06/07/2017 This Week

Tonight, live from the people's Republic of this week,

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un test fires an intercontinental ballistic

missile, his gift to the Yankees on their Independence Day.

Tim Marshall assesses how terrifying the world is.

Thanks to the efforts of the great helmsman,

The Westminster masses march on Downing Street demanding

Britain's beloved First Lady bring an end to austerity and pay our

Five Live's Emma Barnett dusts off the This Week credit card.

Yes, it's time to spend, spend, spend.

That is, if our Great Leader is OK with it.

And as This Week decides to ban all views and ideologies

that do not conform, we turn to Slovenian philosopher

I will talk about sensitivity with all the snowflakes and so on. The

only strong person is our eternal leader, Andrew.

You will watch This Week tonight, with me, your supreme leader,

Andrew Neil, the greatest propaganda machine ever invented.

Evening all, welcome to the People's Democratic Republic

of This Week, the only BBC programme with its own

And if Donald Trump doesn't come up with that multi-million dollar

contract for Trump TV, we're going to send one

Because in these troubled times our role is not to wage war -

thoough I'm warning you, Trump - but to spread fake news,

false comfort and fatuous propaganda, so that you can sleep

It's why we have four billion daily viewers, even though we're

only on once a week, and a 110% approval rating,

since the slightest disapproval means the immediate cessation

It's why we attract the world's greatest talent, such

as old Choo Choo here, the man who made the

And Alan Johnson, now on volume 42 of his memoirs,

whose achievements are legendary, such as...

It's why I'm your Dear Leader, loved, respected and obeyed by all.

And it's why my influence is everywhere.

Last year I was able to insert one of our number,

the Hackney Madame Mao who goes by the codename Diane Abbott,

into the heart of Team Corbyn, which is now entirely

And only today I dispatched our most senior executive in charge of paper

clips to head up the Ministry of Truth at one of my many

satellites, which you will know as Ten Downing Street.

And speaking of futile, I'm joined on the sofa tonight

by two of the fathers, sorry grandfathers,

I speak, of course, of Michael #sadmanonatrain Portillo and Alan

Michael, your moment of the week? You made and a bleak reference. A

week ago we had an executive producer who is now the Director of

Communications at ten in Downing Street for Mrs May. It is said that

rats leave a sinking ship. He is as far from a rat as could be, but one

has to ask what sort of creature joins a sinking ship? I thought you

were talking about us as a sinking ship. I think the answer could be a

sacrificial lamb. That's a mixed metaphor. No, it's a consistent

metaphor. You wouldn't recognise it, you were too busy interrupting, as

usual. What creature leaves a sinking ship, a rat? Which creature

joins one, a sacrificial lamb. Consistent. The focus have been on

public sector pay, and there was a report today by the Joseph Rowntree

Foundation that points out that the freeze on benefits that began in

2015 and is not due to end until 2020, working age benefits for

people in work, but people out of work also lost ?30 per week off

their employment support allowance from April. Because inflation has

come into the system, it means these people, right at the bottom of the

pile, will see their money go down. The biggest injustice from this

Government's policy and terms of pay for those at the bottom is not the

1% public sector pay cap, but the five-year freeze on benefits. The

lowest paid. Now, we Brits have always

enjoyed a friendly rivalry with our American cousins,

who this week were in mourning for the 241st anniversary

of the disastrous wrong turn they took in 1776, which was always

certain to end in tears. Yes, no matter how chaotic,

farcical and unpredictable our politics becomes,

they're always madder This week, Mr Trump used Twitter

to declare war on CNN. North Korea could be next, just

as soon as he works out where it is. Maybe he has, while

we've been on air. Here's Tim Marshall

with his take of the week. Mankind stands on the

edge of a precipice. To put it another way, we are all

going to hell in a handcart. We've always been going

to hell in a handcart. And that's because history

probably isn't linear. There is no endgame

that we're aiming for. And anyway, compare now

with previous periods in history, Globally, women's death

in childbirth, down. Rates of polio, malaria,

many of the diseases, down. In more and more places,

you can turn on the tap And the rapid growth

of young democracies. The spread of democracy

in the latter half of the 20th century is one of the reasons why

things have only got better. But since the financial crash

of 2008 and the subsequent difficulties, there seems to be

a feeling in the air, even in the Western countries,

that perhaps capitalism and liberal democracy is not the answer

to the question how to live. To those who complain about living

standards now, sure, But relative to the last 10,000

years, we've never had it so good. Which is why, in this

age of uncertainty, with the new nuclear threat,

cyber warfare, terrorism, austerity, when populists from the right

and left are telling us they have the answers,

we need to remind ourselves that It needs protecting,

nurturing, not ripping up. It's possible we are now

in the most dangerous period But things have been worse,

and that's why it's worth Tim Marshall has made his way to us.

