09/01/2014 This Week

As storms continue to cause chaos across the country, This Week takes

a look at the political weather in Westminster.

Wet and windy for a time tonight. The temperature's rising in the

debate over welfare, as Chancellor, George Osborne, says he wants to

make further cuts. Sun columnist Katie Hopkins thinks too many people

are sponging off the state. I don't care if it's sunny. I don't care if

it's raining. You need to get out of bed and get a job.

Flood warnings in place all over Britain, but what about the warnings

about a flood of Romanians and Bulgarians? Are politicians causing

a storm in a tea cup? We still have a number of flood warnings in force.

BBC Deputy Political Editor, James Landale, is out in the rain. For

years, politicians would rather talk about the weather than immigration.

Now they can't stop talking about both, but are the forecast right?

And stormy relations between Education Secretary, Michael Gove,

and Baldrick. Historian Dan Snow soaks up the This Week atmosphere.

The good news is that there is no more rain for the moment. The bad

news is that there is snow on the way. Rain beginning to spread back.

Get ready for some puddled political views.

Evenin' all. Welcome to This Week, where we enter the new year with the

same old concerns. Yes, immigration continues to hog the headlines and

there seems to be no depths to which we won't stoop to deter folks from

coming to dear old Blighty. Alarmed at the prospect of being overrun by

hordes of Bulgarians and Romanians, the government has resorted to

draconian measures. First, it stipulated that a disproportionate

number had to come in through Luton Airport. That's likely to deter even

the hardiest of travellers. And, as if that wasn't disincentive enough,

it insisted that all newcomers had to have coffee with Keith Vaz before

they could leave the airport. I'm told many simply booked on the first

flight back home rather than face such an ordeal. Of course, in

America this would be unconstitutional, regarded as cruel

and unusual punishment. A bit like the fate that faced the British

climate scientist who eagerly led a boat-load of global-warming mongers

into Antarctica to show that the ice had melted, only to become locked in

some of the thickest sea ice since records began. They had to be

rescued by a CO2-belching chopper from coal-burning China. You'd need

a heart as cold as, well, as cold as it would seem Antarctica still is

not to have a quiet chuckle at that. Speaking of people who couldn't

fight their way out of a wet paper bag, much less a sea of ice, I'm

joined on the sofa tonight by two icy windbags who leave everyone

cold. Think of them as the polar vortex and polar dancer of late

night political chat. I speak, of course, of #sadmanonatrain Michael

Portillo, and back by absolutely no public demand whatsoever #baffled

Diane Abbott. Your moment of the week. Robert Gates was the secretary

of defence in the early days of the Obama Administration and he is

publishing a book, his reflections on that period. It makes pretty

dismaying reading, particularly for service men in the knighted States

and their families, because the dysfunction of the decision-making

around the Afghanistan campaign is extraordinary. -- the United

States. It appears the president had no trust in his generals, embarked

on the strategy of extra men being sent in with no belief in the

strategy at all, and as Robert Gates says, his mind was only on pulling

out of Afghanistan. If I had been involved in the sacrifices that have

been made by the United States, I would not be pleased to be reading

this. The vice president, Joe Biden, gets an absolute caning in the book.

The president has sent everybody out from the White House to dig up Joe

Biden. -- to say good things about Joe Biden. Mark Duggan, the verdict.

My friend, Chamois Chakravarty, always tells me that politicians

should never query the judgement of a jury. Just politicians. You can do

it, but not politicians. Really? We are allowed to agree with the jury.

There is this issue that politicians should not be attempted to

second-guess. On the same day we got the Mark Duggan findings, we heard

Boris wants to buy water cannon in case there are urban disturbances

next summer. Is that right, not because the fire Brigade is going on

strike? Also, Theresa May would not pay for it so he has to pay for it

himself. Water cannon on the streets of Hackney are not the way forward.

Do you think he wants to drive it? Probably.

Now, according to Chancellor George Osborne, 2014 is the year for what

he calls "hard truths", which makes a welcome change from "tough

choices" or "difficult decisions". Although they always amount to the

same thing - cutting people's money on Benefit Street. Boy George thinks

we're still spending too much on welfare, and wants to cut a further

?12 billion to balance the budget, scrapping housing benefit for young

people and kicking Bob Crow out of his council house in the process.

