Episode 14 Sunday Morning Live

Nine in ten people believe the Government should control what some

welfare claimants spend their benefits on. That's the finding of

a poll this week, but would such action unfairly punish the poor and

vulnerable or in hard economic times, is it time to get tough with

Good morning, I'm Samira Ahmed and welcome to Sunday morning live. New

research shows that most of us believe that how claimants spend

their benefits needs to be more tightly controlled, preventing them

from squandering their money on so- called vices like cigarettes,

alcohol and drugs. This week, the Archbishop of

Canterbury said there were circumstances when abortion is the

lesser evil, but with two Government ministers declaring

their unease with the current laws, when is it right to terminate?

And, the Iron Lady was famously not for turning with Party Conferences,

a US presidential election and a new Head of The Church of England

all in the offing now, what kind of leader do we need now?

Why do we celebrate so-called tough leaders who never change their mind

or change course? We need leaders who're strong enough to know when

they're wrong and when it's right to do a U-turn.

A warm welcome to all my guests. Charlie Wolf is broadcaster with

Five Live and used to be Communications Director for

Republicans abroad UK and an 80s off shore pirate radio. Stefan

Stern is a Professor of Management, has written for the Financial Times

and started out directing comedians in student review including Stuart

Lee and Richard Herring. Derek Hatton came to prominence as the

fire brand hard left Deputy Leader of Liverpool Council in the 80s,

since then he's presented radio b developed property in Cyprus and is

a Director of The Bike to work scheme.

Call in to challenge our guests now. You can give your views on Twitter

A survey this week by the think- tank DEMOS found that nine in ten

believe we should control how at least some welfare claim Anns spend

benefits. In parts of the US and Australia, they've already

introdueed controls and support here has been growing dramatically

even before the economic crisis could it make welfare work better

in Britain today? As most of us feel the squeeze of

austerity, there's growing support for issuing benefit claimants with

food vouchers unstead of cash, effectively banning them from

spending their money on alcohol, cigarettes, gambling and even junk

foods. Anti-poverty campaigners are furious and believe the public are

being fed a false image of people living the life of Riley on welfare.

They argue that the introduction of stamps would rob the poor of

control over their own lives and further stigmatise being on

benefits in the first place. Labour politicians fear the welfare state

is being fatally undermined and that benefits are social security

and work best when claimants have control over their own money. But

there's plenty of interest in the idea of encouraging healthy

behaviour. The argument is that in families, it's the children who'd

benefit. America has been issuing food stamps since the early 1960s.

Britain has twice tried to introduce a similar system for

asylum seek, once in 1999 and then again in 2006. However, both times,

the scheme was aban downed as being both unfair and unworkable with

many technical errors and critics ask if private IT companies should

be making a profit out of welfare this way.

Does the state not only have a right but a duty to ensure that

public money is spent on healthy food, rather than gambling,

cigarettes and cider, or once the money is handed over, should the

individual be free to spend it how they please?

Derek, surely limiting you in some way have people spend welfare is

common-sense? I think it's totally unworkable. Secondly, I think it's

very unfair and thirdly, it's yet again, when a Government is

becoming unpopular, it's looking for scapegoats and in real terms

it's not a major issue, it is for the claim Anns but not for the

country. They are under pressure and they'll go for it. That is the

question today. Should we limit what claimants spend their benefits

We'll show how you voted at the end of the programme. Charlie, they've

been using food stamps suns the '60s in the States and at the

beginning in particular, they were regarded as a huge benefit for the

poor -- since the '60s? I remember them coming in, my father was a

green grocer. One of the problems though is even then they were

getting frauded, people were selling them on the black market,

getting 80 or 90 cent force food stamps. I think it's workable.

