Episode 4 Sunday Morning Live

A moral quagmire of almost biblical proportions, that is how the

business secretary Vince Cable described the Barclays' rate fixing

scandal. That -- but despite all that cheating that came met this

week, do we need there greed? Is Good morning, I am Samira Ahmed,

welcome to Sunday Morning Live. Barclays was accused of lying for

profit this week by manipulating interbank interest rates. Up to 20

other banks are being investigated for the same thing. Is this yet

another sign that our bankers are driven by pure greed. The author

Richard D North says so and so is greed is good. It is the greedy few

who provide the goods, the services, the jobs, for the rest of us who

are less red blooded. We need to stop seeing greed as the enemy.

German court has called for a ban on non-medical male circumcision

calling it illegal bodily harm. We will hear evidence from a doctor

that some children are suffering life-threatening beading and

infections. Is it time to ban it? Figures out this week show a

growing gap between old and young. Are the older generation at ruining

the chances of the younger generation? Or are the younger

generation just slackers? My guests are all passionate about their dues.

Diane Abbott was the first black woman ever to be elected to the

Houses of Parliament. She has been called a maverick and a rebel.

Rosie Millard is an author and broadcaster and she has survived

�40,000 worth of debt and wants cover the Oscars in what Michael

Buerk called the Best Supporting dress. Richard D North has written

a book called which is beautiful and wants to ban the BBC. We want

to know what you think. Call in now to challenge our guests on Skype.

It is like a scene that from the film Wall Street. Barclays traders

promised each other bottles of champagne to light about interest

rates. Some say we should punish the arrogance of the banking system

-- system which has left our country on the brink of collapse.

This is Richard D North's Sunday stand. Look at all these headlines.

Anyone would think that capitalism and banking were in deep crisis and

it was because people became too greedy. That is nonsense.

Capitalism has lifted millions of people out of grinding poverty and

it does this good work not because there are masses of people who co-

operate together, but because there are a few people in every society

who are massively greedy and want to get ahead and get rich. We do

not have to like these people, though they may be kind to their

mothers and good fun around a dinner table, but we need plenty of

them. These are the risk takers and they tend to be the Arthur male of

the species. It is the greedy few who provide the jobs and services

and goods that we less red blooded types need. Some greedy bankers

will get very rich showing how safe their banks are for timid investors.

But we will not make Britain a better place by disapproving of the

very few people getting very rich. That is the key question, we need

these people. No, greed is not good. There is a reason why it was termed

a deadly cent and why mothers and fathers tell their children to

share their toys. As a society with an tempered Crete it is morally and

socially bankrupt. That is the question for our vote. His bankers'

We will show how you voted at the end of the programme. I want to go

to your first Bamiyan. This kind of happened under your Government's

watch and your policy was greed is good and greed is working. Peter

Mandelson and Tony Blair thought greed was good and adored bankers.

People have accused me of a lot of things, but not of being part of

the New Labour project. Greed is part of the human condition. Put a

child at a birthday party and they will eat all the ice cream they can

and tell they are sick. But to argue that greed is what has made

other countries is silly. What makes countries work are creative

people, manufacturers, designers and that is not to do with greed as

such. Greed is part of the human condition, but particularly in

banking and financial services natural greed has to be tempered

either by an ethical framework. It is no coincidence that Lloyds and

Barclays were set up by Quakers and the Jewish community in banking

always had an ethical framework. You either had a strong ethical

framework or state regulation. they have broken the rules and they

have admitted it. Sure, but there is no equivalence between those who

are extraordinarily greedy and people who have broken the law. It

is an appetite and a temptation and everything needs a framework. In my

view with luck it will turn out that these people broke the law and

they can be punished and scared. The British public has had to spend

billions to bail out these bankers and the British public should not

have to rely on luck for things to go right. You need a framework and

if you do not live in a society where ethics provide that framework,

there has to be regulation. Otherwise the system implodes.