Sun columnist Katie Hopkins thinks he's gone soft and his plans don't

go far enough. This is her take of the week.

I believe in working. I have done some unglamorous jobs in my time - a

drive-through girl in McDonald's, a Saturday girl at the bakery, a

cleaner. And here I am, cleaning the bathroom is, but only because

Michael asked me nicely. Cleaner coming through. According to George

Osborne, 2014 is the year of hard truths. Well, here are some hard

truths stash we have given up on our own work-shy population and started

to rely on hard-working immigrants to do the jobs we simply turn up our

noses at. A new Channel 4 documentary series,

Benefit Street, touched a nerve this week my showing benefit Britain at

its worst, drink, drugs, shoplifting. There have been

complaints to the programme makers but I cannot have been the only

person wondering why my taxes were paying for people to slob out in

front of bigger TVs than I will ever earn -- own. I have most of the fee

for anybody on Benefit Street. They are always looking to blame

someone, the government, landlords, anybody but themselves. These are

people sponging off the state when they could be working, even if it

means doing a job you simply don't want to do. The Conservatives are

right to suggest cutting housing benefit for the under 25 's. We just

can't allow young people to choose to have a nice life paid for by

somebody else. In fact, I would suggest the government cuts into

welfare do not go far enough. Michael, are you decent?

And from the toilets next door, welcome to the studio. As you can

see, we splashed out a massive budget on the location this week.

Diane, have we created an element in society that feels entitled to

welfare in definitely, with no obligation? We may have done, but it

is a tiny group of people. What people do not get about welfare

benefits is that almost half the budget goes on benefits to the

elderly. Pensioners. Over half the budget goes on pensions, a court is

on in work and efforts, and less than a quarter of the people that

Katie is so upset about. If you really want to make cuts in the

welfare budget you would have to cut pensions. It would be wrong to do

that, and also, pensioners vote. You can rant about benefit claimants,

but three quarters of them are either pensioners, or they are in

work. Well, I would expect Diane to be baffled and startled, because

that is what she likes to be, baffled and startled. I think it is

important to recognise that when we see things like Benefit Street,

people do feel very cross. They go out to work and pay their taxes, and

we see that 6 million houses do not have a job. That is what she is

saying, that there is an element who have made welfare a lifestyle, but

much more welfare goes on people who are already in work, but they just

do not get paid enough and need extra welfare to eke out an

existence. We can talk about those people all we want but there is a

massive percentage of people not even getting up in the morning to

work, a massive percentage that are happy to spend their lives in the

luxury of someone else paying for them to do that. It is a much

smaller percentage than you imagine. The British public believe

that nearly one quarter of the benefit bill is drawn fraudulently.

Actually, the amount of fraud on the benefit bill is 7p in every ?100. I

do not deny there are children on estates, I live in the East End,

there are children who have grown up on estates where they do not see men

going out to work and I think that is a bad thing. Men going out to

work? Actually, women go out to work as well. As ladies do have jobs. If

you take a look at other statistics, and it would be boring

to talk stats all might, but there are lots of they are not attending

interviews, not putting themselves forward for any kind of work. They

are happy to live with other people paying for them to do so. It does

not matter where you live, people are fed up paying for people that do

not have the work ethic we need. I quite agree that people are upset

because they think one quarter of the people claiming benefits are in

gauged in fraud, but we have to do with the facts. We also have to

realise that those communities where people have grown accustomed to life

on benefits, it is not an easy subject to tackle. I visited my food

bank instead Newington before Christmas. Well done. Half the

people that show up there are people that are on benefits, so they are

starving. Food banks are complete con. One of the big things you like

to go on about is housing benefit and the fact that more and more

people are facing housing benefit. Housing benefit was never designed

to support people who want to live in areas of high and rising rent.

People need to recognise that if they cannot afford to live where

they live, they need to move. What people like you don't understand...