Instead of the vouchers, I think the credit cards or debit cards,

electronic cards, they can be topped up automatically by the

government, you don't have to go to the Post Office or wait for a

cheque that gets stole enfrom the post, as has happened in the States

and it has a level of control. If I have to tighten my belts during the

time of austerity, why shouldn't claim ants? Also if the vast

majority of people are paying tax and helping those in need, I don't

want to see my hard-earned money wasted on booze and cigarettes and

pornography, especially pornography. The technology is developing, it

could be less shaming perhaps than the old ideas o stamps and

vouchers? Key personalisation, that's been a goal in benefits. If

we are going to tell people what to spend people on, you have to be

careful how you to it. Ideally a shared process where people have

explained what they are going to do, not a voucher saying "eat your

greens", you know that,'s not a nudge, it's a shove. People knead

to feel like them a say. You are famous for going on the record

saying people are obese because they are eating the wrong stuff and

they should exercise. Wouldn't this reform be doing exactly what you

are saying people are too weak to do for themselves? I'm not saying

the principle of people using the money better than it may be at the

moment is wrong, but if we are talking about public money, does

that mean the people who're gambling, pornography or what

that's got to do with it I don't know, but anyway, pornography or

using it the wrong way, does that mean people who're MPs, people in

the BBC, anybody in the same position, should we give them food

stamps as well. They are still publicly accountable. But it's the

idea that if people are in receipt of welfare... These are people

coming for help and if they want it I'm glad to give it but use it for

what it was intended for. If I'm paying an MP and giving him

expenses, he has to right to deem it fit for whatever purpose. If you

are receiving social security, I think that should come in on a card

and that should be your money to spend because that was something

you have pad into the system to use. It's different when you are older

like for a pension? That's something you have paid in for for

years. You have a right to that. When you are asking for help, it's

the nanny state, but you are helping for nanny to help you in

the way that it wants. People have illness or because they can't get

jobs, generations are not working and all of a sudden we are saying,

you must do this. Where is the indication, by the way, that the

majority spend it on drink, alcohol and pornography, I don't know where

you got t that one from. It's in the report. I've never found

anybody who brings that out, they talk about the economy and lots of

things but I've never said anyone saying people on welfare with

spending their money on pornography. We need to be careful about the odd

extreme cases that can get bigged up. There would be concern if you

read a scaremongering story in the paper, but we are talking about

people on tight budgets, it's a miserable existence. They are not

people who're enjoying the circumstances they are living in

and we need to be careful about that. Absolutely right. If they are

spending it on food, why would it matter if they are getting a card

that they spend on food if they are acting responsibly. If they are not

spending it on cigarettes and alcohol, leave pornography out if

it upsets you, Derek. It's not upset me at all. If you see people

on the street, are you going to give them a �20 note to spend on

booze or pornography... You are being told not to give money to

beggars, give to it a charity. could buy a meal. The issue is why

they're there, the issue is how much money they are getting, the

issue is not what they spend it on. As was said here, people live on a

terrible existence because they have generations of people that

haven't worked. That's the reality and it would be better for the

Government to talk about how they can get them into work and get

money on their pocket rather than minimise what they've got. If you

live under the States under Mr Obama, it's gone from 32 to 47

million, risen 50%. What concerns me, on the taxi ride here today, it

came up by chance, this guy was talking about all the people in his

neighbourhood on benefits who have the biggest TVs and the nicest

holidays, so obviously I don't think they are doing as badly as

you are making out to be. I'm not saying there are no people that are,

but people are gaming the system. Where are these people? I would

love to know where they are. I want to bring in a couple of

contributors who might help answer that. Neil Cooper, the director of

church action on poverty. There are people out there watching who feel

there is a problem with scroungers, there are Government campaigns

about speeblging up if you know someone claiming when they

shouldn't - tsh speaking. I want to challenge the stereotypes that are

behind this. The language is so emotive, scroungers and feckless

which has already been used on the programme. The vast majority of

people on benefits are disabled, sick, they've been made redundant.

It's not a problem of their own making. They are under incredible

pressure, their lives if they're on work related benefits are not their

own already. They have to go and find work, they have to show

evidence that they are finding work. If they do voluntary work, they are

penalised for that because they are not available for work. We have a

streak within society which is incredibly dangerous, I think,

which is blaming people for the problems which are not of their own

making. I don't see that this is any sort of issue, it's making

matters worse. Seany O'Kane who mentors young fathers, we are

hearing a lot of people say the idea of food stamp-type controls on

welfare is humiliating but I gather you think that there could be

positives in it? Well, no. The whole idea of it being positive, no,

it's very circumstantial. I would say that it's true there are people

who are second, third, fourth generation in this country who've

never worked, who have adopted obviously their parents ways and

there's been no expectation of them to work. I wouldn't say overall

it's positive, no. I would say what we need to look at is the fact that

people are already marginalised as it is in society by stigmatising

something for them that they've obviously got no control over is

making it more difficult and it will lead, I believe, to people

trying to find ways of a means in another way if they can.

