Episode 10 Sunday Morning Live

Gaddafi is on the run, thanks to the firepower and funds that we

have given Libya's rebels. Were that many have been better spent

here at home? -- would bat money have been better spent here at

Good morning, welcome to Sunday Morning Live. He threatened to kill

his people so we bombed him out of power. Now other tyrants are

looking twitchy. But, with an economic crisis on our own doorstep,

should we really be throwing money at toppling dictators? Migration to

the UK is up 21%, despite government talk and action to keep

numbers down. The politics editor of the New Statesman says, keep

them coming. I believe immigrants have helped put the Great into

Great Britain and that we now need more immigration, not less.

rape charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn have been dropped. He

wants to revive his political career, despite a string of alleged

affairs. Sexual peccadilloes don't stop other politicians holding high

office. But if a politician is unfaithful to his wife, can he be

loyal to this country? By guests this morning are no

strangers to a bit of political rough-and-tumble. Colonel Bob

Stewart now serves as MP for Beckenham. That he'd let UN forces

in Bosnia and once guarded Rudolf Hess. Mehdi Hasan is the senior

politics editor of the New Statesman. He likes nothing better

than basting politicians. Edwina Curry was a very public figure in

the life of Mrs Thatcher and a very private one in the life of John

Major. Would like to know what you think this morning. Call in on

So, Gaddafi is gone. Job well done? He was, after all, a dictator who

killed his own people and alleys. But who next? Dictators that run

Syria or Zimbabwe? Should we foot the bill for this freedom when we

have enough problems in our own Death to Gaddafi! Go to hell!

people will welcome the end of Gaddafi's rule. He fostered

terrorism around the world and ruled with megalomaniac leave. But

what happens next in Libya could be bloody. Our previous attempts to

remove dictators have not gone well. We got rid of Saddam Hussein.

is the end of Saddam Hussein's grip on the city. But it took almost 200

British soldiers lives, killed untold numbers of civilians and

left a country in ruins. It also cost the British taxpayers over �9

billion. And Libya could cost us around �280 million. So, should we

foot the bill to sort out other countries' problems? Or when public

service cuts threaten to derail our own country, should we be spending

that money at home? How many NHS services could be saved if we

resist the urge to intervene? In the wake of recent events, aren't

our own police force is more of a priority than foreign adventures?

But don't we also have a moral duty to intervene and protect people

from despots who torture and kill them? It's not entirely altruistic.

Power-hungry dictators stockpile weapons of mass destruction and

create unstable countries. Removing them could perhaps make the world a

safer place for those. So, when cash is short, what should we spend

our money on? Freedom abroad or safety at home? Colonel Bob Stewart,

you have been involved in intervention abroad. Shouldn't the

UK be the first priority? It is the first priority. The problem is,

sometimes we have, in my view, a moral duty, where we can, within

limits, to help fellow human beings abroad, such as what we tried to do

in Bosnia in 1992. That is the question for our text vote this

We will show you how you voted at the end of the programme. The UK is

the first priority, but we need to do what we can? I'm not sure it is

just about the UK being the first priority. I think the UK is very

important. Barack Obama announcing the draw down of American forces

from Afghanistan, saying it's time for nation-building at home, we

spend billions on Iraq and Afghanistan. To what caused, I

would argue, given the chaos in both of those countries? I think

there is other criteria, Bob has been talking about within reason

and limits. What are those limits? When we end up intervening, there's

little morality involved in a lot of them. Often it is geopolitics.

don't agree with that. We sometimes really go in for moral reasons.

the minority of cases, you would agree? I said sometimes. While

Libya and not Bahrain? Because Libya was something... I'll tell

you why, I voted for it in Parliament. It's because I remember

what happened in 1982, when I stood on the hills outside Sarajevo. It

was something we could do. The their areas, we can't. We could do

much more in Bahrain. They are an allied country, it's a tiny country

and we could take it over in 10 seconds. That's why Libya matters

and Bahrain has not come into the equation. Libya is on the border of

Europe. If we didn't do anything, I think that Europe would have been

flooded with people fleeing. We had that if she were immediately. Also,

-- we had that if she were immediately. We've been involved

with Libya for a long time. Those old enough to remember the killing

of Yvonne Fletcher, the siege at the embassy, the bombing of the

airline, we have been engaged with Gaddafi for a long time. In recent

years, as our friend. I don't think he was ever my friend. Let me ask

you a question. You've been an MP since May last year. How many times

prior to this intervention did you raise the issue of human rights in

the Commons? Did you object to David Cameron's government selling

weapons to Gaddafi, as we did last year, with your government's

approval? Conservative-led government. The Government that you

support... Equally reprehensible. I'm asking you, who voted for the

war. You're not the presenter, let somebody else in. There's a bigger

issue in Libya. The point at which Gaddafi was approaching Benghazi

with his troops, large numbers of people, hundreds of thousands of

people were at risk of being murdered. That is why NATO got

involved. Did you vote for regime change? It's one thing protecting

the inhabitants of Benghazi, it's another thing bombing Sirte.

military operation has got to be done from a realistic point of view.