Welcome back to the programme. Thank you for inviting me. Just be

careful to say everything I tell you. Michael, has the world become a

more dangerous place in recent years? Depends we mean by recent

years. All of the things that said about recent improvements are right.

I do think procedures linked with a number of those things and

capitalism is linked with a number of those. What we are not very aware

of is that democracy is quite a modern experiment. In 1941 there

were 11 democracies, there are now may be about 105, which means most

of them are very young indeed. We have not seen them in operation for

long enough to know how they will survive. I think the greatest threat

to democracy is that it causes competing politicians to

overpromise, and therefore to burden their states with debt. I think we

have not seen the resolution of that issue. Indeed, in our own country we

are in a state where both our main parties are talking about certainly

not reducing debt, probably increasing it. If democracy goes on

like that, I think it will find itself in difficulty and many of the

great benefits we have been talking about will also be in jeopardy. The

world felt a dangerous place during the Cold War, sometimes very

dangerous, as in the Cuban missile crisis. What I meant by recent years

was perhaps in the past 10-15 years, as it began to feel more dangerous

again? No, I think Tim is right. I remember the Cuban missile crisis

and the Cold War. I remember the turmoil and the constant fear. In a

way, North Korea, there is not a lot, I don't think, not much chance

of North Korea launching a nuclear missile attack. But there is a

feeling that, with Trump at the helm in America, and with the Europe now,

after Brexit, a little less sure of its future, that that has created a

problem which will no doubt be reflected. But I think the biggest

problem, and Tim referred to it, since the global financial crash

there is a feeling that capitalism has become more rapacious, that it

is less willing to share out its proceeds, that there are greater

inequalities. There is a feeling right across capitalist Liberal

democracies, it's receding a bit, and the threat of Marine Le Pen and

Geert Wilders in Holland receded, but it is still there and that needs

to be addressed. But I think Tim is absolutely right, we are too

reluctant sometimes to actually record the huge advances that we've

made. But the most recent years don't show a growth of democracy.

The most recent years are characterised by a rise in

authoritarianism. The Russian democratic experiment is over, we

have an authoritarian in the Kremlin. The Turkish democratic

experiment is coming to an end and we have tired Erdogan in Ankara. The

rise of China on to the second, on some measures the biggest economy,

is an authoritarian economy. The rise of the Gulf powers,

authoritarian states. That is making the world a more dangerous place.

Yes, but the point of the argument was to look at things in the round

and realise that the world is not going to hell in a handcart. The

second part of the argument is to recognise what we have achieved them

why we have achieved it does need protecting, precisely because as you

are right, things have been drifting, in this age of

uncertainty. There are a number of things going on. For once, I

disagree with Alan Johnson. Marine Le Pen doubled the vote her father

got 15 years ago. I don't call that a failure. Geert Wilders came second

in the Netherlands election, and all that is continuing to be on the

rise, which is precisely why I ended the argument by saying in this time

of increased nationalism and instability, the answers are not

with extremists. History has taught us that in uncertain times people

reach for extremes and the house falls in. This is not a time to go

to the extremes. These new authoritarian countries, which make

the world a more dangerous place, although maybe not as dangerous as

the Cuban missile crisis, but still more dangerous, these are not Onana

republic, tinpot general authoritarian states. These are run

by people who actually believe, the Chinese, Mr Erdogan in Turkey, Mr

Putin, they believe their way of doing things is better than

democracy. During the period when the Soviet Union existed, it

appeared democracy and capitalism went hand-in-hand. In fact, they are

not the same at all and they are almost opposites, because democracy

is all about the quality and capitalism is all about inequality.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, this oddity is much more