Also, you have got people who are out of work who've been working for

years and years to then suddenly rely on the welfare state and then

to stigmatise those people, to tell them where they can spend their

money and how they can spend their money, it's just not possible. It's

not realistic. Thank you very much. Charlie? I don't buy the stigma

thing. Maybe it's an American thing. This is a peculiar thing I find

about the British is we are all worried about offending people that

come to us for help. We should help people but there's a lot of people

that get stuck on the benefits system and there are a lot of

people that don't know how to use them. People are generations into

this. Help them, don't give them money to spend on booze then they

are stuck back where they started. It's interesting, didn't the

government claim to have identify a hard core of individual who is had

endemic issues and that perhaps this is part of a potential

solution to break that cycle? were extrapolating from a small

number and got a much bigger number. When pushed on the bigger number,

we didn't get any evidence on who the 140,000 families were. We are

in dangerous territory, but people on small budgets may need help.

That is the clear point. What would you stugt, because food stamps is

too tough, you say, but some families won't do it for themselves.

There's evidence where there's abuse, alcoholism and drug

I want to bring in another contributor. Philip Blond is a

journalist. He is head of a right of centre think-tank. What is wrong

with the idea of having universal credit? In principle they is

nothing wrong. I think the idea of targeting benefits should only be

for a minority of people. There are people in the benefit system who

are very vulnerable and in trouble, drug addicts and alcoholics. One

could imagine that those families would benefit from saying, this

money is directly for food. The trouble of -- the trouble with the

universal credit is that it will go to the head of the household. Some

of those families will be in trouble if the head of the family

spends it on alcohol and cigarettes. In that sense, targeted benefits

would really work. Perhaps it could work on a voluntary basis. But the

real key is that if we do these card payments correctly, they can

actually function as bank accounts for vulnerable people, a brand new

form of financial instrument that will enable the people who do not

have bank accounts, 1.5 million people, to have access to a form of

credit. It will allow people to be financially included within the

system. I know people who are not on benefit where the money going

into the house told us not going to looking after the children. The

children do not have enough to read. The mother does not get enough

money to make sure they are fed. We are scapegoating those on benefits.

There are lots of families in this country where the money is not

going where it should. This is entirely wrong. This does not help

the problem. Instead of money coming in that is made out to the

mother, our money that goes into the father's bank account that the

mother never sees, here is a way of the person who needs the money

getting it. It will go towards the necessities that the family need.

If that is the case, it should be for everyone who gets any sort of

money from the public purse. You cannot have money and only have

food stamps. This is 2012. With the technology, we have the ability to

structure it. If it is jobseeker's allowance, yes. In certain areas of

social welfare, it should be restricted. Is there not an ethical

dilemma of private IT companies making lots of money by

administering these schemes? Yes, absolutely. We know that

outsourcing can lead to a whole host of problems. Government

procurement of private sector services is not a very happy story.

We have to go carefully. I want to bring in some comments from viewers.

Martin says, during hard times, why do we always ask questions about

the spending habits of the poor? Carroll says, I spend my benefits

on food and bills and after that, I have nothing left. Thank you for

your contributions. CalMac opinion poll question today is, should we

limit what benefit claimants can spend their money on? The details

You can vote online by going to our website. There are 20 minutes

before the opinion poll closes. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan

Williams, said that there were no easy answers to solving ethical

issues such as abortion. He said the uncertainty around when life

begins leads to difficult questions about whether abortion can be the

lesser evil. A row has broken out in the Conservative Party over

Jeremy Hunt's comments that he would oppose abortion after 12

weeks. Since the Abortion Act of 1967, the termination of a foetus

has remained one of the most divisive social issues in Britain.