will not make the system better by making people less greedy or

somehow disapproving of their greed. You do it by making the law better,

at the market better and by inducing in bankers, which they

seriously lacked, a sense of their own professional dignity. None of

that has got to do with being greedy. But they broke the law. So

they get off Scot free or give back some of their bonuses? You are not

listening. You have to drop a line? You do not draw a line on their

greed, you surround it by the legal framework. If they broke the law,

they should be punished. In the specific area of financial services

greed is a problem and the reason it is a problem be caused of the

bonus system. In the heyday before the crash what happened is the

greedy bankers were chasing you on your bonuses and they got them on

the basis of how much money... they got fined for spoiling the

reputation of their firm, then they should get a bonus for the good

they bring the firm. Chasing greedily short-term bonuses nearly

destroyed the international banking system. We have got a financial

view, it is from Reuters. Does Crete have a role? Does that not

motivate bankers to do their best? Greed is defined as an a measured,

excessive desire for good. Greed cannot really be a good thing. It

is a contradiction in terms. Did it disrupt the BACS system? There is

no question, it disrupted it, it made it worse. There were risks

that were inappropriate. That is what Crete is supposed to do, it is

supposed to make you do things that are foolish. The idea that it is a

source of good things does not make sense, it is a contradiction in

terms. Greed is the downside of the search for prosperity. The word co-

operative is coming up at the moment. The Co-operative Bank in

the UK is taking over some branches of Lloyds. Should we go back to the

Quaker model, the corporate of mutual? Yes, I am a big fan of

mutual banking. Co-operative Bank, those that are not run for profit

is a very successful system. There is a very modest role for more

risk-taking banks. I want to bring in another contributor on the

webcam. Bankers make a lot of money and we have already had to bail

them out. The bonus culture is part of the problem. They are not

contributing to society. There is understandably a sense of injustice

about what has gone on in the banking sector. But the top 1% of

income earners in this country pay more than a quarter of all income

tax. When you think about the number of hospitals and schools

that contributes to, when you look at the banking sector you consider

the number of jobs it creates and the role it plays in terms of

investment. What has gone wrong is that taxpayers ended up bailing out

banks. We need to move forward. What we need to make sure is that

we have a situation where taxpayers do not bail out banks again and we

build a society where we buy you all those people who create wealth,

including bankers. They pay their income tax. We have paid about as

much to them bailing them out. This whole thing about how we need the

bankers, where are their charitable works? There was a very good

programme on the other day about a street in London where houses were

all worth �6 million all bought by bankers. They do not take part in

the Big Society. Where is that with the bankers? Absolutely nowhere.

They have caused a double-dip recession. They have helped the

global financial crisis and austerity measures for us. The idea

that some sort of moral police is going to get greedy out to people...

Hang on. I have not said anything about a moral point. I do not want

to be misrepresented. All I have said is greed is part of the human

condition, but it has to be in a framework. The state has to step in

with regulation. Otherwise it is like the Wild West. There is more

to that. In a sensible market system if your bank has got a

reputation for screwing its customers, losing money and getting

on the wrong side of law, that should turn up in the share price

and investors should find a safer bank. The problem with that things

which we all agree are appallingly wrong was people broke the law. It

does not matter whether they were greedy people or Bircher as, Cuddy

people breaking the law, they broke the law. It is not a question of

making them less greedy, but it is a question of making the law more

effective. I am not saying you can make people less greedy. You could

provide a regulatory structure so that they agreed does not harm us.

One of the problems with the current banking crisis is you do

not have a division between ordinary retail bankers who provide

the jobs and the people who gamble on international markets. What you

need to do is to separate those off. Then at the international gamblers

if they implode, it has got nothing to do with us. Casinos in this

country are incredibly regulated. am not arguing against regulation,

but it has to be as light as possible and as intelligent and as

effective as possible. The doctrine of light touch regulation brought

us the Lehmann Brothers crash and Bob diming saying I did not know

anything. A new design a nice, heavy, clod-hopping regulation. It

is not about that. It is making sure that banks that adequate

resources so that when things go wrong, we do not have to bail them

out. Also manipulating the bonus culture. Why is it the people who

run Rolls-Royce he genuinely produce jobs at not get those

bonuses? It is a disease and we We are having a discussion about if

we should be talking about greed as a moral problem or if we should

just regulate when they break the law? Under a market system, as Mr

North says, you expect people to have a concern for reputation. They

ought to behave in their commercial interests. A company that loses

their reputation can lose a lot of business. Why have banks forgotten

this? Why are banks no longer concerned about good reputation?