visible. I think that Alan is right. There is more inequality within

capitalism. The people at the bottom are better off than they used to be

but the people at the top are even richer than they used to be. When

you go to countries like Turkey or Russia and give them a choice, at

least it is arguable by their leaders that the choice that they

might feel they are wanting to make, of democracy, is not the best choice

because it is accompanied by things like inequality and poverty and

soul. So I think capitalism and democracy together are no longer be

obvious and natural choice for countries outside the European and

American orbit. If you look at the success of authoritarians recently,

Mr Putin has largely got his way. He has a new satellite state in Syria,

he has his warm water port. The Chinese have become one of the

world's most dominant economies. Turkey is playing a bigger role in

the Middle East than ever. That makes life more dangerous. When it

comes to North Korea, Russia and China sound like the grown-ups. When

they are saying the way to resolve this is through diplomacy and

engagement, and using... The Americans tried that for years. You

have a President in the US to eating all kinds of things. He is always

upping the ante. In that sense, as on many occasions, in relation to

Syria, it is China and Russia that seem like the grown-ups in the room.

And China is very different to the China we remember. They now own

Volvo who have just decided to make all of their cars Electric. That is

owned by the Chinese. In the sense of their desire for stability in the

West, they have moved from the Little red book and Mounsey Tong to

a situation where they are engaging. One of the stars symbolises the

capitalists. It's 1.4 well billion patriotic capitalists. China is

proving wrong the theory that you need liberal democracy to have a

successful economy. That's quite dangerous. I mean, I happen to

believe in liberal he democracy, not just democracy, I've been reading

things that say, no, these are extreme times and we need extreme

measures. It always goes wrong wrong. As for North Korea, Mr Trump

has boxed himself in. He said he hasn't a red line. Do you remember

the tweet when she said, we will build an ICBM. He tweeted will not

happen. It has happened. His Defence Secretary said unacceptable. You

argue, what, if it's not acceptable, what are you going to do about it?

If we have time, Andrew, what they are going to do about it first and

foremost go to the United Nations They have drafted a resolution. You

know how this stuff works. It's called an ICBM. Russia say they

don't think it is, they go not go for it. They will be asked to

redraft it. They will redraft it and table it. They warned publicly the

Russians, it if you vote owe we will take unilateral action. Which leaves

in the air, if it goes through, Mr Trump can say, I did do something

about it. I've got these great sanctions. I've been strong. If it

doesn't go through and vetoed he is left with unilateral action. It

doesn't have to mean military action. It could do. That is

incredibly dangerous. I think it is dangerous. It reminds me as part and

parcel of what has been happening to democracies. What we used to say, 15

or 20 years, is that democracies didn't go to war. Recently they

have. Not with each other, yes. Not with each other, perfectly true. The

United States and Britain and other democracies have again and again

engaged in military conflict. So I think that is another reason why

people have felt this loss of confidence in democratic

institutions. You have a loss of confidence in America partly because

of the Trump administration, the focus is povg to the Pacific

hemisphere as it regards the rise of China as the 21st century challenge.

Europe is in no position to fill the vacuum in Europe left behind by the

Americans. The Russians wish to recreate they have a grip in the

Middle East which is still in. A stand off between the Saudis and the

Qataris as well which will get worse before it gets better. It's not like

the Cuban Missile Crisis. A lot can go wrong? It feels pretty dangerous

out there. The argument about we are going to hell in a hand cart in the

prism of looking at things from the last ten years. Discounting all

those advances made. I mean Tim mentioned about malaria and diseases

and clean water. All of that is never reported, but huge advances.

Great advances for civilisation. I think actually - go on. I made sure

I have time to finish. What I think is happening is that the Second

World War a order had a dual polar world, Russia and America. We had a

uni polar world. That is no longer the case.

The Russians and the Chinese amongst others will not accept it. Turkey

won't accept it, Iran won't. The structure of the western dominance

is being absolutely challenged and, therefore, the structure is shaking

we don't know exactly what is going on. That's why it's shaking. That's

- we are in the middle of the structures being cake shaken.

Whether it's the World Bank being challenged by the Shanghai Bank. The

Chinese banks, or whether it's Nato wandering what it will do. The whole

thing is shaking. It's why it's a dangerous time.

