:00:00. > :00:17.Tonight on This Week, a Westminster Horror Story.
:00:18. > :00:18.Spine-chilling goings-on in Parliament,
:00:19. > :00:27.The Mirror's hatchet man Kevin Maguire is trying to scare us.
:00:28. > :00:29.The real horror show was at Parliament, as the house
:00:30. > :00:32.of Lords came back to life to spook the Government, and Jeremy Corbyn
:00:33. > :00:41.Has Chancellor George Osborne got the heebee-jeebies, after the defeat
:00:42. > :00:45.Broadcaster and witchcraft expert Julia Hartley-Brewer is looking
:00:46. > :00:58.I predict that George Osborne has a few more tricks up his sleeve, but
:00:59. > :01:05.hopefully no more treats. And creating his own ghost
:01:06. > :01:08.story, writer and broadcaster Melvyn Carving a pumpkin for this
:01:09. > :01:18.programme. Absolutely mad. And remember, the next
:01:19. > :01:20.scream you hear may be your own. Welcome to This Week, the programme
:01:21. > :01:36.the BBC invented to make Top Gear And you join us pondering,
:01:37. > :01:41.as we often do at this time of night, whether
:01:42. > :01:44.our constitutional conventions The Government thinks not, after the
:01:45. > :01:50.Lords came a-leaping to the defence Call-me-Dave drove a stake through
:01:51. > :01:54.the heart of irony by tasking an unelected hereditary peer with the
:01:55. > :01:58.job of stopping such a democratic Critics claim uppity peers breached
:01:59. > :02:05.the so-called Sainsbury Convention, though I bet most of them shop
:02:06. > :02:10.at Waitrose. Oh, sorry, the Salisbury Convention,
:02:11. > :02:14.the doctrine that the Upper House should never stand in the way
:02:15. > :02:19.of a Government measure if it was included in a manifesto,
:02:20. > :02:24.which is debatable. Henceforth, no Government shall
:02:25. > :02:31.claim a democratic mandate for any policy if, in the election campaign,
:02:32. > :02:33.it repeatedly refused to answer any questions as to the likelihood of
:02:34. > :02:39.the implementation of said policy, in the process reducing
:02:40. > :02:43.a seasoned political journalist, who conducted numerous fruitless
:02:44. > :02:48.interviews on the very subject, to a jibbering, seething ball
:02:49. > :02:53.of political frustration. Let's call it the
:02:54. > :02:55.Andrew Neil Convention, It's got
:02:56. > :03:00.a nice constitutional ring to it. Speaking of getting absolutely
:03:01. > :03:02.nowhere, I'm joined on the sofa tonight by two obscure Parliamentary
:03:03. > :03:05.devices that no-one understands. Think of them as the fatal motion
:03:06. > :03:08.and the fatal attraction I speak, of course,
:03:09. > :03:17.of #barkingmadge - see what we did there - Margaret "Lady" Hodge,
:03:18. > :03:36.and #sadmanonatrain Michael Big moment of the week obviously the
:03:37. > :03:41.defeat of the Government in the Lords and we will talk about that.
:03:42. > :03:45.Other than that, your moment. The Saudi ambassador to the UK talked
:03:46. > :03:49.about an alarming change in our relationship with Saudi Arabia. I
:03:50. > :03:52.would have thought many people might think there is an alarming lack of
:03:53. > :03:57.change in our relationship with Saudi Arabia. In recent years there
:03:58. > :04:01.have been hundreds of beheadings by sword in Saudi Arabia, it has a
:04:02. > :04:05.dreadful human rights record. You might say that is an internal
:04:06. > :04:12.matter. Then there is the export of an energetically fundamental part of
:04:13. > :04:18.Islam, with its roots in Saudi Arabia. And its export has
:04:19. > :04:21.potentially volcanic effects. Certainly many had here and is seen
:04:22. > :04:27.to be prone to being persuaded towards terrorism. So I think many
:04:28. > :04:31.people I be surprised there has not been a change of attitude towards
:04:32. > :04:37.Saudi Arabia given its human rights record, and also the threat it poses
:04:38. > :04:40.to other countries in the globe. If the Saudi ambassador thinks things
:04:41. > :04:46.are bad, I hope he has gone to sleep by the time we get to a later bit in
:04:47. > :04:49.the script. Your moment. I was thinking about breaking taboos in
:04:50. > :04:52.Parliament and the new politics where we talk about issues we have
:04:53. > :04:58.not talked about in the past. We talked about tampons and sanitary
:04:59. > :05:02.towels on the floor of the house, and Stella Creasy managed to get
:05:03. > :05:08.Bill Cash to not talk about sanitary products but to talk about tampons.