Like me? Since 2010, the majority of new housing benefit claimants are

actually in work. It is not idle is against people in work. I appreciate

they are in work, but if you cannot afford to live where you need to

live, you need to leave. It is not my responsibility to pay that for

you. Do you mind if I ask Michael to get a word in? I don't mind. About

?80 billion goes on pensions, leaving about ?80 billion which is

not on pensions. George Osborne is talking about saving ?12 billion. In

a situation where the economy is growing and more people will be in

work, I do not think that is unrealistic. Talking about taking

housing benefit from those under the age of 25 is realistic because it is

very hard to stop benefits going to the wrong people, if you apply

certain conditions. People are their behaviour to fit the conditions, but

if you have a cut-off related to age, it is very difficult to

manipulate the system. You either are, or you are not over 25. They

are already talking about exemptions, for example single mums

who have kids, and the disabled. Many people would think, well, it

should not. You have the bill, which is ?2 billion, and that brings it

down and you have saved ?200 million. I do not know whether your

figures are right. They are always right. Of course the government will

try to avoid difficult cases. But the fact that Katie makes the case

that she does, with the energy that she does... That is a nice word, I

appreciate it. That tells you how the debate has moved on. I thought

it extraordinary that George Osborne said, we are going to cut public

spending, reduce the welfare state, and actually put the Labour Party in

a difficult situation. I think it is the first time anybody has gone into

an election saying, we will spend less money. David Cameron is saying,

I will protect the benefits to pensioners. People have never

been... That is not a compatible situation. People have had enough of

it. People have never been stronger about their wish to have this kind

of luxurious lifestyle that is paid for by hard workers. What would you

cut? I would absolutely with Michael agree we should be cutting housing

benefit for people under the age of 25. I also think it makes...

Disabled? We have to take a firmer line on people on disability

benefits. Some friends of mine have come back from a cruise why half the

people on the ship were bragging about their disability benefits had

paid for their cruise. We need to take... We musn't be frightened

because of upsetting people. Sounds like an urban myth like people

spending their child benefit in Harrods. An urban myth. If you go

online you can find sites like entitle to that will tell you how to

maximise the benefits you can get. We need people who want to work. The

other big issue is imdwrags, which I'm sure we will talk about later.

Katie is making the point immigrants are coming in and occupying the jobs

that British people don't want to do or aren't qualified to do. It's

telling us something about the capacity, qualification or the

willingness of the British people to work. Attitude. Something to finish

on. Would it not make sense to be very robust, I paraphrase, with

those on Benefit Street, the people who are taking benefits as a

"lifestyle" not making an effort to find work. If you don't, in the end,

you risk it could already be happening, you will bring the whole

welfare system, and the concept of state welfare into disrepute? That

is an issue. I've never known a more hostile climate to social security.

Even though most of us in our lifetime will claim some or sort of

social security. Your mother having child benefit or Andrew claiming his

pension. The hostility is really frightening. People in work who need

their housing benefit are suffering as a result. She loves her label,

it's not hostility. We have had enough. We want people who want to

work, people who want to get out of bed, put an honest day work in to

earn their salary. We have had enough of excuses - Most people

Katie want to work. That is the reality of that. I don't buy that at

all. I think the majority of the population are, working. Those on

benefits are happy to sit there, lie in bed and let other people work for

them. On that point of agreement and harmony, we will move on. Katie,

thank you very much. Pleasure. Now, according to Boris Johnson, Nick

Clegg is David Cameron's political condom, preventing the Prime

Minister from impregnating the nation with his unpopular policies.

We have no such protection, so stick with us as we spread the This Week

seed. Waiting in the wings, escaping from the iced-tea in our green room,

historian Dan Snow is here to discuss whether we owe it to the

past to get our facts right. Don't forget, we're still ignoring all

your comments on the Twitter, the Fleecebook and the Interweb.

Now on this programme we welcome everyone with open arms. It doesn't

matter where you come from or what you do, anyone is free to join us on

this sofa. Please. We're currently taking bookings for 2014. So in the

spirit of global cameradie, we say hello to our new Eastern European

viewer. Sorry about Mr Vaz we will try and keep him out of the way from

now on. To help you settle in and understand the great British

political system, we've dug deep into our archives to bring you this

helpful public information film, presented by the great grandfather

of the BBC's James Landale. Hello visitors and welcome to the

United Kingdom. I hope this short educational film will help introduce

you to our way of life. When you immigrate from here and here all the

way to here. You will soon discover the ordinary Brit is a friendly

fellow who will want to know where you've come from. How many of your

friends might be joining you. And every one of you will get a personal

welcome from a top politician. Here's Chair Vaz at Luton Airport,

greeting hoards of Bulgarians and Romanians, at least some of them.