I will end on a positive note if you've had enough of me. Quick

point, firing squad awaits? Bear in mind the positives, yes, individual

people and individual things are pretty bad. Overall, I think it's

harmful to us to think that they created are terrible and it's never

been as bad as this. It's pretty good relative. At a time of foreign

policy challenges we have someone in the White House who knows nothing

about foreign policy. Someone in Ten Downing Street who knows nothing

about foreign policy and icy and in France who knows noes nothing about

foreign policy. Thank you for that. Now, it's late, but never too late

for a career change late. This week Segolene Royale,

former partner of Francois Hollande and French presidential candidate,

was made French ambassador Do you think President Macron

is trying to tell her something? It's going to mean a lot

of travelling between embassies and some pretty

lonely diplomatic parties. I do hope the penguins

like Ferrero Rocher. Maybe we should send Choo Choo

and AJ to keep her company. That would be the caring thing

to do, especially since, waiting in the wings,

is Philosopher Slavoj Zizek, here So don't you dare Faceblub,

wipe your Twitter tears away and get we've been lying

to you all for years. You see, nothing you ever see

on this programme is original. Put simply, we purloin

other people's ideas Our terrible story treatments

are lifted from Newsnight, our appalling jokes

from the Rochdale Herald. But we're not the only ones

living on borrowed ideas. The jackdaw epidemic has reached

as high as the Cabinet. Yes, it would seem some in Team May

have been pinching policies Plagiarism for the many,

not the few! Here's Emma Barnett with her

round up of the week. # No money.