:05:09. > :05:13.It reminded me of the torn Prom Rollo, who was Treasury minister
:05:14. > :05:17.when she brought in the first reduction in the VAT on tampons, and
:05:18. > :05:23.she had a fantastic battle with her civil servants, who said she was
:05:24. > :05:27.bringing gender discrimination into policies around VAT. She said, if
:05:28. > :05:31.you can find something that is an essential product for men, I will
:05:32. > :05:36.look at whether we should reduce VAT on that. They came back and said
:05:37. > :05:42.they had found circumcision knives as being subject to VAT at 20%. I
:05:43. > :05:46.know that is a joke, but the serious point is that in the new politics we
:05:47. > :05:50.ought to have openness and willingness to talk about things
:05:51. > :05:53.that matter to ordinary people, and tampons and sanitary towels do
:05:54. > :06:01.matter a lot to women a lot of the time. Tampons are subject to VAT and
:06:02. > :06:09.male razors are not. Mail raisers are as well, and that may be an
:06:10. > :06:12.argument. But men can grow beards. I know not on this programme. Enough!
:06:13. > :06:14.That is a whole book! Now, how many times can you
:06:15. > :06:17.refuse to answer a question? Six, it seems, if you're the Prime
:06:18. > :06:20.Minister and the answer involves guaranteeing nobody on tax credits
:06:21. > :06:23.will end up being worse off. But what if making people worse
:06:24. > :06:25.off now, makes them better off The Government has,
:06:26. > :06:28.for obvious reasons, been somewhat reluctant to put
:06:29. > :06:30.the argument in such stark terms. But maybe the whole point is
:06:31. > :06:33.about changing people's expectations And one fearless, or crazy,
:06:34. > :06:37.woman is prepared to make the case. Here's journalist
:06:38. > :06:41.Julie Hartley-Brewer, We all need a safety net or,
:06:42. > :06:58.in my case right now, a crash mat. But why should I,
:06:59. > :07:00.like every other taxpayer, be expected to pick up the pieces of
:07:01. > :07:10.someone else's lifestyle choices? The attacks on George Osborne's
:07:11. > :07:13.plans for tax credit cuts have now The delivery has been pushed back
:07:14. > :07:18.after a rogue vote in the But is all the rhetoric
:07:19. > :07:23.about how these cuts are cruel, immoral attack on
:07:24. > :07:29.hard-working families really true? Every day we hear stories about
:07:30. > :07:32.families doing the right thing. They are working long hours
:07:33. > :07:35.for low pay and they are still Behind the myth, the facts tell
:07:36. > :07:41.a rather different story. The truth is that many of
:07:42. > :07:48.the people who rely on tax credits are not poor because they earn low
:07:49. > :07:51.wages, but because of the choices A choice to work part-time or,
:07:52. > :07:58.in some cases, not at all, or, a choice to have more children than
:07:59. > :08:02.they can afford. For seven out
:08:03. > :08:05.of ten couples claiming working tax credits, only one adult is working,
:08:06. > :08:09.whether they have got kids or not. In a third of households,
:08:10. > :08:14.no-one is working full-time at all. Is it really any wonder that couples
:08:15. > :08:17.who work just a few days a week between them cannot afford to
:08:18. > :08:19.make ends meet? Meanwhile, 84,000 families
:08:20. > :08:23.claiming tax credits have Could you afford to raise
:08:24. > :08:33.five kids on your wage? Yes, of course, there are plenty
:08:34. > :08:36.of deserving families who genuinely do need tax credits but there are
:08:37. > :08:39.far too many who simply expect everyone else to pick up the bill
:08:40. > :08:50.for their lifestyle choices. Tax credits were supposed to
:08:51. > :08:52.get people back into work. Instead they have become
:08:53. > :08:55.an alternative to getting a job. They were supposed to be
:08:56. > :08:58.a safety net, not a tangled web. The Chancellor should go
:08:59. > :09:10.ahead with the cuts. Judging by the current debate,
:09:11. > :09:13.the only thing likely to fall any And from oxygen free jumping
:09:14. > :09:24.in Acton to our own little compression chamber,
:09:25. > :09:38.Julia Hartley-Brewer joins us now. Michael, do you agree that many who
:09:39. > :09:42.rely on tax credits are only poor because they decided to work
:09:43. > :09:46.part-time or they have had too many kids they can't afford? I don't know
:09:47. > :09:49.enough about it to make that judgment but one of the decisions
:09:50. > :09:54.people clearly make is how many children they are going to have. And
:09:55. > :09:59.one of the reasons tax credits exist is that employers pay wages
:10:00. > :10:02.according to what they think the Labour is worth, not according to
:10:03. > :10:10.Harmony children they think their employee has got. And the state does
:10:11. > :10:17.step in to make up the difference. You are shaking your head. I think
:10:18. > :10:22.people have forgotten why we brought in tax credits. It is cumbersome,
:10:23. > :10:27.very expensive, open to fraud and error, but we brought it in for two
:10:28. > :10:31.reasons. One, we wanted to make work pay, and the other was that we
:10:32. > :10:37.wanted to target those who needed it most and you cannot do that through
:10:38. > :10:42.raising personal allowances. Because everybody benefits. Yes. Where you
:10:43. > :10:47.are wrong is that there are people who are working 16 hours or so a
:10:48. > :10:52.week. But if you take away the tax credit, then it no longer is worth
:10:53. > :10:57.their while working. So it is getting them into work, into the
:10:58. > :11:02.habit of working. And as their kids grow up they may go full-time. One
:11:03. > :11:10.final point. I wanted Julia to come back. I understand that incentive
:11:11. > :11:14.but it also provides a disincentive. After 16 hours, 24 hours for a
:11:15. > :11:18.couple, if you work any extra time your marginal rate is so high, so