It wasn't going to end until Gaddafi was got rid of. Why were we

not told that? They said it was not not told that? They said it was not

regime change. Ask them. One of the reasons why it was one of the

biggest votes in parliament, with MPs on all sides voting for the

action, a remarkable debate, and honest debate. If it wasn't honest,

they said it wasn't going to be regime change. Quite simply that

there was a strong feeling that as long as Gaddafi was there, Libya

was going to have all sorts of problems inside and outside the

country. Can I ask you a question about the money? The question we

asking the audience is a valid cash should be used to topple dictators.

We talked about a huge amount of money involved. If it could be used

on the NHS or education here, all on humanitarian aid overseas, would

that be a better use of the money? Let's remember that in the United

Kingdom, our budget for health is three of four times the budget for

defence. The budget for education is larger than defence. We do spend

an awful lot more on services in our country is. People will be

saying that all of those things are being cut. So his defence. You have

to be pragmatic about this. If you are going to take any action, and

military action is an extension of politics by other means. That has

been said many times in the past. If you're going to take action you

have to be pragmatic and practical about it. It has to be achievable.

You shouldn't go into it unless you are pretty sure you can achieve

what you're going to do. It didn't happen in Afghanistan and to some

extent in Iraq. Here, it is a limited engagement. God willing, it

shouldn't cost an enormous amount. You are happy that taxpayers' money

is used as long as it is practical and there is an endgame involved?

You have to achieve the end. You have to be careful what the

objective was. In Libya it was to try and prevent wholesale massacres.

I think that has been achieved. Also, to try to achieve stability

in a country that borders the rest of Europe. Mehdi Hasan, is your

argument that if you cannot go in and topple every dictator, you

should not use the cash to topple one? No, there are several

arguments. The key point is that we have no right to go in. Who made us

the world's policeman? We are not going to get rid of the King of

Saudi Arabia, but we will get rid of Saddam Hussein. You have to ask

questions about our motivations, our interests. Whether we are

honest. Not even topple one? Regime change is illegal under

international law. There is a UN resolution that says...

specifically was conceived to avoid massacres, not to bring about

regime change. At the point why MPs voted for it, because David Cameron

said it wasn't about regime change. When did the RAF go from being the

Royal Air Force to the rebel Air Force? One of our viewers survived

the Kosovan conflict. Why should the UK get involved in other

people's wars? Because it is the right thing to do. If we are going

to put on one side sovereignty as the international law, as Mehdi

Hasan mentioned, then we will leave ourselves into the kind of thing

that happened at the 17th century, guaranteed that states can do

whatever they want with their own citizens. In Libya, it was simple.

It was the movement of the people by them against a brutal dictator.

The turning point was when the Libyan people organised themselves.

Tell me about what happened to you. You are now at the Kosovo Institute

for Research and Development. How did intervention help you

personally? Well, I have been literally saved by the bombs that

NATO dropped against Serbia and against Slobodan Milosevic. That is

one of the key reasons I am in favour of interventions. What

happened in Kosovo in 1998 and 1999 was only the final phase of a ten-

year long repression that Serbia was waging against Kosovo. 20,000

people died. People were deported. Shouldn't NATO have intervened in

1999? If they hadn't, I would not be participating in this debate. I

would be dead or seeking refuge. Well, the Balkans is an interesting

example. There was an ongoing genocide. In Kosovo, it was not

more complicated than he was making out. In Kosovo, yes, we did prevent

Serbs killing. But look what has happened since, lots of Serbs were

ethnically cleansed from Kosovo. The Prime Minister we put in charge

has been accused of being involved in prostitution, organ trafficking,

it's not all perfect. These are the people we got into bed with.

were dealing with its human beings. We were dealing with the KLA, which

was described as a terrorist group. Argue in favour of anything?

not in favour of killing people. We killed a lot of Serbs, were you in

favour of that? What happened in Kosovo after the intervention is a

huge failure, a set of failures in the international community. It's

mostly because of the UN mission that was installed here to keep the

peace and it had no exit strategy. It had no clear plans on what to do

with Kosovo. Even if Kosovo was a failed States today, which it is

not, I believe the 1999 intervention was still the right

thing to do. Let's talk to Dr Michael Williams, a professor in

governance. He's on the line from America. Thank you for joining us.