# No money...#. Can you spare us

some change, please? It's for Andrew Neil

and the This Week budget - come on! Right, now I've got some money,

no more walking for me. The political week was dominated

by public-sector pay. The Government is under

mounting pressure, including from some Cabinet ministers,

to lift the pay cap. Boris, Michael Gove,

Justine Greening, Jeremy Hunt, Damian Green have all hinted

that there could be Funny that, wasn't it only last week

they all voted against a Labour amendment which proposed

scrapping the cap? This shop looks good,

it looks expensive. Keep the change,

thank you very much. Former Tory Cabinet ministers have

weighed in to tell current Tory Cabinet ministers to stop

picking on the Chancellor. It is not right for Cabinet

ministers to gang up I think it is making his position,

which is always very difficult, I would have been horrified,

as I say, in my day. It's not helpful to have

this out in public. After all, Phil can't be expected

to balance the books if he's having to stop and explain the concept

of restraint to Boris Johnson. Boris took to the airwaves

to praise the Prime Minister. What unbelievable grace

and steel she has shown over the last few --

Indeed. Over the last few weeks, when things

did not frankly look too brilliant. Delivering a stable Government,

as she said she would. Austerity is fast becoming

toxic for the Government. Concerns over the funding of public

services is feeding into outrage Housing Minister Alok Sharma spoke

for all of Westminster this week. Mr Speaker, on my visits

to the West Way, hearing the harrowing accounts of survivors

has been the most humbling The families that I've met have been

through unimaginable pain. This is a tragedy that should never

have happened and we are determined to do all that we can to make sure

that something like this Labour want the scope of the inquiry

to be expanded to consider the impact of austerity and some

Labour MPs are calling for the chair of the inquiry,

Sir Martin Moore-Bick, to resign. But the Government

defended Sir Martin. Sir Martin was chosen

by the Lord Chief Justice, who was approached to find

a suitable judge to do this inquiry and he was selected

because of his qualities, his experience and his particular

expertise in this area. In those circumstances,

it does seem to me, he's an eminently suitable person

to do it. This austerity debate

is happening against a back drop of the DUP bung -

I mean deal, as Jeremy Corbyn Last week, the Chancellor said,

"we all value our public services and the people who provide them

to us" and went on to laud his own economic record

by saying that we had Well, the Prime Minister found

?1 billion to keep her own job, why can't she find the same amount

of money to keep nurses and teachers in their job who,

after all, serve all of us? The PM responded with well-rehearsed

lines on Labour's economic incompetence to roars of support

from the Government benches. It isn't fair to refuse to take

tough decisions and to load debts on our children and grandchildren

for the future. ..it isn't fair to bankrupt our

economy because that leads to people losing their jobs

and losing their homes, and it isn't fair to go out and tell people

that they can have all the public spending they want

without paying for it. Some MPs were asking

where all this tough talk was from the Prime Minister

when she was negotiating Arlene Foster got ?1 billion,

she must be the most expensive right-winger since Cristiano

Ronaldo. How can the card have been declined,

we arranged for a platinum limit. Perhaps we could discuss

a payment plan? Thanks to Deuxieme clothing boutique

in South West London. We're not sure if they ever

did catch up with Emma. The lovely Miranda Green

Aston is with us now. Welcome back. Why don't I start with

you? Is Mrs May going to survive through until the end of the year,

because none of the usual suspects seem in a hurry to challenge her?

That's true, and there is a sense in which every few days she survives

makes her position stronger just because she is the only one

standing. There hasn't been a challenge. There is a bit more

scuttled back last week than this week about potential challengers, so

it seems quite a fluid atmosphere on the Tory benches. But I think they

seemed to think it's safer to let her struggle on and deal with not

least the uncomfortable beginning of Brexit negotiations, rather than

challenge her. So I would say she probably will be around at the end

of the summer. There is no consensus on the success. Tory MPs fear a

leadership election would trigger another general election and they

would lose that. They would not say that publicly but privately they

think they would lose another election. That may stop them rocking

the boat. It is worth remembering we are only a month from the general

election. If we had a change of leadership now people would say,

hang on, she fought the election on a personality thing, so we were

electing Mrs May and we are sided not to elect her by any kind of

majority, so if you are changing the leader you have to have another

general election. With the passage of time, that feeling will lessen.

In a few months, people will recognise that the Conservatives won

the general election and if they want to change Prime Minister, as

they did when they changed Cameron for Theresa May, that is possible.

What I think matters is that the Brexit clock has started, and

supposedly there are two years for negotiations. It seems from

revelations made by someone who until recently worked for David

Davies that the team negotiating Brexit feel hemmed in by commitments

that were made in Mrs May's conference speech, that they are

being propelled towards a particular hard to find Brexit by the pledges

she made. No European Court of Justice role, etc. It seems to me

that quite soon the people doing negotiations will say, three months,

six months, nine months has gone of our two year negotiation and we all

feel we are negotiating on the wrong premise, the wrong instructions. At

which point, surely, they would have to change the person giving

instructions. But does David Davis really think that? He sounds like he

is on the same song sheet as Mrs May on this matter. He is a government

minister with a lovely breezy manner about him and he would betray none

of that. But journalists speak to him in private and there is no

inkling he is unhappy with the mandate he has been given. The

person who worked for him until recently made him sound extremely

happy. How does Jeremy Corbyn force an election when the DUP, because of

his past associations, regard him as toxic? They wouldn't want him.

That's true but I remember Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness, the

Chuckle Brothers. That was accepted in Northern Ireland. A guy called

James Molineaux, who ran the Ulster Unionists party, when I was leading

the union and we were trying to stop the privatisation of the Post Office

and succeeded, they were crucial because major had a slim majority

which was being diminished by the Grim Reaper. So this deal they had

done, scraping the bottom of the barrel, maybe, but there is more to

come, and the DUP will assist on lots of things. But how does that

help Corbyn force an election? That is his difficulty. There was a

debate this week about the women who have lost their pensions, where many

Tories were involved in the debate and the DUP made clear that they

want to see a resolution on that. At some stage, something will happen

that will threaten, even with the DUP support, her majority. So I

think Corbyn has to wait for that. I think the question is, Theresa May

will not lead the Tories into the next general election. Will she go

buy some are, by Christmas, early next year, but one thing is certain,

she is going to go. If things settle down, even with the government

walking wounded, surviving week to week, there is a pole tomorrow

putting Labour well ahead of the Tories, in the Times. How do you

sustain that momentum? That is the problem if you can't bring about an

election. It is in Labour's interests to get another election in

the autumn at some time. That is clear. They are in a higher at the

moment. They are, but I don't think necessarily they are the ones with

the problem at the moment. I think that the Conservative Party have a

Yule threat to their core brand and appeal, and that is much more

serious. -- they have a double threat to their brand and appeal. If

they lose being the party of the economy, that is a fundamental

problem. Secondly, this idea of being thought of as the default,

competent party of government, the more that this administration limps

on, the more you actually have a Conservative Party slogan for

another election which is, everything is appalling, don't let

Labour blow it. It doesn't work. So I think the Conservative Party

position is much more difficult than Labour's. I think they can sustain

this for a while. A variety of Tory voices speaking for and against the

public sector pay cap, including from inside the cabinet. That is a

sign of Mrs May's weakness, isn't it? Yes, it is a lack of authority.