:11:19. > :11:23.what's the point of going out for extra hours if you can get the money
:11:24. > :11:26.for free? It is not worth the while for the person in that situation but
:11:27. > :11:31.it is worthwhile for the taxpayer who is paying it otherwise. I can
:11:32. > :11:34.come back with the same argument and say that if you take it away what
:11:35. > :11:38.will happen, and a couple of think tanks have come out with this this
:11:39. > :11:44.week, your marginal rate of taxation for going in and doing ten hours a
:11:45. > :11:49.week goes up. It is 93%. Doesn't that make it worse? Reed thereof
:11:50. > :11:53.problems with the changes. I don't think it is beyond the wit of man or
:11:54. > :11:58.the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come up with a way of making the
:11:59. > :12:06.changes. You have to have an incentive where it is sensible for
:12:07. > :12:10.both parents to work. Most parents do actually work full-time. Seven
:12:11. > :12:14.out of ten claimants of working tax credit have only one adult in work
:12:15. > :12:18.because the 2nd adult is viewed, like the child, as a dependent. That
:12:19. > :12:23.is an extraordinary figure. We are told constantly that people claiming
:12:24. > :12:27.tax credit are the hard working poor, and undoubtedly many of them
:12:28. > :12:31.are, but also there are an awful lot who are not hard working poor. They
:12:32. > :12:36.are poor because they don't do enough hours. But seven out of ten
:12:37. > :12:41.of the people who benefit from tax credit are women. They also have
:12:42. > :12:47.childcare responsibilities. That is the point at which they are poorest.
:12:48. > :12:52.We spend ?30 billion per year on this. Is that too much? It is a
:12:53. > :12:57.redistribution, maybe that is something that should be welcomed,
:12:58. > :13:05.or is it too much? It is a very cumbersome tax. It is open to huge
:13:06. > :13:09.error and huge fraud. I would like us to get round the table. Really it
:13:10. > :13:14.is one of those issues where you have to get round the table. We all
:13:15. > :13:18.want to make work pay, so get round the table and sort it out. I don't
:13:19. > :13:23.think it is as easy as you say, the Chancellor can sort it out. It
:13:24. > :13:28.reminds me of the debate in the 1960s and 70s where the Tories felt
:13:29. > :13:31.they could not reverse the Labour ratchet. Labour had created a
:13:32. > :13:36.welfare state but also nationalised industries and so on and there
:13:37. > :13:41.seemed no way of working back. Gordon Brown set the bar of the
:13:42. > :13:45.welfare state extremely high. He set a high water mark and it seems the
:13:46. > :13:48.argument is that wherever the previous Labour government has set
:13:49. > :13:52.the high water mark, the Tory government is not allowed to reduce
:13:53. > :13:58.the water level in the next period of government. They took away tax
:13:59. > :14:07.credits from the better off. That has changed. But 30 billion. It is
:14:08. > :14:13.still 30 billion. Here is the issue. Getting from a to B is a problem,
:14:14. > :14:18.and under the existing plans low paid workers are going to lose a lot
:14:19. > :14:22.of money. It may not seem so much to those on big salaries but if you are
:14:23. > :14:30.only on 15,000 a year, 12,000 a year, and you lose 1200, 1500, that
:14:31. > :14:35.is a lot of money. You dis- incentivise people by not making the
:14:36. > :14:38.2nd adult, usually the woman, as a dependent and basically have them
:14:39. > :14:42.entitled to working tax credits in their own right, which will
:14:43. > :14:45.incentivise them to work. I know people who work in job centres who
:14:46. > :14:50.have told me it is routine that people on tax credits will come in
:14:51. > :14:53.and say, I work 16 hours, 24 hours a week, I have been offered a
:14:54. > :14:58.full-time job, is it worth my while? When they point out that it
:14:59. > :15:01.is not worth their while and they will not earn an extra penny for
:15:02. > :15:06.those extra hours, they turn it down. That is an insane state of
:15:07. > :15:11.affairs. You have been talking about the proposals. The proposals are now
:15:12. > :15:17.dead and we will get something else in the Autumn Statement. Will we
:15:18. > :15:23.just get eight week? I think we will get a big tweak. It seemed at first
:15:24. > :15:27.that it was the clever that the Liberal and Labour Democrat peers
:15:28. > :15:31.had voted down the order and made a bit of a monkey of the Chancellor of
:15:32. > :15:34.the Exchequer. It would have been much cleverer to let it go through,
:15:35. > :15:38.because at the moment all of the argument is about people making
:15:39. > :15:43.theoretical losses. Nobody has made a loss yet. It may be that the --
:15:44. > :15:48.that the Chancellor will make changes which will mean no one will
:15:49. > :15:51.make a loss, or fewer people. What would have been clever would have
:15:52. > :15:55.been to saddle the Chancellor of the Exchequer with his original
:15:56. > :15:58.proposal, because I believe it would have become very uncomfortable
:15:59. > :16:06.politically if 3 million people lost ?1000 per year. Has George Osborne
:16:07. > :16:11.been hurt by this? Undoubtedly. He does not seem as sure-footed. He has
:16:12. > :16:18.often been seen as a great political operator. People keep saying that,
:16:19. > :16:23.but remember 2012 and now this. Yes, but a lot of the outcry about
:16:24. > :16:26.this, over 3 million voters affected, but also that most people
:16:27. > :16:30.who debate this do not understand that so many of those who claim
:16:31. > :16:34.working tax credit and child tax credits are not what most people
:16:35. > :16:38.consider the hard-working poor. The people who are paying for the tax
:16:39. > :16:43.credits, they are the hard-working people, the people whom arm and dad,
:16:44. > :16:49.with or without young children, who go out and work full-time.