If people are being killed, do we have a moral duty to intervene?

It depends on the situation. You summed it up well when you said

that Gaddafi was threatening to kill possibly hundreds of thousands

of people. At the end of the day, we acted pre-emptively. That is a

problem. In Kosovo, we already know what happened. In Rwanda, we have

repeated calls for intervention and it didn't happen. Now we allow that

to be the spectre, we must intervene. There is no evidence

that Gaddafi would have perpetrated what we were expecting, but he had

done two cities he had captured. It's a slippery slope. The

rationale here justifies integration -- intervention around

the world. Saddam Hussein killed thousands of people in his own

country. He killed thousands of Kurds during ethnic cleansing. That

would be a rationale for getting involved. Suddenly, that wasn't

legitimate and Libya was. It's not clear. One of the commentators,

they said that you see a lot of damage coming out when you side

with one side that turn out to be a terrorist organisation and end up

committing crimes against humanity. It goes back to the core argument

of what is in the national interest. Genocide and ethnic cleansing

become everything that you need to act, but you need to be very

deliberative. There was a rushing into the situation in Libya that

Should it be a narrow definition about national interest? You can

never get it exactly right. You can never have all the information you

require. You are trying to make a judgement on what will happen in

future. If we don't have a wave of Libyans, most people will say, they

you are, wasn't necessary. Had we not intervened I'm sure we would

have had refugees as our young man from Kosovo indicated. You cannot

get it exactly right. You are dealing with human beings, human

failings, trying to predict the future sometimes. What the MPs have

to do and disorders have to do is do their best.

Dr Williams raises an interesting point in the case of Rwanda. We

didn't intervene but they cannot be a person who thinks back...

I wonder and Bosnia were different, they were ongoing genocide still to

begin with -- Rwandan. -- genocides to begin with.

In a wonder, if we were having this debate now and Rwanda was going on,

which you argue we should intervene and use our money to do so? I would.

And the Canadian colonel on the ground went crazy complaining about

the fact America it was one of those countries at the forefront of

blocking intervention at the time. But those problems, we roll-out

these examples to justified action now, and that is dangerous, it is a

slippery slope. Each case should be judged on its own merits rather

than say we did it there, we will do it here.

There is also a danger of using hindsight a little too much. The

problem with grander is most of the terrible deaths happened within a

short space of time -- Rwanda. With some of the others, it took a

little bit longer. With Libya it was plainly obvious that Gaddafi's

tanks were on the way to Benghazi, it was a matter of days. There was

in February, March. We have toppled a dictator and an RAF is bombing

Sirte, what does that got to do with protecting citizens in

Benghazi? Given half a chance he would come back into power and

carry on. The political editor of the end

redux and society, is there a good reason for the action in Libya for

using taxpayers' money and be where we are now? Of course. Policy-

making is not a game. You have to make foreign-policy. The moral

imperative was clearly as Edwina says there would have been a

slaughter in Benghazi, and acceptable to let that stand as

part of being the democracy that are engaged in global governance

together seeking the kind of norms for Global governance we do. There

is a strategic imperative which is very clear. If we remember the Arab

spring, if he would have managed to stand up and machine gun his way

back into power the message that sense to the rest of the Middle

East and to those people struggling for freedom so bravely is

unacceptable. Hence I commend the Prime Minister, I commend Britain

for the leadership it has shown, both as part of being a responsible

member of the global community, but also in its own national interests

in insuring people of the Middle East are free to pursue their

dreams which will lead to more stability.

My wife he was own international delicate to the Red Cross -- who

was an international delicate. If you could really be good you could

decide how many people would die if you do this and our people are

going to die if you do that and the argument that says the less people

die would be there when you should select. Unfortunately we don't have

hindsight, otherwise we would be in a much better situation. The less

people that died, the better. That is why we are trying to intervene,

to stop people dying. But we are not intervening in

places where we could do a lot of good.

Let's leave us with a couple of emails. Angela from Hampshire says

I am partly been, people don't realise Libya has huge turnover and

will pay Britain back long term. Money from Britain has been useful

in the short term. Surely Iraq is already a better

place without Saddam? Libya looked like it is moving in the right

direction. Mike says it is global feudalism. I have military strength,

allied myself with them, in return they pay me answer to it favourable

trading links, we just dress it up more effectively these days. Should

we spend our cash to toppled You have 20 minutes before that

A survey this week says employers are happier taking on an immigrant

than a British worker because they are better educated and not as lazy.