The fact that posterity, which was covered in our little film to go,

shows that as -- the entire political debate is being played out

on Labour ground. There is this feeling that posterity has gone too

far, possibly has been a complete failure. I think the truth is, that

if you tried to sustain a public pay policy for a very large number of

years, it would fray at the edges. To that extent, the Labour Party is

right. It is also true of Mr -- what Mrs May was saying, that if you have

no public sector pay policy, firstly you will blow the budget, which

would be bad for all of us, and secondly you would actually employ

fewer people than you otherwise would do because they would be paid

more money. Those are basic universal truths. Tuition fees

seemed to be the Tories' Achilles' heel among younger voters and it is

not clear what they can do about that. The problem with the tuition

fee policy is that tinkering with the terms and conditions and

changing the way they operate has undermined consent about the

fundamental principle of the policy. This idea of graduates contributing

to the costs is well established and has been established right back from

when Alan was minister and I was covering the debate in the house at

the time. But things like an interest rate of 3% on top of RPI,

6.1% is extraordinary. The government is charging 6% on student

tuition fees! They have frozen the threshold at which it kicks in at

21,000, which should have been rising with earnings. Most

significantly, you do not get grants maintenance now come on top of loan.

Meaning that poorer students have a shed load of debt. They do not need

to abandon tuition fees. Jeremy Corbyn's policy was the wrong

policy, a massive middle class hung and not the right way to use public

money, but the government are under pressure and they have to look again

at the interest rate. They ought to look again at maintenance grants,

not loans, and various other things at the edges. I agree entirely. The

other thing is that at last, the market has begun to kick in. It is

extraordinary that until now students have been charged ?9,000 to

go to Imperial, London, or Oxford, or Cambridge, and ?9,000 to take

pretty third-rate degrees at pretty second-rate universities. It has

been extraordinary that students have not until now protested that

they are paying the same amount of money for really good goods and

ready bad goods. That is beginning to kick in. You need shorter

courses, too, much more technical education, that all needs to come

out of this. Allen, one question on Labour. Any evidence that team

Corbyn is reaching out to all wings of the party, as opposed to just

consolidating their grip on the party? Not that I have seen. And I

think the nature of these things, I was just hearing to Mike that in

tomorrow's news there is a story about Lucy Anne Burj are being

forced to sign a letter of apology to Jeremy Corbyn for saying bad

things about him. She once said something. The nature of sectarian

politics is that you are constantly looking for purity and constantly

looking for scapegoats to sacrifice to the great leader. If they can't

get that out of their system, I'm afraid we are back into problems.

May be in tomorrow's papers, but as of late this afternoon, not one

Labour MP had stood up in her defence. I am sure that will change.