Now the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has told a newspaper that he

personally backs a 12 week abortion limit. The new women's minister

says that she would like to see the limit Lord from 24 to 20 weeks. She

said she was speaking as a feminist. Pro-life organisations see abortion

as evil and the murder of an innocent life. Some disability

rights campaigners have challenged the idea that it is a lesser evil

to abort foetuses with severe disabilities. With nearly 200,000

abortions carried out in England and Wales last year, many social

commentators are worried that abortion is viewed by some as a

form of contraception. But the Royal College of obstetricians and

gynaecologists says there are no medical grounds to reduce the limit.

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service says that only 8% of all

abortions are carried out after 12 weeks anyway. Is abortion a lesser

evil? Is it a form of Tanis or is it time to redraw our boundary off

when the termination of an unborn human is acceptable? You can join

the conversation at home on Twitter. The details are on the screen.

Joining us for this discussion are Dame Ann Leslie, one of the most

influential journalists of the last 40 years. She has covered all the

presidential elections since Jimmy Carter. We're also joined by

Bernadette Smyth, a dedicated feminists.

You can remember when abortion was illegal, when the Abortion Act came

in in 1967. Have attitudes to abortion got to Cashel? Yes. Let me

start by saying that when I was young, I committed a sin against

the religion I was born into, Roman Catholicism, and a crime against

the state. Not because I had an abortion, but I are ranged

abortions for a lot of my friends. I always think of feeling as the

abortion capital of the world because it was full of illegal

abortion is. I thought I did not need an abortion because I was

careful, but it turned out for various reasons that I was

infertile. As you get old, you get less dogmatic about things because

you have so much experience of life and the oddities of human nature.

In terms of where the debate is now, why do you think it is that

people's attitudes are too loose to abortion? I was in favour of the

abortion Reform Act under Lord Steel. It had lots of caveat about

it. It was not intended to be an alternative to contraception. I

feel very uneasy about that but I do not wanted to be abolished. It

should not go down to 12 weeks. 20 weeks. Byrne are dead Smith, why do

you think there is brand new interest in this and people are

speaking about reducing the limits, are the attitudes changing? This is

a time for change. We can now see the unborn child through ultrasound.

There are brand new three- dimensional scans. As women, we can

see our babies, we can see them moving and their features. I think

women are more aware that the unborn child is in fact, I growing,

living human being that should be protected. Derek Hatton, I was

looking at the statistics are round abortions. One third of all

abortions now are repeat abortions. Can you see the concerns that the

way abortion is being used is causing social concern? I can

understand. I do not agree with Bernadette. I can understand her

religious perspective. I do not agree with it, but I can understand

it. I cannot understand the argument about the limit in the

number of weeks. The reasons why women have abortions are many and

the only person in the world that should have that choice is the

woman. It is her right to choose. She is the one that has got to look

after the child and what happens to the child in the future is a result

of that. I have to struggle with this. It is part of the culture

wars in America. I went to America and I went to see a abortionists

and anti-abortionists. Also, the right-wing religious pastas who

Council, for example, a man who has shot an abortionist. Before he was

executed, this pastor wind. He was clear, we believe in the death

penalty, we are killing killers. Slightly like Bernadette, I sot in

the abortion industry, I saw it was very lucrative. They would show me

an aborted child, and you cannot then say, a woman has to have

control over her own body. A foetus is not her own body. It may not

have the same gender or blood group as her. It is something else.

Obviously you have to balance the needs of the baby and the needs of

the mother. I just want to get a medical view. We are joined by Dr

Sarah Chan, a research fellow in bioethics at Manchester University.

I understand that there is no medical reason to change the law.

Do you think there is? I am not a medical doctor, but I would

certainly say there are no good moral reasons to support a

reduction in the time limit. If there were to be any change in the

law, I think the moral arguments would favour the opposite. In my

view, abortion is morally acceptable under most if not all

circumstances. I would want to move the time limit downwards. I think

this represents a move to restrict women's access to Rajiv -- to

reproductive health services. It would deny them control over their

own fertility and their own lives. Repeat abortions are not allowing

women control. There are other ways, you can get contraception. Having

repeat abortions is carelessness. Yes, there are concerns about that,

but we need to look at the reasons why women are presenting for these

abortions. We need to look at the personal circumstances that lead

them to be in that position. I do not think the answer is to deny

them access. Dr Trevor Stammers is a lecturer in medical ethics in

London. I understand you have always been anti- abortion as a

doctor. Why do you think more people are now sharing your view?