How does this square with the Government's struggle to cut

immigrant numbers? Mehdi Hasan thinks that policy is daft and this

is his Sunday Stand. I believe immigrants have helped put the

Great into Great Britain and we need more immigration, not less. In

times of financial hardship they can be tempting to shut the door on

Johnny foreigner and keep our economy to ourselves but immigrants

have played a huge part of the boom and they can play a huge part in

getting us out of the bus. Economies across the world such as

America were built by immigrants. Google, and Tesco, EasyJet, all

created by immigrants or their children. They are twice as likely

to start a new business that people born in the new K. Poor people

moving to rich countries is a good thing. For example in the current

he moved to the Wests and more money back to their home countries

than we give in foreign aid. -- to the West. If you want cut foreign

aid you should support more immigration. And did I mention the

ageing population? Without new immigrants coming into the work

force how will we pay for our growing army of pensioners? It is

time to say the unsayable. It has been a blessing, not a curse.

If you have got away up and you can make your point on Skype and joined

the conversation on Twitter, phone, or e-mail. At this point we welcome

Kiran Bali, a Hindu leader and magistrate. Your father came from

India, you are a magistrate, community leader, you would welcome

more immigration. In the 60s there was a peak of

375,000 and there was a skills shortage, demand for people to come

over from Asia and my father came, integrated will commonly the

language and encouraged worth ethics, long hours, and that is

what was required at the time. -- work ethics. We are experiencing

numbers up to 7 million and it is unsustainable. There is a burden on

the NHS, housing system. And integration. We are very hospitable

but sometimes not everybody wants to integrate into British society,

the dead have an understanding of the democratic values we sustain --

they don't have. It is hard to stop segregation of communities. Does it

surprise you to hear what she is saying? I am disappointed. I hear

it a lot as a British Asian. It is what I call the drawbridge

mentality. We have come here, no one else. It is bad to say in the

60s there was demand, but not now. I am disappointed to hear lines

like immigrants are a burden on the NHS. One-in-four nurses in London

is foreign-born. If immigrants stopped working in the NHS stopped

working, it which are down tomorrow. We should welcome them. But in

restricted numbers. We are restricted numbers. There is a

system in place where MPs themselves have said UK Border

Agency is not fit for purpose because we don't know how many...

Last year 239,000 more people came into our country and left it. It is

not just, let me finish, it is not just that. It is from Europe as

well. We have a problem. 5% of the babies born in the NHS last year

were born to mothers from Eastern Europe. 20,000 from Poland. That is

a heck of a burden. Whatever you say. It is not just the NHS, it is

the schools. One-fifth of the the Wall coming into this country

actually have a job to go to. you in favour of pulling out of the

EU? Actually, I am. If we stop people coming here... Ammon favour

of going back to an economic relationship with the European

Union, and not the politics. If we stop people coming from the

European Union, we can't, and we would have to stop people from here

working in EU countries so that would stop people working in Italy,

Spain, France. There would be an arrangement, like the row with

Switzerland. If this is turning into an anti-European Union debate

I come up for it. But quite frankly we are talking about immigration.

The problem with immigration is it put a huge burden on our society.

Regardless of our society... also boost the economy. Especially

the skills that comment. We need immigration. I'm not saying we

don't need immigration, for goodness sake, we are a small

country, quite full. We are not fall, Bob. We have been hearing

this for decades. The proportion of immigrants is about 11%. In Sweden

it is 13, America 14, Canada 20, the Australia 25. Let's take

Amsterdam, much more densely populated, they don't have crowded

trains, schools, because they invest in infrastructure.

Immigrants then place a burden on society, it is a lack of

infrastructure. Let's put that economic 0.2 Mark Adams at the

London Chamber of Commerce. -- that economic point to mark Adams. Could

be used the unemployed Britons have fully, usefully, economically

instead of migrant workers. British business has to pass all kinds of

hurdles before they can employ it migrant workers from outside the

European Union. Some of those people we are trying to employee

have global skills. They are not available among UK workforce and we

need to welcome people with this kind of skills into our country and

we benefit from the skills they bring. Our economy is enriched by

it and create more jobs for those with fewer skills and grows our

economy more generally. Why can't we work with the British public to

equip them with their skills so they can go for those jobs as well?

While we are relying on migrant workers for their skills? That

invest in our people. Of course we should be investing in skills in

our own work force but what is the best way of doing that? Impose

burdens on business dictating who they can and can't employee, rather

than encouraging business to recruit in the global workplace. We

are a global business community in this country, and we should be able

to recruit particularly very highly skilled workers, globally. When we

grow the economy as a result, of course we should be training people

with fewer skills to take up those positions.