I hope it will. Was Jeremy Corbyn forced to sign a letter of loyalty

to Tony Blair? Amanda, thank you. Now, are you feeling

a bit worse for wear? Is the incessant political

pandemonium getting too much? Or maybe you were just on a night

out with Mike Ashley of Sports Direct, or worse,

work for him. Either way, Boris Johnson knows

a thing or two about feeling blue. He's very sad because his

Foreign Office nanny doesn't let him Or mount a leadership

challenge against Mrs May. So, if like Boris, you're feeling

a bit down in the dumps, don't worry, we're here

for you and we're putting # Yes, I'm a just

little, too sensitive. Big bad John relaxed

the dress code last Thursday. THE SPEAKER: Do I think it's

essential that a member wears a tie? Rather than celebrating the NHS,

the party opposite, rather shamelessly, have tried to weaponise

the NHS as a mere political But did it warrant this touchy

response from John Hayes on Monday? I ought to say, as a matter

of courtesy, I won't be taking interventions from anyone who's not

wearing a tie. Meanwhile, far-left French

politicians took offence to President Emmanuel Macron's

Versailles address on Monday. Was the regal setting

was an affront to democracy? He portrayed himself as a sort

of a god and we have something against gods and we have

something against Kings, Was it grass of the Duchess

of Cornwall to snigger through a traditional Inuit throat

singing performance in Canada? Sometimes a lack of

effort causes offence. Was EU Commission President

Jean-Claude Juncker right to get tetchy about the poor turnout

for his appearance in I will never again attend

a meeting of this kind. Controversial philosopher,

Slavoy Zizek, thinks we live in a hyper-sensitive age,

so what does that mean for politics? # Yes I'm just a little,

too sensitive...#. Welcome to the programme. Why have

we become so hypersensitive? First, let me say how grateful I am that I

am here with you, our supreme leader. The dream of us philosophers

is always to have a supreme leader but signally to give your advisers

to control you. Let's go on sensitivity. It's interesting how on

the one hand, but it's a limited phenomenon, we are becoming more and

more sensitive. Look at this obsession with harassment. It

happens to me all the time. You look a woman into the hive for one second

too much, it is a visual rate. You use a dirty word, it is verbal rape,

and so on. But the key to this phenomenon and we have it at a

different level. For example, what fascinates me is that we do not live

in an era of consumerism, but strictly controlled consumerism.

Beer, yes, but without alcohol, coffee, yes, but without caffeine.

Even sex without sex, in some sense. I think that our dream is this type

of controlled pleasure, where you avoid any threat. This is why I even

find very suspicious, and I am not a smoker, this obsession with the

danger of smoking. Many of my leftist friends who are otherwise

for free drugs and so on, with smoking, you stop it. And I think,

as a philosopher, what makes me really sad about it is what a sad

image of our human elation is is implied in this. Other persons are

basically viewed as a threat. Although they speak about tolerance,

they need -- beneath all this political correctness is terrible in

tolerance. It is, remain at the proper distance, don't come too

close to me as a briefing, living being with certain desires and so

on. But what is so interesting is that this type of hypersensitivity

is accompanied by another phenomenon. It is enigmatic which

comes first, what even some people now in Germany called the great

regression. Here I am, a leftist Conservative. I believe in good

manners. I believe in talking nice, gently and in some populist right

thinks you can render and now publicly, which simply were not

acceptable five or ten years ago. On the one hand, this leftist cultural

elite is getting more and more sensitive, which words do you use.

They like, Liberal lefties, they like to feel guilty. We no longer

use the N-word. I agree with it. OK, Black. No, black is too racist,

African Americans. And it goes on. What about those from the Caribbean

who are not from Africa? This is what left Liberals love, to feel

guilty. This recycling stuff. Did you put your Coke bottles aside? No,

but did you put newspapers aside. Of course, you never do enough. I think

this is a false option. It is just a shadow of monks more dangerous

process which is again the vulgarisation of our lives. One can

see how they work together. For example, you remember how the Bush

administration, I think, referred to torture as in hardest interrogation

techniques. I can predict what will happen. Rape will become an enhanced

seduction technique, and so on. So I think I see the danger of political

correctness. Of course, I agree with it when it means really preventing

brutality, suffering. But political correctness, the waiters practised,

its function is to distract from real problems and so on. From actual

problems of ordinary working people. That's why I think political

correctness is partly responsible for the election of Donald Trump. It

symbolises what is wrong with the Democratic party. On that point, we

have to leave it there. I don't know why I bothered writing these other

questions. I just got one question. A supreme leader does not act like

this. You really need an adviser. It was a wonderful answer and I am not

at all sensitive. Now, that's your lot for tonight,

folks, but not for us. We're off to Malia for Mike Ashley's

boozy business bonanza. He's hosting a lock

in with all the Z list Even Red Ed Miliband was spotted

aboard a flight from Stanstead, lining his stomach with UHT milk

so he doesn't vomit in the fireplace Mike has offered us millions

of pounds to bring our very own line up of vintage political giants,

so we couldn't resist. Nighty night, don't let

the G20 celebrations bite. Please join me in

welcoming Coldplay. # And so lying underneath

the stormy skies...#