:16:50. > :16:56.The reason the Chancellor should be worried, and I agree with Michael,
:16:57. > :16:58.politically it would have been terrible for the families.
:16:59. > :17:03.Politically it would have been more sensible to have let the pain be
:17:04. > :17:06.there. A lot of them are in Conservative marginal seats. If
:17:07. > :17:13.Labour gets its act together we might win them back. Even if you get
:17:14. > :17:17.the tax credit, I have 10,000 families in my constituency who will
:17:18. > :17:22.be affected by the changes in the tax credit. They could have done it
:17:23. > :17:29.more sensibly and said, it new applicants. I am not in charge! Just
:17:30. > :17:36.to finish up on this point. It does involve some hard-working families.
:17:37. > :17:40.Julia has said that. She said most of the hard-working whether ones
:17:41. > :17:43.paying the 30 billion. A lot of people who are upset by the changes
:17:44. > :17:47.are not aware of the fact that a lot of people we are referring to with
:17:48. > :17:52.the little phrase, hard-working families, between them as a couple
:17:53. > :17:56.working three days a week out of ten. If most families are working
:17:57. > :18:01.ten days a week between them, to people five days a week each and
:18:02. > :18:04.they are paying taxes to fund supposedly hard-working people
:18:05. > :18:10.working three out of ten days they might feel what the solution should
:18:11. > :18:18.be is for those people to work more hours. They need time to be able to
:18:19. > :18:23.do that. There is an assumption that most people working tax credits are
:18:24. > :18:29.like that. They are not, they are a minority. I know from own
:18:30. > :18:34.constituency... We are going to leave it there. We will have plenty
:18:35. > :18:35.of time to do that between now and the Autumn Statement. Thank you for
:18:36. > :18:37.being with us. Now it's late,
:18:38. > :18:39.Bad Sex Award winner-late, which is fortunate because look
:18:40. > :18:41.who's waiting in the wings. Author and broadcaster Melvyn Bragg
:18:42. > :18:44.is here to talk about the dangers And if you assume we care
:18:45. > :18:47.about your views, you could not, of course, be more wrong,
:18:48. > :18:50.as we continue to ignore all your mind-numbing comments on The
:18:51. > :18:55.Twitter, The Fleecebook and Gordon Now, the new ITV drama Jekyll
:18:56. > :19:05.and Hyde came under fire this week, after viewers called it
:19:06. > :19:07."too scary" to be broadcast before Well, we're not on
:19:08. > :19:11.in the primetime 11:35pm slot for nothing, so we thought we'd
:19:12. > :19:15.make the most of our scheduling - to unleash something truly terrifying
:19:16. > :19:20.on an unsuspecting viewing public. We sent the Mirror journalist
:19:21. > :19:27.down to the London Dungeon This is his split personality
:19:28. > :19:44.roundup of the week. I'm going to tell you
:19:45. > :19:50.a very scary story. The strange case of Dr George
:19:51. > :20:02.Osborne and Mr Gideon Hyde. By day, Dr Osborne likes to show his
:20:03. > :20:05.respectable side as a blue blood, By night,
:20:06. > :20:17.out comes his Tory monster. Mr Gideon, desperate to stamp
:20:18. > :20:19.on people's incomes I am determined to deliver that
:20:20. > :20:29.lower welfare, higher wage economy we
:20:30. > :20:31.were elected to deliver I warned you it was
:20:32. > :20:35.going to be scary. The struggling strivers found
:20:36. > :20:38.an unlikely champion in the House of Lords this week,
:20:39. > :20:40.as the living dead in the other So, Osborne was shocked
:20:41. > :20:44.into an embarrassing retreat on Monday night when peers voted to
:20:45. > :20:47.delay tax credit cuts and compensate Conservative MPs - not me - say they
:20:48. > :20:52.did not have the information they I hear that many
:20:53. > :20:58.of them are now livid about this. The point is, this was a budgetary
:20:59. > :21:01.matter and budgetary matters are the Mr Cameron, who deliberately