We have heard some of the reasons and they relate to the ability to

visualise the unborn baby and so on. It almost produces bonding with the

mother. Attitudes towards disability are fast-changing as

well. Although I actually agree with Derek Hatton on this, that the

maturity of the foetus is neither here nor there with regard to the

moral argument, neither is the 24 week limit as it is currently in

place for abortions. It is not relevant when it comes to testing

for Down's syndrome. We have heard lots of rubbish in the news about

how it would be fact that. The legal situation in this country at

the moment is that you can a border Down's syndrome baby one day before

it is born. The culture wars over People feel the abortion laws are

stigma miezed -- stigmatised. keep saying people are getting more

concerned about abortion. I don't know where this comes from, I don't

see this or sense that at all. A couple of journalists and MPs

decide to make it an issue and all of a sudden it's an issue. In the

main, people are not. In the main people accept the fact that of

course repeat abortions aren't good but it's no good talking to

somebody who's having an abortion saying this is what contraception

is, it's too late. I've been campaigning on the streets of

Northern Ireland and the World Health Organisation said Ireland is

the safest place in the world for women. What we are looking at here,

not women who've had problem pregnancies, we are looking at

women who may have crisis pregnancies and we need to

eliminate that, not destroy the life of an unborn child. We are

living in a culture of death where if a young people becomes pregnant,

down to the abortion clinic, quick fix. We can see the effects it's

having on the women. You do describe yourself as a feminist, I

know many women who do say how is it feminist to say we should force

teenage girls, rape victims to carry babys to full term or babies

of a disability? It's destroying a life. It's the women as well, it's

her life and she has to look after that life in the future and that

life may be a total problem. We are literally destroying live force the

sake of social reasons. 99.9prts of abortions are for social reasons --

99.9%. Don't you think there is a touch of religious arrogance with

that line. At the end of the day, it's nothing to do with you,

nothing to do with you if that young teenage woman who happens to

not want a kid, if she wants an abortion, it's up to her and not

you. This is very relevant now. I want to bring in Varria Russell

White who had an abortion ten years ago. There is a system set up to

give you advice, did you feel you made a fully informed choice, was

it the lesser evil in your case? my situation, it wasn't a choice

for me, it was something that happened because I didn't feel

supported in my decision to keep my child. So it wasn't a positive

choice for me. Hearing guys from the panel, the guy who is saying

that women want to have it as a choice, it's not about choice, we

have to realise that there is a life there. I've got three

beautiful children and when carrying them, I saw scans of them

and I connected and bonded with them right from the stage they were

in my womb, so it's not just a blob of tissue, women have a real

connection to their babies. Some times the lady is right about

social issues which need to be addressed and that's why women go

for repeated abortions. We need education around issues. It's

interesting we are getting the same view on both sides. Ann? Why I

don't want it to be abolished and... I want to establish that as a fact

that most abortions are being carried out within 12 weeks. 91%,

yes. I want it to come down to 20. When working in America, one

familiar of the women's clinic, there were babies of a certain

gestational age, they were struggling to keep them alive, they

were wanting to keep them alive because the mother wanted them. The

next floor, baubs of the same age were being killed off -- babies. I

felt that in a way, we've almost overemphasised the mother's choice.

It's too different forms of technology isn't it. We'll have to

end it there. Sorry about that. can't say the baby is not a baby if

you can actually operate on it in the womb. OK. A last line?

reality is there is no difference in a baby at 20 weeks and 12 weeks,

the only difference is size and development. I happen to agree with

that, I understand that. I think it's a terrible religious argument

but I understand that. I don't understand the middle ground, it's

the woman's right to choose and that's always got to be remembered.

We have to leave it there. Thank you all so much. I appreciate

everyone's contributions on that one. Coming up. Vote for me - after

Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and now it's David Cameron's turn in the

conference political spotlight. From tough on crime to hug a hoodie,

the slogans may change, but what kind of leader do we want and what

kind of leader to we really need? You can join by webcam or make your

views known by phone, e-mail or online.

Keep voting also in our poll about welfare benefits and what they

should be spent on. You have about five minutes before

the poll closes or you can vote online by visiting the website.