We want the best people for the jobs. If 68% of London firms say

migrant workers work harder, and as Mark Adams says, the skills come

from outside the UK, those are the Some people come to this country

and don't make any effort to learn the language and they make precious

little effort to try and integrate. Now, that is a problem for us. It

is a problem that a burden on our society. Of course, we got the

example of a Polish plumber as being really good. Yes, they are

exactly the sort of people that we want to come into the country.

you would support more immigration from hard working Polish people?

would support a limited, but more selectivity and who comes.

talks about English lessons. I can't stand when Tory MPs give us

lectures on that when this Tory-led government is cutting funding for

English lessons for migrants. If you really cared about them, you

would not be voting for that. reason why we are cutting funds at

the moment, all across government spending, is because we have no

money left and it's because the Government that you support

actually spent it. I thought we had �280 million in the last suspicion.

Guy Taylor is an immigration campaigner. Welcome to the

programme. To somebody who is struggling in this country, and

perhaps is listening to this conversation about money for

English lessons, for skilled workers from abroad getting the

jobs getting the jobs they feel they should have, did they have a

good reason to feel aggrieved about immigration? We know about

immigration? I think we've already heard how much we have spent on

other things, that has been the problem. What we are seeing at the

moment is scapegoating of immigrants. Saying, this is the

problem. Basically, there are so many other things where things can

improve and the Government is just tried to say, well, this is the

problem, trying to displace the blame on to people. Colonel Bob

Stewart, we are scapegoating? we are not. We are just trying to

be sensible. The Government actually has a target of reducing

net immigration to about 100,000. That is a reasonable figure for us

to sustain. In that 100,000, will get heckled Court of people that

will positively benefit our society. The problem is that we are getting

a huge number of people coming into this country that become a burden

on the country. And we've got to get that sorted. I was reading

about you and your experience. You act in plays, you act in Punjabi,

Urdu, other languages. You do classes in bhangra and Bollywood.

These are examples of the richness and the control diversity --

cultural diversity that immigrants bring to society. We are a better

country for immigration, aren't we? The new cultures that Khamenei only

enrich British society when it comes to learning about other

things, the plays that you mentioned, the cuisine. But now we

are having unprecedented levels of emigration. We are getting too many

people and it's not sustainable. It's not about culture or race,

it's about numbers. It's very difficult going forward. We are

also getting people that has don't want to integrate. It's good when

everybody wants to work together. That their rights issues. When it

comes to the cost of interpreting... The same was going on in the 1960s

when your father came here, they are different, they don't want to

integrate, they smell... But they have integrated. But don't you

immigrants do exactly the same? majority of people want to

integrate and make a better life for themselves here. It's not the

case every time. Professor David Conway is the or that of a Nation

of Immigrants. What are your concerns? -- the author. My concern

is the level of which net immigration has preceded over the

last decade. What has happened in particular in England is to crowd

out the young from entry-level jobs and to crowd out the unskilled.

Therefore, to have adversely affected those who should be the

priority. Is the answer to that not to upscale and give confidence to

those young workers? Or are you suggesting we are making our own

young workforce lazy because they think, this catch-all phrase, the

foreigners are getting all of the jobs? Absolutely not. I think what

has happened is that they have been neglected. There has been, on tap,

a workforce which has been able to undercut them. There is this great

myth that there is only a static number of jobs. It's the lump of

labour fallacy. There are so many jobs, we have to divvy them up

between people from here and people abroad. The economy doesn't work

like that. Immigrants bolster the number of jobs and economic growth.

I had a job on a forklift paying �17 an hour. Since we opened up to

Maz immigration might have to look for other kinds of work because I

do well to find a forklift job that pays half that. Immigrants work for

less money and drive down wages. Obviously there are individual

cases of people losing out. Nobody is claiming that's not the case,

that speak nature of the economy. But there is mixed evidence on that.

In terms of the idea that they drive down wages, areas a simple

solution, enforce the living wage. The solution is to make sure

employers enforce living wage legislation. Where there is talk

about lazy British people, we need to work with them to get them out

of benefits culture, the defenders -- dependency on disability living

allowance when they are fit and healthy. We can work with them and

motivate them to get back into the jobs that are being taken. K Bob

Stewart, in the previous debate you were talking passionately about

help for people in other countries when they are suffering. Now, when

those people, perhaps as a result of conflict in other countries come

here, do week stop showing them that compassion? No, but they come

within limits. For that very reason, because they are political migrants.