:21:02. > :21:12.misled the British public. The British public would regard what
:21:13. > :21:17.he said now as a lie, That is a fig leaf, possibly
:21:18. > :21:26.disguising tensions in the Commons There are even more cobwebs
:21:27. > :21:44.in here than in the House of Lords. Spooky how, after Monday's double
:21:45. > :21:51.defeat, so many Tories are now talking about reforming
:21:52. > :21:54.the unelected House of cronies. I think it's wrong of the House
:21:55. > :21:59.of Lords to get in the way of the sovereign expression
:22:00. > :22:01.of will of Parliament. Like a zombie you can't kill off,
:22:02. > :22:04.how ever many fatal motions you try, the deadly issue of tax credits
:22:05. > :22:07.is haunting the Government and raised its head again and again and
:22:08. > :22:15.again at Prime Monster's Questions. Can he now guarantee to the House
:22:16. > :22:17.and the wider country that nobody will
:22:18. > :22:20.be worse off next year as a result Will he confirm right now
:22:21. > :22:25.that tax credit cuts will Can he now give us the answer
:22:26. > :22:37.we are trying to get today? The Labour Party is left defending
:22:38. > :22:40.and depending on unelected peers We have got, in British politics,
:22:41. > :22:48.we have a new alliance - Even rarer than a ghost was
:22:49. > :22:56.a reported sighting of a Lib Dem. Let me again welcome the honourable
:22:57. > :22:59.gentleman to this place. It is good to see such
:23:00. > :23:03.a high turnout of his MPs. When it comes to Europe,
:23:04. > :23:23.Britain's big political parties have David Cameron is officially supposed
:23:24. > :23:28.to be neutral while he does the renegotiations yet the Prime
:23:29. > :23:31.Minister flew to Iceland to attack the Eurosceptic case, though we are
:23:32. > :23:35.told he will also have a go at the pro-EU camp if he feels it is
:23:36. > :23:38.overstepping a mark. Talk If we don't get what we need,
:23:39. > :23:47.I rule absolutely nothing out. As we go through this debate, let's
:23:48. > :23:50.make sure we don't start looking The court of public opinion long ago
:23:51. > :23:59.judged Tony Blair guilty on Iraq. Yet, however tortured he looks, the
:24:00. > :24:02.spectre of war's past has remained With the Chilcott Report looming,
:24:03. > :24:06.Blair used an interview at the weekend to apologise for
:24:07. > :24:08.mistakes made and admitted there were elements of truth in claims
:24:09. > :24:12.that the war contributed to the rise You cannot say that those
:24:13. > :24:19.of us who removed Saddam in 2003 bear no responsibility
:24:20. > :24:23.for the situation in 2015. And from the London Dungeon
:24:24. > :24:52.on Southbank, to our own little house of horrors
:24:53. > :24:55.here in the heart of Westminster, we're joined by a man who, among
:24:56. > :25:12.other claims to fame, once played a Welcome back. Are the Lord's right
:25:13. > :25:22.to defy the Commons on this subject? Yes. Because? If it was a tax, it
:25:23. > :25:26.would have been in the Finance Bill. If you get something like this, if
:25:27. > :25:31.you're going to defy the Government on an economic matter and you have
:25:32. > :25:36.to have grounds to choose, the House of Lords, being able to present
:25:37. > :25:41.themselves as a defender of the working classes, what could be
:25:42. > :25:49.better? How inept of the Government! To get into this
:25:50. > :25:53.situation? Given the measure will now be changed, the undermining of
:25:54. > :26:04.the tonsil' reputation for competence and the Government's
:26:05. > :26:10.reputation for economic credibility is done. They are trying to show the
:26:11. > :26:16.Conservatives as the party of the workers. We are now the party of the
:26:17. > :26:22.workers. We will park our tanks onto Labour's lawn and have ?4.5 billion
:26:23. > :26:35.worth of tax cuts coming down the pipe. You will have to go back to
:26:36. > :26:39.Julie's argument. People can be paying taxes who are fairly poor.