Time for our moral moments of the week. Ann Leslie, you picked the

story about the fri vat school head who says private schools need to

target more white working class boys after the skin heads you said

-- private school head? In fact, there's been a conference of

headmasters and head mistresses of independent schools, I think about

250, being held in Belfast. Of course, independent schools have

charitable status and they've been told they can't keep that

charitable status which has tax implications of course, unless they

widen their social intake. The key thing is which groups isn't it are

applying? Yes, so they've been trying to widen the intake. The

Afro-Caribbeans want to go there - fine, they want the bursaries.

Asians particularly, Eastern Europeans. It's the white working

class boys. I think that's tragic and very serious for our country

that they come from families who don't value education or aspiration.

We keep going on about the problem of Asian youths, Jihadists and

black youths becoming gangsters. What about the white working class

boys who're completely dropping out. Let Derek answer that. You were

talking about four generations of family where is perhaps people were

still on welfare. Why are there so many aspirational problems? I think

over the years there have been all sorts of different reasons for this.

I didn't know Ann was going to bring this up, but you are always

going to find, you are almost splitting like Asian, blacks...

It's about valuing education isn't it? Of course, I haven't got a

problem with that. Why is it a perceived problem with white

working class boys wanting to achieve in school do you think?

think generally or the years there's been a problem about the

way in which education's been run, there's always a problem about

working class kids achieving whether white, Asian or black.

Instead of looking at the education system, they look at the class.

It's about the system. I want to bring in Bernie, you chose the

story that Facebook are now going to take down anyone putting up

tribute pages to criminals and murderers? It's ridiculous how it's

invading people's privacy. We are seeing people putting up pages,

young girls being abused on Facebook. Last week, a young girl

committed suicide because she was being abused and bullied on

Facebook. That would concern me greatly. I think the Facebook has

lost the plot in a sense. It's not policed enough. Do you think it's a

good thing? Yes, I do. I think it's not about freedom of spaech any

more, it's abuse of people's rights and basically making fun out of

issues like a young person, a baby with cancer, it's funny, you know,

it's terrible. Isn't it strange at the same time the Government are

talking about agreing with who's controlling Facebook but they are

not agreeing to control the media after Leveson. That's being

disputed now and Hugh Grant and people leek that are very much

looking for control. Exactly. University of Essex looked at 5,000

teenagers and found that what make them happy is simple things? Yes, I

brought up four kids so I understand a lot of things about

parenthood. It's a very difficult time to raise this because of

what's happening in Wales but I think unfortunately, too many

parents time and time again wrap their kids in cotton wool and don't

let them play. Let them express themselves. I mean, you know, all

of a sudden, we see something happening in the world and it is

horrible in Wales, and straightaway people go, keep our kids in. 2,000

people get killed in cars every year, we don't say stop them

driving cars. The reality is,, I mean there's more chance winning

the lottery twice than a kid getting abducted. Look at that case

the other day, the young girl was let out as a treat and she was

about ducked. But there's more chance of winning the lottery twice.

The Observer today asks teenagers what makes them happy and it's the

simple stuff so read it. You have been voting in the poll this

morning we hope and the question was: Should we limit what claimants

spend benefits on. The poll is closing now so don't text as your

vote will not count but you may still be charged. The online vote

is closing as well and we'll bring you the results at the end of the

programme. In the US, Obama and Romney are

battling it out for the US presidency. Here, David Cameron is

trying to convince his party and the nation that he's in charge

despite all those policy U-turns while the Church of England is

starting to choose its next Archbishop of Canterbury. So what

sort of leader do we want? Stefan Stern thinks we need to rethink our

take on leadership. This is his Sunday Stand.

Why do we sale brait so-called tough leaders who never change

their mind or change course -- celebrate. We need leaders who are

strong enough to say when thur wrong and know when it's right

right to do a U-turn -- when they are wrong. 30 years ago, Margaret

Thatcher gave a Party Conference still remembered today. You turn if

you want to... The lady's not for turning. Mrs T was formidable and

brave. But that speech has had a disastrous lasting side effect on

would-be leaders. Few people in business or politics ever dare

admit Thai changed their mind. can only go one way. I've not got a

reverse gear. They plough on, head strong and sometimes head long into

disaster. Of course leaders need to be decisive and clear sighted but

that doesn't just mean laying down the law and being dogmatic. Never,

never, never... Leaders need to listen and sometimes weigh up

counterarguments. President George W Bush said that he didn't do

nuance. Look how well that worked out. You are only really a leader

if you've got followers and it's OK if they admire you rather than fear

you. If you are a leader, your work isn't about you, it's about them,

so get off your high horse. If anyone tells me they are a leader I

always ask them this question - what are you in it for? Are you

pushing yourself forward or are you worrying about the future of the

whole organisation? We are living in difficult times.