They have got to get out of their country. We are a decent society

and we want to help other people. But we can't help everybody. I

disagree entirely... Really? Yes, we do what we can in the world. We

have limited assets to do it. We have limited assets to look after

our people. Whatever he may think, about the Conservative Party, we

care very much about what happens to the people at the lowest levels

in our society. We have a lot of people coming from India and

Pakistan. They come on visas, which is perfectly fine. They should

return at the expiry date. But that's not happening. A lot of

people are staying way past their expiry date, blending into the

system and taking the welfare state benefits from the welfare state.

That is not fair. Kathy has been in contact and says, as a nurse, it

was doctors from India and Pakistan, as well as girls for the West

Indies who trained as nurses that kept our NHS going in the 60s and

70s. I believe immigrants put the Great and Great Britain and I agree

with what many Hassan is saying. You can get in touch on the website

if you would like to discuss that further. Coming up on Sunday

Morning Live, we're going to talk to Edwina Curry about sexual

infidelity. Should politicians lose their jobs if they are unfaithful?

You can join in by webcam, you can make your views known by phone, e-

mail online. Keep voting in our Texts will be charged at your

standard Mr Drake. You have about five minutes before the poll closes.

It's time to chew over some of the key moral moments of the week.

Hurricane Irene, lashing New Yorker. When Hurricane Katrina hit New

Orleans, evangelical Christian Pat Robinson blamed it on God's wrath

over abortion. Do you think evangelicals from any religion

might say the same thing this time around? Of course not. I hope not.

This hurricane is huge. I was in Washington and North Virginia

earlier, with the Defence Select Committee. This year, I mean. It

was peaceful. Suddenly, these huge hurricanes are going to go up the

east coast of America. At this moment, New York is being bombarded

by its huge wind, a rise in sea levels. Of course it is not God's

judgment. But I tell you what, it's weird that such a thing is

happening so far north. They are called acts of God. It's an

interpretation. We believe that God is as loving... We should not fear

God. But I think we are very fortunate in his age that we have

technology that can warn us of these hurricanes, these natural

disasters. Do we learn from that? Are there enough emergency supplies

available at the moment? Every time this happens, we run short of food

and water. Another issue in the news that has concerned you, the

rise in hospital admissions over here caused by alcohol. We talked

about a strained NHS. We have seen a 25% rise in the related disease.

Chronic liver disease. That is solely down to alcohol consumption.

Now, why can we not have sensible drinking? Why can't we banned the

sale of cheap alcohol and work to educate those about the problems?

It is a drug, a depressant. What about parents? If you are a parent,

yacht into the hospital continuously with alcohol problems,

what example the use it for your children? I think binge drinking is

a real problem. It's been a problem for a while. One of the other

stories eyesore which relates to this is that they have it binge

drinking problem in China now. They think it's to do with the rise of

the middle-class or whatever it is. Is not a phenomenon confined only

to us. But we seem to do it worse when it comes to younger people.

need to deal with it, it's growing as a problem. Here is an issue that

the Government is grappling with. It decided not to go ahead with it.

The decision not to censor social media. It comes after the riots.

There was a suggestion that Twitter, Facebook, blackberries, they should

be shut down. They are not going to do that. You must be pleased

because you have 15,000 followers on Twitter. Thank you for that

wonderful advertisement. I'm delighted, not just for myself, but

I think possible liberties and human rights. It's very important

that David Cameron's knee-jerk intervention in the debate earlier

this month, when he said they would take action against social networks

sites. The Home Secretary, meeting with bosses from Twitter,

BlackBerry, Facebook, saying they are not going to do that. How can

we have any credibility to tell the Chinese, the Iranians, the Saudis,

that you can't shut down on social networking? This is the first time

on his programme I'd agreed with you! Let's revel in this moment of

agreement. Are you on any of these sites? No. I'll tell you why, if it

takes up so much time. They are spending their entire time. I have

enough things to do already without spending my time on this. Online

media can be helpful in these occasions, like the riots. We can

nip things in the bud. We can encourage more online policing.

clean-up was done through Twitter. We are all agreeing, then? A good

consensus. Its a good time for this consensus. Let's enjoy that for a

moment. We have been voting in our text poll. We asked if we should

spend our cash on toppling dictators. The poll is closing, so

do not text because your vote will Now, Sally Bercow has been waxing

lyrical about her sex life with her politician husband. Some

politicians seem as little less keen on their wives. Silvio

Berlusconi, with his shocking parties, for example. Bill Clinton

and his unusual use of the corridor of the oval room. Even John Major.