:26:40. > :26:44.Can I just agree with the first part of what Alex said? The whole reason
:26:45. > :26:49.this statutory instrument was considered by the House of Lords
:26:50. > :26:53.was, surprise surprise, in legislation it is specified this
:26:54. > :27:00.statutory instrument has two passed both houses of parliament. It is the
:27:01. > :27:04.statutory interest -- instrument under social legislation. If you put
:27:05. > :27:08.it to the House of Commons, the House of Commons would not wish to
:27:09. > :27:14.view the sledgehammer and vote it down. If you offer the House of
:27:15. > :27:21.Lords something which requires approval, they are just as likely to
:27:22. > :27:28.disprove it. I think they have saved George's bacon. He will not be
:27:29. > :27:32.saddled with it. I think there is a slightly naive point. Very often,
:27:33. > :27:39.politicians push something out and feed at what point the resistance
:27:40. > :27:44.comes. Then they withdraw it. Very often, it is the only way you can
:27:45. > :27:49.really gauge what you can get away with in politics. Many people have
:27:50. > :27:55.done this in the past. It is the way things go. Have the Lords now got a
:27:56. > :27:59.taste of blood? They have already rebelled about 19 times against the
:28:00. > :28:05.Government in recent times. This may give them... They may make a habit
:28:06. > :28:14.of this. They may rather like it. When you said my known for the week,
:28:15. > :28:19.it was the defeat on tax credits. If we're going to talk about reforming
:28:20. > :28:28.the House of Lords yet again, in maybe a tiny opportunity... Is
:28:29. > :28:37.crazy. Looking it up to date, we have 850 peers. It is the second
:28:38. > :28:42.largest Parliamentary house after the Chinese. If you look at
:28:43. > :28:52.parliamentary chambers which have non-elected, either directly or
:28:53. > :28:59.indirectly, we're in the bottom 10%. Jeremy Corbyn, promise me you will
:29:00. > :29:15.never go there? The House of Lords? I promise. Let's reform it. Everyone
:29:16. > :29:21.thinks it should be reform but this will not be an opportunity to so do,
:29:22. > :29:25.will it? Yet if you're going for the Lords, some of the Tory backbenches
:29:26. > :29:29.have been doing over the past few days, off with their heads! I do not
:29:30. > :29:35.think this is the issue with which she would choose to decapitate the
:29:36. > :29:39.House of Lords. I was not talking about back, I was talking about
:29:40. > :29:44.reforming it. If they were to appoint lots of Lord's, it would be
:29:45. > :29:49.more absurd than many people think it is. I still do not see how that
:29:50. > :29:55.would lead in this Parliament to reform of the House of Lords. The
:29:56. > :30:00.only sensible reform of the House of Lords within the current system
:30:01. > :30:05.would be to make it a perform shall Assembly elected. If they did that
:30:06. > :30:10.with the addition of the SNP, you would have approximately the same
:30:11. > :30:16.result as this week. A proportional Assembly would give you probably the
:30:17. > :30:20.same result. The Government would not have an overall majority. What
:30:21. > :30:27.do you make of the length of time the Chilcott report is taking? I
:30:28. > :30:30.think it looks like extraordinary mismanagement and incompetence.
:30:31. > :30:38.There is simply no point moaning and enquired for this length of time.
:30:39. > :30:44.The answers are not relevant. -- running an inquiry. Was the inquiry
:30:45. > :30:50.fundamentally flawed? Should it not have been given a timetable? Was it
:30:51. > :30:59.badly tasked for the job? It was set up to deal with a bad political
:31:00. > :31:06.moment. It is absurd. I do not think there is a politician who is active
:31:07. > :31:10.today who does not want to see an end to this so we can draw a line
:31:11. > :31:21.under that very, very difficult period in our politics. Should it
:31:22. > :31:23.have been time-limited? This is outrageous and unjust for the
:31:24. > :31:40.families of the dead service people. People have no closure, wondering
:31:41. > :31:45.why their loved ones died, what was the reason, who was responsible. It
:31:46. > :31:50.is unjust. There is an assumption that we will no much more when we
:31:51. > :31:54.get the results of being quiet area. I agree with you, and we will wait
:31:55. > :31:58.and see what it says, but I think the assumption and build-up of
:31:59. > :32:04.expectation might lead to disappointment among the families. I
:32:05. > :32:07.think there is little doubt that a judge leading choir would have been
:32:08. > :32:11.quicker. A parliamentary enquiry would have been able to impeach the
:32:12. > :32:15.Prime Minister, as some of us wanted. But any parliamentary
:32:16. > :32:21.enquiry would have reported long ago. But there must be better ways
:32:22. > :32:27.to do things. Is there going to be anything out of this? I am not so
:32:28. > :32:32.sure, I would not be so dismissive. The key issue is predetermination.
:32:33. > :32:39.Did Tony Blair make up his mind before the evidence to go to war in
:32:40. > :32:41.Iraq, come what May? And there is pretty substantial information, both
:32:42. > :32:46.from the former British ambassador in Washington, and more recently
:32:47. > :32:53.from the Colin Powell e-mails, that that was the case. If Chilcot has
:32:54. > :32:57.grabbed hold of that, with the additional information which he
:32:58. > :33:01.presumably has from telegrams and exchange of information between the
:33:02. > :33:05.British and US government, I would not discount the possibility. This
:33:06. > :33:10.might be an enquiry which allocates responsibility. I would not be
:33:11. > :33:15.surprised if that was the finding but I would not be as outraged as
:33:16. > :33:20.you. I think Tony Blair, in the moment of 9/11, when thousands of
:33:21. > :33:24.Americans died, he pledged, I think, himself, the Labour Party and
:33:25. > :33:28.the British government to support the United States through thick and
:33:29. > :33:33.thin, and even through error. I think that is precisely what
:33:34. > :33:39.happened. But that is not what he told the country. He told us there
:33:40. > :33:42.were weapons of mass destruction, 45 minutes from disaster. If it is
:33:43. > :33:47.predetermined, he is responsible and guilty as charged. Do you think
:33:48. > :33:53.there is evidence it was predetermined? I have seen none of
:33:54. > :34:00.that evidence and I was one who voted for the Iraq war. Do you
:34:01. > :34:04.regret that? Yes. If I had known then what I know now I would not
:34:05. > :34:09.have voted in that way. We can go round and round, but putting myself
:34:10. > :34:13.back into what we believed at that time, we all believed there were
:34:14. > :34:16.weapons of mass destruction. You may not have done, but most people
:34:17. > :34:21.believed there were weapons of mass destruction. The real argument was
:34:22. > :34:24.of timing of when we should go in, whether we should allow the UN
:34:25. > :34:32.longer to find them and identify them. I think it was to reflect
:34:33. > :34:37.error. Some of us relied on the information that was coming from
:34:38. > :34:42.Hans Blix and the UN inspectors. He believed there were weapons of mass
:34:43. > :34:47.destruction. He asked for time and did not get it. We found out that
:34:48. > :34:56.the pledge to go to war, come what may, to be with George W Bush was
:34:57. > :35:02.made. It was not come what may. We have seen that recently in his memo.
