
:41:53. > :42:03.ticket from a machine. I place coins into the machine. Repetition, but
:42:04. > :42:09.carry on. I am out. And I get my... Hesitation, but carry on. I go onto
:42:10. > :42:13.the platform and open the door and I board the train. I find myself a
:42:14. > :42:18.seat. Above me, there are racks in which I can put my luggage. Today, I
:42:19. > :42:27.have no suitcase so I am able to avoid that particular stage. Excuse
:42:28. > :42:35.me, I am losing the will to live. We do let them get away with things,
:42:36. > :42:40.but he did repeat suitcase, and go. Diane, we have something for you.
:42:41. > :42:44.Without hesitation, repetition, deviation, I have also been asked to
:42:45. > :42:51.say, would you try to do this without lying or sucking up. I would
:42:52. > :42:57.never say that in my show, but this is a political show. You have as
:42:58. > :43:00.many seconds as you want. Would you tell us something, in your own
:43:01. > :43:12.words, why Ed Miliband is a wonderful leader? Ralph Miliband's
:43:13. > :43:20.younger son is truly remarkable. There are many reasons why he stands
:43:21. > :43:28.out as one of the great politicians of the 20th century. There is his
:43:29. > :43:40.dark, bog brush hair, with a little streak of white on it. Hesitation.
:43:41. > :43:47.The whole thing was a hesitation. Also deviation, it is the
:43:48. > :43:51.21st-century. You were so clever because you decided to speak slowly.
:43:52. > :43:56.With measured tones you do not hesitate quite so often. She has
:43:57. > :44:04.never spoken slowly before. Thank you for being with us tonight. It
:44:05. > :44:09.has been a joy, as always. That's your lot for tonight, folks.
:44:10. > :44:12.But not for us, because we're off to Annabel's to help Diane drink her
:44:13. > :44:15.redundancy package and help a tired and emotional Sally Bercow hail a
:44:16. > :44:18.taxi. And so we leave you tonight with a gentle warning to Eleanor
:44:19. > :44:22.Laing, the newly elected Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons.
:44:23. > :44:28.Nighty-night, Eleanor, don't let your new boss ankle bite.