Should politicians who take back to basics to mean back to my place

forfeit our trust? Or should we be more like the French and accept

their sexual peccadilloes? Politics and sex scandals are

nothing new. Played out in the full light of tabloid glory, they have

ended many political careers. time to return to those old, core

values. Time to get back to basics. Particularly during the

Conservatives's back-to-basics campaign in the early 90s. Nothing

annoyed the public more than politicians preaching purity and

then indulging in hanky-panky. One by one, the scandals came and the

politicians fell. Recently, we were put more forgiving. Politicians

that play away may lose credibility, but they usually only lose their

jobs if they give their love for special favours, like renting a

flat, or a visa for a nanny. It's slightly different in other

countries. Silvio Berlusconi faces trial for sex with an under-age

prostitute. But he is still hanging on to powerful stop with

allegations of sexual assault this week dismissed, French presidential

candidate Dominique Strauss-Kahn can start to rebuild his political

life. But should a private scandal Bede as to question the ability to

lead? If politicians can lie to the ones they love, are they more

likely to lie to us? I just want to make it clear that we put all the

misunderstandings behind us. If we trust them to run the country,

shouldn't they have higher moral standards than the rest of us?

Of course, Edwina Curry is back for this debate. You can join in by

webcam will make your point by phone, text, e-mail online. You, of

course, had a four year affair with John Major before he became Prime

Minister. Should he have got the It was a big secret. Until long

after we had lost power. We had to elections when New Labour one.

us that make it OK? Secondly it was not on our expenses forms, we did

it not claim any taxpayers' money. That was a private liaison and one

for a long time that matter to both of us. Should private liaisons for

public figures remain private, as long as no public money involved,

nobody knows about it, is it justified? The point is we want to

trust our politicians. If they are lying to the person closest to them,

can we trust them? We want to trust our politicians because that is the

way things are set up in our country. They don't just stand for

election on the basis they are bullied at finance or knowledgeable

about defence. -- brilliant. There are several elements. What is the

nature of the injured -- indiscretions? Is it illegal?

Another element is what kind of reputation does that individual

have anyway? Dominic Strauss-Kahn may have got off the wrapping

America but his reputation as a womaniser has damaged him and he

will not be able to stand for the Prince -- French presidency. What

is the zeitgeist, feeling of the time? Bob and I can both remember

when you couldn't be gay and stand for Parliament. I can remember when

there was very difficult for a divorced person to get into the

British Cabinet. Margaret Thatcher changed that because she married a

divorced man. John Major himself wanted the Zeitgeist to be back to

bassist -- back to basic and purity and integrity and honesty.

remember when he made that speech are remember thinking this will

come back to bite you, not only him but the very some ministers that

were found wanting on the criteria the Prime Minister then set. Do we

let it stay in their private world as long as they did go trumpeting

about we what everybody to have integrity and be honest?

It is such a difficult question and I take it we know it's point about

the zeitgeist. As a citizen I can't help but think it does matter. Am -

- and that it is not fashionable to say that, but I do wonder if they

can lie to the person closest to them, why can't they lie to me

about taxes or immigrant numbers all wars? We live in an age of

personality politics. We are constantly told this person is good

because they talk well, friendly, we see them up barbecues kissing

babies, we look at David Cameron. Cameron is more personable. There

were told if you find that they are treated, don't judge them on that.

I'm sorry, I am, and I cannot help but do so. Colonel Bob Stewart, you

had an affair. I got divorced. had a great love. You left your

wife and married a great love. Do private lives, the leaving of a

wife, have any impact on your profile as a politician? No. If the

situation doesn't make him too tired or fundamentally they

actually are unfit because they're concentrating on other things were

now doing the job, I would like to know who 80s would sit on a

kangaroo court in judgment on people because I don't think there

are many people in our society that haven't done things that are wrong

and that includes Mehdi Hasan. Maybe he is too young to have done

it yet. Confession time if you want to use the opportunity. What do you

say to the abuses of power issues? David Blunkett in that film, he

used ministerial cars, train tickets etc for his lover at the

time. That is totally outrageous. That is wrong, we are all agreed on

that. Edwina made that point straightaway. Do you think the

Prime Minister, is at a public issue if he is having a -- having

an affair. We were junior ministers. One of the things you will earn in

a long life is politicians do not answer hypothetical questions. The

element of hypocrisy comes in very strongly in our country. We hate

hypocrisy. If somebody is totally upfront about misbehaviour or a

pattern of behaviour that is fine. So senior politicians openly as my

mother would say it live in sin, it is not a problem, they are not seen

as in any way diminishing their life because they are not

hypocritical about it. There are characters in the House of Commons

and you can think of who I have a mind to who when asked are you

going to have more Affairs said I had said. But then go on and do a

really good job as MPs. It depends what is their own approach? If they

set themselves up with a whole -- wholesome image de de deux when

they say, tell the truth, say what is happening if they are challenged

on it. Steve Clifford is from the Evangelical Alliance. Is it

important that politicians are utterly faithful and loyal?