Once the British Empire spanned the globe. Lots of red hair. Since then

there have been some cuts. They are still cutting. That is little us

just there. Now, Mr Chancellor George Osborne wants us to get even

smaller. If 2014 is a year of hard truths for our country, it starts

with this one. Britain should never return to the levels of spending of

the last Government. We either have to return borrowing to the dangerous

levels that threatened our stability or we'd have to raise tax Secretary

of State much we would put our country out of business. Government

is going to have to be permanently smaller and so too is our welfare

system. The big question of course is, who is going to have to tighten

their belts? On that the Government is being tight-lipped, at least for

now. But, as the man said, we're all in this together. Why, even the

Prime Minister has to live in this pokey terrace house. He is trying to

avoid a new tax that his deputy wants to impose on rich people and

their mansions. That's because the very liberal and democratic Mr

Nicholas Nick Clegg is not so keen on cutting welfare. I think it's

simply not serious politics of the Conservative Party to say, we're so

reluctant, we're so reluctant to ask the wealthiest in the country to

make an extra contribution we will ask all future sacrifices to come

from the working-age poor who depend on welfare. That is unrealistic.

Hello? Oh, hello. So, there you have it. The Coalition Government agrees

there should be cuts, but can't agree how. They've agreed to

disagree. Even Mr Chancellor George Osborne, the welfare secretary, Iain

Duncan Smith, don't always see eye to eye on this. Mr Osborne is not

worried, that is because we are talking about the economy, not the

cost of living. That is what the socialists want to talk about. The

reason why the Chancellor is saying he is going to cut spending more,

the reason why there is a cost-of-living crisis is because he

has failed to get the economy growing and get the deficit down as

he promised. Today, he has given us no indication as to what he can do

in future to actually get the deficit down in a fairway, to deal

with that cost-of-living crisis, to get the long-term growth we need to

deal with that problem. This is one of London's finest tourist

attractions. Look at all these happy people? Some aspects of life in

Britain may seem confusing. The language and customs, strange. For

example, the shadowy Chancellor, Mr Edward Balls said he could work with

his opponent, Mr Nicholas Clegg. The Mayor of London Boris Johnson said

Mr Clegg would be an as snet any coalition government, and not just

for the weekend! I don't want to get into some sort of endless ding-dong

with poor old Cleggers, is fulfills an important ceremonial function as

David Cameron's lap dog come protection device for all the

difficult things that David Cameron has to do. If you click on the Red

Button thingy you can get that translated. The big row

behind-the-scenes is why the pain of these spending cuts should fall on

the young, and not the old. The Prime Minister says their state

pension will rise by 2.5% each year and they will keep their bus passes,

TV Licences and fuel payments. Even the old laidiedy in who lives in

this house gets help from the state. This is the London Eye ball, it's

very popular with visitors. Some say it's you who should have their

benefits cut, not the old and the judge. Mr Nigel Farage of the UKIP

party said you shouldn't have a penny for five years and said some

of you should go home, even if it costs the economy. Are you saying, I

accept we could be poorer but so be it? Yes, so be p it. I don't want to

live in a country whose population is heading towards 75 million

people. There are some things, in a society, in a community, that

actually matter more than just money.

You may find political debate here in the UK more sedate than back

home. None of that foreign shouty stuff here, no not in the mother of

parliament, at least not this week when the Labour leader, Mr Ed

Miliband, tried to stop the Punch and Judy. Instead, they discussed

the weather. Can he tell the House with whether it has become clear why

it took so long for some of the energy distribution companies to

restore power to homes over the Christmas period? And what steps

does he believe can be taken to ensure that that kind of thing

doesn't happen again? The flood defences did protect up to a million

homes over the December and Christmas period. There are some

negatives there. We need to learn lessons, I think particularly some

of the energy companies didn't have enough people over the holiday

period for emergency response. So, that's the long and short of Britain

today. So, that's the long and short of Britain today, less spending,

less immigration, more weather. Thank you for watching. I hope you

enjoy your time here. Don't outstay your welcome, or you'll get another

visit from that nice Mr Vaz. Goodbye. That's a hat-trick of Vaz

mentions, that would be four now we've had. As you can see the first

film was shot in the bog next door. That one is in black-and-white. The

This Week budget knows no bounds. It's a Hollywood ex ravaganza.