:35:03. > :35:09.It was not come what may. The 2nd thing was the offer to help with
:35:10. > :35:13.public opinion. I saw that. I think that is highly significant. So I am
:35:14. > :35:17.hopeful that responsibility will be allocated. Good to see you.
:35:18. > :35:19.Now, New York-based author Martin Amis, somehow under
:35:20. > :35:21.the impression we care what he thinks about British politics, had
:35:22. > :35:25.According to the author, "humourless" Jezza is not
:35:26. > :35:28.intellectually up to being Leader of the Labour Party - apparently his
:35:29. > :35:32.two Es at A Level, and one year on a Trade Union Studies course at North
:35:33. > :35:33.London Poly are not the ideal qualifications
:35:34. > :35:41.It's far better than doing two or even three years on a Trade Union
:35:42. > :35:49.And that's why we're putting "making assumptions" in this week's
:35:50. > :36:02.# You want to see whatever common people see... #
:36:03. > :36:05.It was the anthem for a class conscious Britain, but
:36:06. > :36:08.20 years after Pulp hit the charts, does society still make assumptions
:36:09. > :36:13.about who you are and where you come from? On Monday David Cameron
:36:14. > :36:17.announced that universities and top employers will now do
:36:18. > :36:18.name-blind applications, after research suggested ethnic sounding
:36:19. > :36:26.If you don't deal with the issue of discrimination,
:36:27. > :36:30.you can never have true opportunity, which is what we all want to see.
:36:31. > :36:32.Few would have imagined the boy brought up above a Cumbrian
:36:33. > :36:35.pub would become the nation's cultural expert.
:36:36. > :36:38.But does Melvyn Bragg's novel about the peasants' revolt of 1381
:36:39. > :36:45.remind us that people have fought social assumptions for centuries?
:36:46. > :36:49.Who would have thought that during the peers' revolt
:36:50. > :36:52.of 2015 ermine-clad lords and ladies would be the ones
:36:53. > :37:00.These proposals blatantly threaten damage to the lives of millions
:37:01. > :37:07.So maybe it doesn't matter whether you live like common people
:37:08. > :37:13.Is making assumptions about others, whether based on race or class or
:37:14. > :37:35.We are delighted to be joined by Melvyn Bragg. Working-class kid gets
:37:36. > :37:43.to Oxbridge, people make assumptions about you? They can assume what they
:37:44. > :37:47.want, that is their right. Did you ever feel categorised? Yes, but it
:37:48. > :37:51.doesn't matter very much. You get on with what you want to do and if you
:37:52. > :37:56.are lucky enough to do it, that is enough. Did it hold you back? I have
:37:57. > :38:03.done what I want, and what more could you want? We have a tendency
:38:04. > :38:06.in this country to categorise. Noel Coward said an Englishman opens his
:38:07. > :38:13.mouth and another Englishman has clattered -- classified him. That is
:38:14. > :38:16.still largely true. We still say people from whatever city in the
:38:17. > :38:23.North of England have the least chance of being believed in court,
:38:24. > :38:27.getting jobs. It still goes on. Is it part of this class system,
:38:28. > :38:29.obsession with class that we make assumptions about people in a way
:38:30. > :38:38.that other countries may not as much? Other countries do, but not as
:38:39. > :38:44.clearly, with 800 years of tradition behind them. We have got very good
:38:45. > :38:49.at it. We have had practice. It has changed quite a bit but it is still
:38:50. > :38:52.solid, a class system, but there are other things which corrode and
:38:53. > :38:59.embellish it simultaneously, so it is changing. In the 21st century,
:39:00. > :39:05.the Prime Minister is saying that for big companies, for universities,
:39:06. > :39:09.don't put your name on the application form. And when they
:39:10. > :39:13.don't put their name, a lot of people from state schools get the
:39:14. > :39:17.job and the universities. When you look at university results, people
:39:18. > :39:20.at state schools tend to do rather better if they can get in. You see
:39:21. > :39:26.it at Oxford as well as everywhere else. Is it useful, because the
:39:27. > :39:29.Prime Minister was saying there seemed to be evidence that if it was
:39:30. > :39:35.an ethnic name then you might not get through the first hurdle? There
:39:36. > :39:39.might be that. It is difficult to talk about this without more
:39:40. > :39:45.evidence than I have. I know what I read in newspapers, what I hear from
:39:46. > :39:49.Leeds, where I am Chancellor, or from Oxford, but it is basically
:39:50. > :39:55.anecdotal. Since I went to university, 5% go, and now it is
:39:56. > :39:59.45%. I go to Leeds University regularly, and I have been there for
:40:00. > :40:05.about 14 years, and you see people from all parts there. Similarly at