We need better leadership. The best leaders know their limitations,

admit their weaknesses, listen and yes sometimes change their mind.

You turn if you want to, yes boss I think perhaps you should.

You can join in my BBC cam or make your point by text, e-mail or phone.

We are joined again by Stefan Stern after making that lovely film. Ann,

you said at the beginning you saw all the leaders come and go, are

you convinced that the uncompromising ones are the best?

No, Hitler wasn't compromising and he was certainly a leader who was

much-loved by his people until the very last minute. You go for an

extreme one. Wa about the closer ones? They sold themselves as great

leaders who were going to lead their people to the promised land

and unfortunately their people tended to believe them until they

learned their lesson. I think that a leader, it depends, if you are

talking about CEOs of comaens, they don't have to be voted for --

companies. If you are cleaners in some large company and they had a

vote, they might not necessarily vote for what the board wanted.

Someone like Mrs Thatcher often held up as a strong leader but some

people dislike her? He wasn't at the beginning, I have to say, she

got the leadership almost by default. The Tory grandees thought,

how did we manage to have her?! I went with her to China on her first

visit as Leader of the Opposition in early 1977 and I mean, I thought,

my God, this, you know, silly little suburban squawker with

pussycat bows, I saw her sort out the Chinese. I thought, he's going

You were regarded as an uncompromising politician. Thank

you. 30,000 people lost their jobs because of the budget deficit?

did not think you would go for cheap jibes like that. I thought

you would have researched it better. At No 1 lost a single job. We can

all be ruthless in what we believe in. That is not a problem, a tease

the way that you perform leadership. I remember the day after we took

control when 1983. One of the personnel officers whispered,

remember, you are now chairman of a board that employs 30,000 people.

Then the reality of how you manage hits you. You have got to delegate.

Journalists laughed praising leaders. Well done, you took a

strong decision. Very often these decisions are taken as a result of

them being bad managers in the first place. If they were better

managers they would not have had to make that strong decision. We had a

little video of Winston Churchill at the start of that. What happened

at the end of the First World -- at the end of the Second World War, he

was kicked out by claimant Attlee. People did not want his leadership.

-- by at least. If you are a politician, you have to go for

boards. -- thought. You have to go with gut instinct. I am not against

gut instinct. I always remember a wonderful, literary, intelligent

man. Lots of us wanted him to become president. He tried

unsuccessfully. Someone in his audience said, you have every

thinking American behind you. He said, that is not enough, I need a

majority. Most people are like the political leaders on gut instinct.

People who over intellectualise, I think that is President Obama's

problem, they lose the feeling from the people. We do not do religion.

At least Americans are honest about that. Moses was a great religious

leader in the Bible. Is that why we have difficulties working out why

week -- what sort of leader we want in Britain? I think we want our

leaders to speak plain English. It has got to resonate with normal

people. I also think the reaction from the media in general, they

love this. Over the last 20 years, I always remember when Roy Keane

was kicked out of the Irish squad by Mick McCarthy. It reminds me of

Kevin Pietersen now. The press say, Well done, that was a strong

decision from the cricket board. We have forgotten that somewhere along

the line, the management has been wrong before that. If you have

gold-dust like that in your team, you would deal with them

differently. I want to bring in a professor at University College

London. You were saying that people look to the world of sport or a

business management for leadership? Is emotional intelligence

important? I think it is very important. It is a brand new term

for an old concept. We used to collect social skills. It relates

to the ability to perceive other people's emotions. You can see how

brilliant President Obama is in his speeches, his ability to move

people emotionally. The question is whether he can do that One 2 One,

or in groups, whether he can persuade other people in the same

way. We know that there are a number of characteristics

associated with successful leaders. They have to be resilient and cope

with stress. We know they have to be conscientious. But the one that

is most interesting, literature says that this agreeableness is

associated with successful leaders. --disagreeableness. Leaders have to

take hard decisions and confront individuals. Thank you. We were

speaking about leaders from the past. The younger people today want

tough leaders? Steve Jobs was a big icon too many when he led Apple. He

was not particularly emotional intelligence, he was pretty tough.