Miranda, welcome back. 75% of Britons want immigration cut

according to a survey, when it's at that level it's hard for politicians

to ignore. It Vicious circle. The more propaganda you get about how we

are being overrun by immigrants the more you get about about being over

by immigrants. Christian Hunt said something about how high level of

Eastern European immigration were responsible for poor educational

standards in East Anglia. There have been poor educational standards

there for years and years. People think it's legitimate to blame every

social ill on immigrants. He said he was misquoted. Really what was low

educational standards amongst the white working-class and Eastern

European immigration doing in the same sentence? The politicians on

all sides are under pressure now. It's a subject they have been

accused of ignoring for a long while. The media has been accused of

ignoring it as well. It's very much on the agenda. I mean, the Sunday

Times last week had this competing polls, what one in the end, the

final winner was a two-year freeze I think on immigration altogether what

was -- was what they wanted? It's very important indeed this topic be

debated enmaterial tire openingly. Nick Robinson was saying maybe the

BBC over the years have been too frightened of this subject. For

example, I would advocate we need more immigrants of a young aid age

to produce the tax revenues necessary to pay for our ageing

population. A lot of people in the low paid jobs feel that they are

undermined by immigrants who are coming in who depress the level of

real wages so that people at the bottom end of the labour market feel

they are worse off. You have to admit these two things. You have to

make the argument for immigration, in terms of what it does to the

economy. You have to recognise that not everybody in the economy is

going to benefit from this. Some are going to be disadvantaged. We do

need, I think, a clear and honest debate on those topics. If people

are in a mood to be tough about immigration, that would seem to be

rightly or wrongly the public mood, the Lib Dems are the last party they

will turn to? Well, that's right. In fact, you know, at the last election

the Lib Dems had a policy to offer an amnesty to illegal immigrants who

had been here for a certain amount of time and put down roots and could

then start contributing taxes to the system. Bullied out of that? They

were very much bullied out of that. It seems they've abandoned that

policy for next time. I must say, I think it would be a real shame if

the Lib Dems were cowed on this issue. Somebody does have to stand

up for the benefits that immigration brings to the country. I fear that

the Labour Party is not really doing that now. This very interesting

though what Michael says about the sort of hard economic realities of

immigrants paying for things that we need in the country and also growing

the economy because, I thought it was interesting that Nigel Farage

this week started to say - I personally think we should sacrifice

economic benefits to preserve our culture. In other words he was

buying that argument, apparently? That's right. But what those who

sort of campaigned for the benefits of immigration and for talking about

the benefits say is that, unfortunately people do share that

view. He is on to something there. He has looked at the focus groups.

It will not work for those on the side of immigration to just talk

about cash, basically, or... Farage is trying to say, what about social

cohesion? We have to address those issues. They have been ignored a bit

too much. The mood of the country has changed. It's not that people

are overwhelmingly against immigration, it's become an issue of

numbers. Because people feel that there has been a lot more than they

ever thought. When Labour Party came to power net immigration was 50,000

a year. It wasn't a huge issue. Under the Labour Party it got up to

250,000 then almost 300,000 net immigration a year. It was three

million over the 13 years. That's three cities bigger than Birmingham.

Even people who are not against immigration they think - This is Sir

Andrew Green stuff, the equivalent of one city being added every month.