:40:06. > :40:09.my college in Oxford, the most diverse College in Oxford, it has
:40:10. > :40:13.changed a lot and that is something to hold onto. Changed for the
:40:14. > :40:16.better, I think, and so do those in charge, the Chuter is something to
:40:17. > :40:19.hold onto. Changed for the better, I think, and so do those in charge,
:40:20. > :40:24.the are we prone to make assumptions? Yes, for example we
:40:25. > :40:28.debated at the last parliament where all of the leaders were Oxbridge by
:40:29. > :40:32.background, the fact that this created a barrier between them and
:40:33. > :40:35.the electorate. I think it did. The electorate thought anyone who had
:40:36. > :40:40.been to Oxford or Cambridge was from Mars. That was interesting because
:40:41. > :40:44.at one time the Labour Party were hopeful that they would paint David
:40:45. > :40:54.Cameron and George Osborne has remote toffs. But as far as the
:40:55. > :40:57.electorate were concerned Ed Miliband and others were just as
:40:58. > :41:02.remote. I think we are more anti-intellectual than most other
:41:03. > :41:07.countries. Are we prone to make assumptions? It is more convex than
:41:08. > :41:13.class. It is about race, gender, all these things. There is evidence,
:41:14. > :41:15.certainly on race, I don't know about university applications, but
:41:16. > :41:22.if you look at job applications, if you have a name which puts you down
:41:23. > :41:26.as someone from an ethnic background, you are much, much less
:41:27. > :41:31.likely to get an interview, to get through that first hurdle. I welcome
:41:32. > :41:35.what the Prime Minister is doing on this. It is a move in the right
:41:36. > :41:44.direction. I don't think it is enough. My children's friends who
:41:45. > :41:48.tried for Oxford, from comprehensive schools, it is not just getting to
:41:49. > :41:52.interview stage, but people recruit in their own kind. The questions
:41:53. > :41:56.that they ask when you go for the interview are very much based on the
:41:57. > :42:01.sort of stuff you would learn if you went to a private school, rather
:42:02. > :42:04.than a comprehensive, so the barriers are complex and I think it
:42:05. > :42:10.needs a complex set of interventions. This country, unlike
:42:11. > :42:15.France and America, has a lot of continuity in its history. You have
:42:16. > :42:23.done a book on the peasant's revolt, which failed in the end. If it had
:42:24. > :42:29.succeeded in some way, would we be a much different society? If we had
:42:30. > :42:34.had more revolutionary upheaval? When is the end? It depends what you
:42:35. > :42:39.mean by failed. It is the biggest insurrection ever in this country,
:42:40. > :42:44.per capita. It came at the time of the Black death, the population was
:42:45. > :42:49.being halved. It pushed up some wages and depressed others. It was
:42:50. > :42:53.led by Artisans, all the men, people were not just running around with
:42:54. > :42:58.pitchforks. Although the pitchfork is a nasty weapon. It was a debate
:42:59. > :43:04.across what we would now describe as the middle and lower middle-class
:43:05. > :43:08.is, the lower gentry. It was a big rebellion and massively successful
:43:09. > :43:14.until the leader was assassinated. In a few days, it takes one of the
:43:15. > :43:19.toughest castles in the country in an afternoon, which took King John
:43:20. > :43:22.nine months to breach. It gets into London, into the White Tower, it
:43:23. > :43:27.forces the king to meet them three times. In that sense it is
:43:28. > :43:33.successful. It fails, but it sets the tone for what has become since
:43:34. > :43:37.then one stream of English history which is radical. And the idea that
:43:38. > :43:41.people rebelling, triggered often by taxes, this was triggered by the
:43:42. > :43:47.poll tax, and people gathering round it to rebel and move to rebellion,
:43:48. > :43:49.whether it is marching, whatever. A great book, I enjoyed it. Thank you
:43:50. > :43:51.for being with us. But not for us
:43:52. > :43:55.because it's "flogging a pensioner Well, it is in Mayfair, and just
:43:56. > :43:59.opposite the Saudi embassy. But we leave you tonight with
:44:00. > :44:04.the man of the hour - Boy George. His minions have been scurrying
:44:05. > :44:06.around Westminster all week, assuring us all that George is
:44:07. > :44:10."always in listening mode" when it And we have exclusive footage
:44:11. > :44:16.that proves they weren't lying. Don't let Michael Gove's
:44:17. > :44:18.general election commitment Just to be clear,
:44:19. > :44:25.because I think you said this but I want to be certain, when I asked,
:44:26. > :44:28.are you going to cut tax credits, We are going to freeze them for two
:44:29. > :44:58.years, we are not going to cut them. I wanted to spend the rest of my
:44:59. > :45:03.life with him.