Good morning. I think Steve Jobs come -- created an amazing

following for his products throughout the world, but I am not

sure that he had that following in his organisation. Leadership is

changing throughout the world. People are more connected to the

internet, they have more choice and information. Leaders are being

watched and scrutinised and challenge that every turned. I

think that expectations of leadership have increased. People

do not want to be ordered about and told what to do, they want to be

inspired. Did people not just want to know where they stand? They want

to get on with things? People speak about Margaret Thatcher. I know

people dislike her, but some people speak about her with warm memories.

Purposes very important, clarity, setting out your stall and sticking

to it. But not sticking to it in the face if anything, that is the

point. Was Mrs Thatcher brought down? There have been very few

women leaders. There is an argument that Margaret Thatcher was brought

down by macho elements within her party. Yes, gentle men who could

not stand her. She flirted with the many great deal. She was very good

at it. She flirted with my husband. People speak about leaders needing

vision. I have interviewed George Bush and the second George Bush.

The first George Bush, who was only a one-term president, he said, the

trouble is, I do not have the vision, he was much more managerial.

Whether you like or approve of George W Bush, as he did not really

have the vision thing. He had massive charm, and he was actually

much cleverer than we over here as soon. I just get very worried about

politicians now. When I was young, if a politician said, this is my

vision, I would say, go away. These are ridiculous, or old-fashioned

concepts which on the whole mean nothing. The public are much more

cynical, so it is very hard for leaders. There is a great line in

the Observer, it says, authenticity is everything. Once you can fake

that, you're sorted. We see what goes on in other countries. It is

very difficult. In the past, people would only see one way of operating

and they would accept it. But now it makes them think. We need a

different form of leadership, leadership that does not only

delegate but takes people along with it. Lara Morgan is a

businesswoman and a leader of her own company. Being a female boss is

still regarded as a curiosity. What are you lessons on leadership?

would hate to be thought off as a curiosity. We have not brought you

on that way, but sometimes people speak about business women that way.

People speak about aggressiveness, but leadership is actually about

assertiveness. You cannot be fixed, you have to listen to the customer

and admit when you have made a mistake. Business is about learning

from mistakes, that is how people make their money. The ability to

admit assault following feedback makes for added process. Thank you.

Is there anything you would have done differently in your approach

when you were a big political figure? I do not think there is

anything I would have done differently. Thank you very much.

One viewer says, dogmatic also tends to be bullying. Another

viewer says, I find that having the ability to admit weakness and

failure makes you stronger in the long run. How can you be right if

you refuse to admit you were wrong? Are you passionate about a topic

and keen to share your views? Just like our weekly Sunday Stand film

where one of our panellists records there are few, we would like to

invite you to submit your own film. It should not be longer than one

minute. We have placed instructions for how you can submit your own

film on our website. We look forward to being your work and

hearing your views. You're online poll vote Sarin. We

ask, should we limit what claimants spend their benefits on? He is what

you said. 62 % said that yes, we should. 38 % said no. The figures

are broadly representative of others to it -- broadly

representative of other similar research. What is a rear view? --

or what is your view? For I hope that this could be done on an

agreed basis, not just imposed by the state. I think he is right.

Because of the economic climate, people are going to react like that.

But if they had not been asked the question, they would not have

thought of it. It is not an issue. People are more concerned about

their jobs, what sort of money they are getting. They are not worried

about whether someone else spends their money on pornography or food.

The strongest opponents of unbridled welfare tend to be poor,

working-class people who are living in a place where they are working

very hard, they are paying higher taxes, and they have a neighbour

who is living the high life. They are not working or looking after

their own children. They are not paying the mortgage are paying

their council tax because it is all paid for by the state. The very

briefly. People like me, we are not terribly bothered. We have to leave

it there. Thank you so much. Thank you to everyone who has taken part,