Every month. Whatever. We added three cities in three years. What we

got wrong is we miscalculated the number of Poles coming in. The fewer

immigrants there are in an area people are more upset it. I said,

how is it going up in X? He said, the only thing he are talking about

on the doorstep is immigration. He said, I tell them there are no

immigrants in X. No-one mentions immigrants in Hackney, and it's full

of them. I remember when Powell made his

speech, and the country was basically against immigration. We

move from that and became relatively tolerant of immigration, letting in

50,000 a year and it was not a matter of political debate. But when

it got to 3 million over 13 years, people thought, hold on a minute, is

this getting out of hand? What is the answer to that? This is the new

phenomenon, white immigration from Europe, which is a very different

thing. And it is to do with the lowest skill economy and this thing

about fear of jobs and provision of public services. This idea that you

have to address the impact on individual communities to win a

pro-immigration argument is important. A couple of weeks ago

Nigel Farage sat on that sofa and made the basic point that this

connects with the European Union argument. We are in an organisation,

the European Union, in which there is free movement of people. That

means these claims about how we will control immigration are nonsense,

because there is free movement of people. If the British economy is

going to do well well the eurozone economy is doing poorly, the

pressure on people to move on southern Europe to Northern Europe

will be intense. -- from southern Europe. People used to go on about

women in headscarves, picked buckets. There is or is this fear of

the other and it will get worse in the recession. Let's move on to the

real issue of the week. Is this a growing love affair between Ed Balls

and make a leg? It is fascinating, isn't it? Ed Balls says hand on

heart, his newly expressed love for Nick Clegg, and he respects his

integrity. Who are we to question his sincerity? Nick Clegg was not

nice back to him, simply tweeting the word Ed Balls, as if it was a

four letter word. That was referring to his gaffe, when he tweeted his

own name. It was a Twitter joke. I did not know that. Have we moved

away from what was the consensus for a while, that if Labour was to form

a coalition with the Lib Dems, Nick Clegg would be a deal-breaker, in

other words they would insist, we will do it, but not with you? That

certainly seems to be what is happening. They miscalculated,

thinking he would be gone by now, and certainly that the coalition

would fall apart and there would be a leadership on test in the Lib

Dems. None of that has happened and Nick Clegg is looking stronger than

a couple of years ago. They have two readjust. It is not the reality that

Nick Clegg can win his constituency in North Yorkshire. He may well be

gone. However, there is no doubt that very senior people in the

party, way above my pay grade, have looked at the figures and have seen

that we might have to have a coalition with the Lib Dems, so

let's move things over. We have the political editor of the New

Statesman on the Daily Politics and he said that behind closed doors the

Labour high command do talk about the possibility that they will not

get an overall majority. That would be my informed guess. It will be an

amazing election because both the main parties will have two try and

pretend they are only thinking about a majority when in reality the

manifesto and all of the thinking will be to do with planning possibly

for a hung parliament. We might go back to everybody saying that they

agree with Nick. Thank you. Now, this week, Education Secretary,

Michael Gove, criticised fictional dramas for peddling a left-wing view

of history, accusing Oh, What a Lovely War, The Monocled Mutineer

and Blackadder of portraying the First World War as a "misbegotten

shambles", going on to claim that Robin Hood - Men in Tights was

unduly harsh towards the Sheriff of Nottingham, and that the practical

difficulties of fighting an insurgent force whilst wearing

nothing under your kilt were almost entirely glossed over in Carry On Up

The Khyber. So is he right to get so agitated? We decided to find out and

put the drama of history in this week's Spotlight.

Dan Snow is no stranger to mixing drama and history with his new show

recreating a 19th century down the Grand Canyon rapids. But when

teaching history, can drama get in the way of the facts? Michael Gove

thinks so, criticising the likes of Blackadder for misrepresenting the

First World War as a misbegotten shambles. We have been sitting here

since Christmas 1914, jury and which millions have died and we have

advanced no further than an asthmatic ant with heavy shopping.

Baldrick is OK, as long as it is part of a cunning educational plan.

Mr Gove has made a silly mistake. It is not that Blackadder teaches

children the First World War, when imaginative teachers bring it in. It

is something another teaching tool. Come here. It is not just lack other

being criticised. Despite widespread acclaim, 12 Years A Slave Director

Steve McQueen was heckled by one critic who said the film's realistic

brutality was akin to torture porn. So what is the best way of

recreating history? Excitement, drama and humour? Or do serious

events warrant a solemn factual approach? He made it off the boat

and he joins us now, welcome back to the programme. In the old days,

documentaries were made about history, rostrum camera work over

paintings and the voice of God authority, and people were

interviewed. You have two do dramatic fiction and reconstruct

now, don't you? People expect a dramatic reconstruction, as if it

was actually fiction. Yes, and there is a place for that. It is wonderful

stuff. This year we will see a debate between great drama and bad

history. I was actually taught First World War through Blackadder. I

think Mr Gove has a point there. However, it is also fantastic comedy

and drama. We have the Braveheart referendum coming up and it is

certainly the case that lots of people think Braveheart is an

accurate depiction of the past. What bit of it was wrong? Some of it was

a bit off. I actually don't think he was Edward the third was my father.