I think it is important. I really did get this compartmental view of

life. I am a whole person and link between a public and private life.

My actions speak louder than my words. This question for me is

about a far bigger question. It is about what kind of country do I

want to live in, what kind of country for my kids and my kids'

kids. Our want to live in a country where we keep our promises where we

are faithful in our relationships, handle our finances with honesty,

we can trust people. And when things go wrong, and they do go

wrong, we owned up to it. I think there is a greater responsibility

on politicians, journalists, and faith leaders. We claimed a moral

high ground. You attempt to show the world views. We moguls. There

is a greater responsibility to live up to our words -- we make laws.

Let's find out why they have a different view in France. We can

speak to a French academic, head of research at the global policy

institute. Incensed -- France there is a sense this is par for the

course. Does it impact on their ability to do the job?

I don't know what politicians should be expected to have a higher

moral standard than the rest of the population. It is -- you have to

work harder and politics to get to the top. Once you reach the top

people understand he should benefit from the job. You know you're very

attractive if you have power, power is an aphrodisiac. People don't

commit crimes as long as they don't like to you on morals, then I don't

see what the problem is. Better to have satisfied politicians than a

frustrated politician. We do have politicians here lecturing people

about certain things about how our society is that they have every

right to talk about family values, family structures as we are seeing

in recent weeks after the riots, a long discussion about families.

don't like politicians to meddle. They have got to have a moral

message to send. They are not there to do morals. Everybody except

people are not perfect. Even the previous man speaking is not

perfect. That is part of being a human being. I would rather have a

proper human being representing the than some kind of moral machine.

There is an element of sexism. That was all right for the male

politicians like Chirac and Mitterrand's. It wasn't all right

for a female politician who put her dentist on the payroll. The problem

with me to one who had a mistress, the make -- the big history was not

she had a mistress, but she was has at the taxpayers' expense.

Financial puritans. By being in these positions it actually makes

you more attractive and therefore perhaps more likely to commit

exactly the indiscretion that would lead to a downfall? It hasn't

happened to me yet. I am a very powerful backbench politicians open

it on. The fact of the matter is in may have happened to Edwina but it

hasn't happened to me. If that is the case, do we risk losing a real

human beings becoming politicians if we are too strict about it?

Absolutely. The danger is if we only one saints, and I have said

this myself, we will rule out a great number... You either have an

affair or you are a saint, is there no middle ground? Coming up say

having affairs is not a good thing and say actually when politicians

do do that and exploit the Peter Power, that is a bad thing and we

are allowed two caps -- cast judgement on that. I agree with

what you have just said. Good, second time on the show.

Politicians don't need to betray their partner for me to distrust

every word they say, and Nick says if jobs were affected by sexual

relationships the Liberal and figures would be much higher than

they are today. And a sippers and breaks the law should not cost them

their job. There are far more serious offences committed that

people get away with in politics. We have to bring the discussion to

an end. George text poll vote is in. We asked, should we spend our cash

and toppled dictators? We have double-checked this result. 22%

said yes, but 78% said no, we should not use our cash to topple

dictators. Overwhelming majority saying you have won the argument.

My number went objection is not cost, spending trillions of dollars

on foreign wars isn't the right way to spend money or save lives but

there are other issues at stake. Ingesting in the current climate

people probably did, there were split poles and Libya, the cost

issued the way you printed in the current era of austerity, people

don't like it. Ask, is it right that we intervene in another

country to save thousands of any human beings dying and you will

find the reverse? Effectively it is the same question, just a from the

phrase. It is the way you phrase the question. I agree with you bob.

Amazing. It also demonstrates sometimes leadership is about doing

what you know to be right which is something Prime Minister Cameron

and Sarkozy have done. You don't always look at the opinion polls

first. Does it disappointed that is the result of with what you have

seen? No, it doesn't disappoint. It is understandable. With what I have

seen in my life the fact of the matter is often I saw really big

wrongs being done, and our armed forces stopped people dying. Do you

know what? It is the most noble thing. I remember when I was told

when I was in Bosnia, shortly after I arrived, I had to prepare a

withdrawal plans and I went to some of my soldiers and said we have got

to plant one with Coral and visit we are not leaving here, because

the people here depend on us to save their lives. That is why we