Also, the Princess was born 30 years after. Like Shakespeare, Henry V,

terrible history but one of the best bits of art ever created. This is

the constant tension. There is drama which also has an element of

entertainment, but if you are using it as a teaching tool, should it not

be accurate? If teachers have cleverly worked out, if Tony

Robinson is right and teachers are bringing in this balanced sense and

you have some Blackadder but the next day a revisionist idea of how

Hague successfully won the war on the Western front. I think Tony

Robinson is wrong about that. I loved watching Blackadder. The class

went mad and we could not believe our luck. It was funny, brilliant,

apparently set in the past. World War I, like no other war in our

history, is riddled with these extraordinary myths. Part of that

has been because of its treatment, going back to the war poets. Some of

the greatest art ever created, the war poets, but not particularly good

history. I entirely agree. The First World War is an extraordinary case.

Our views are not dictated by what historians have said, but by what

artists have said. There is also a film called all quiet on the Western

front and the novel which preceded it. It has been going on for a very

long time. It reached the stage with the First World War where the

historians themselves believed what art was telling them. Until very

recently, it had been accepted even by historians that the German

atrocities of the First World War were a fiction created I British

propaganda. It is only recently that historians went back and

rediscovered the original data and discovered the German atrocities in

Belgium were real and very well documented at the time.

Subsequently, it had been alleged they were the invention of footage

propaganda and historians had come to believe that. The First World War

is an extraordinary case where art, rather than scholarship, has

dictated our view. I do not think Michael Gove is always wrong. But

for me one of the definitive history books about the First World War was

written by a Tory, written by Alan Clark. And there is no more

trenchant criticism of the ruling class and generals than in that

book. So Michael Gove has perhaps dived into the wrong controversy.

There has always been a debate about the First World War, the drama that

has been shown, depicting the British being led by bumbling full

is. What were we doing there in the first place? But the body of history

is growing much that behind the First World War it was German

militarism, that was the fundamental cause. It was a war that had to be

fought, despite the stupidity and that seems to be the view of

historians. It is a war that had to be fought but if you are going to

explain to somebody that Belgian neutrality had to be protected, if I

was their mother, I would say, I do not care about Belgian neutrality.

If you want to observe the balance of power on the European continent,

when Germany invaded Belgium for no good reason, Belgium is a

neighbouring country to us, Germany have the biggest and best Army at

the time, it is not a bad reason to go to war. It is a better reason

than arguably the Second World War. I find people are very unimaginative

about this. If Belgium were invaded today, Britain would go to war. I

don't think written could tolerate a neighbouring country being under

foreign military control. -- Britain. There is also the AJ Peter

Taylor that it was accidental because of the Serbian railway. That

was a JP Taylor. That was the railway timetable theory of the

start of the war. Hollywood plays fast and loose with the facts. You

mentioned Braveheart. What was that one about the enigma that they got

from the submarine. Exactly. It must annoy you at times. Yes, but that is

what dramatists do. That is OK. It does not matter. But it is pretty

fundamental that it was the British that got the German sub, not the

Americans. At least Hannibal did crossed the Alps. I do not agree.

The fact that people buzz my view of Nixon or Kennedy is now probably

largely determine why movies that have been made by people with an

agenda, those who wanted to portray Nixon or Kennedy in a particular

way. I think that is important. It is too easy for people who make art

to dominate our perception for all time. Movies are more influential

now because people read less, learn fewer facts and get more information

from the screen. But you cannot censor them. All that you can do is

wage counterinsurgency on Twitter and make our programmes. Sometimes

they can peek and interest as well. This movie coming out on slavery

will encourage people to start reading about it as well. It can be

a great advantage. Your film brought memories, because I did white-water

rafting down the Grand Canyon, one of the best weeks of my life. What

is the programme about bastion Mark 1869, the first expedition down the

Grand Canyon. Four boats went in and two boats came out six months later.

We had it easy because we knew where we were going. Thank you.

That's your lot for tonight folks. But not for us. We're off to play

the fixed-odds betting machines at Lou Lou's. Guaranteed to lose. A bit

like Diane if she ever runs for Mayor. But we leave you tonight with

Boris Johnson's claim that Nick Clegg is the coalition prophylactic,

mercilessly ribbed for your pleasure. Nighty-night. Don't let a

little bump 'n' grind bite. # My mind is telling me know

# But my body is telling me yes, baby

# I don't want to hurt nobody # But there is something that I must

confess # I don't see nothing wrong

# With a little bump and grind. #