The answer is that the normal market mechanism for punishing them

has been removed by government guarantees. You might have expected

a run on a bank that had terrible behaviour, like Barclays, if banks

seemed untrustworthy. You don't get that now, because the Government

guarantees deposits. When you lend money to weigh bank, you're not

concerned about bank behaviour. You don't care because of you get a

government guarantee. The banks themselves no longer work at being

prudent and cultivating a culture of prudence, advertising their

prudence. The economic value of prudence and trustworthiness has

been removed by the Government guaranteed. Isn't there a question

about the greed of us? Shareholders are encouraged to go for maximum

profits, we invest in banks. It's some of the spotlight on

shareholder greed? Shareholder greed, we have all of the good

effects that Mr North says. If it was disciplined, and we are talking

about reining in greed, the market system without these perversions of

guarantees does rain in greed. If you are greedy in a market system,

you have to provide people with goods and services that they value.

It makes you work for them. Vince Cable is talking about

shareholders' revolting against bonuses and pay culture. But we are

part of that system? People feel this empowered. How can we revolt

against banks? Stop using them? People feel deeply powerless. They

look to the Government to take the lead. The Government is their

constituency, they are in cahoots with the banks and the Tory party

is naturally an ally of the banks. Therefore, I suspect they are not

going to be heavy-handed in punishment. People feel powerless.

In fact, though, shareholders have recently got together... Unless the

law changes, they don't have any power? It's interesting that they

are starting to question these huge pay packages and the bonuses, which

I think are cancerous. If you change the law and gave

shareholders more power, I think that would be a good thing. I think

there has been a huge change of character right across the top of

modern capitalism. But that is a matter of their personal

responsibility, the sense of their professional dignity, not a

question of whether they want to get shared loads of money.

viewer says that figures show that cree does not eliminate poverty.

Belinda says that greed is not good for Britain, you can't be greedy

for the benefit of a nation, just for personal gain. That is our poll

You have about 20 minutes before This week, a German court called

for a ban on religious circumcision of children, which is a fundamental

part of the Jewish and Muslim faith. There is evidence from a GP here

suggesting that the operation is leading to serious injury in a

small number of cases affecting very young children. Is a band an

attack on the rights of parents practising their religion or should

the rights of a child come first? A German court has ruled that

circumcision of boys for religious reasons is a crime, sparking fury

among religious groups to carry out the procedure. The court found that

a child's right to decide what happens to their body is more

important than the parents's right of freedom of religion. It centred

on a four-year-old Muslim boy who suffered severe bleeding shortly

after undergoing a religious circumcision. The doctor was

charged with grievous bodily harm, but has since been acquitted.

Following the judgment, the law is now clear. Circumcisions for

religious reasons are not allowed, but it may still be carried out for

medical reasons. Because it came from a regional court, the ruling

only applies to the Cologne area. Lawyers say it could set a

precedent, outlawing religious a consistent across the whole of

Germany. -- circumcision. Some have described it as an attack on

religious freedom. Jews say that circumcision is a commandment of

their faith and have described the new law as anti-Semitic.

If you have a webcam, you can make your point on Skype, or you can

join in through Twitter, phone, text or e-mail. We are joined by Dr

Antony Lempert, from the Secular Medical Forum, and a Jonathan

Arkush, from the Board of Deputies of British Jews. It is just an

attack on Jews and Muslims, it is so fundamental to their faith?

important thing to look at us from the perspective of the child. It's

very easy to focus on adult religious views. From my

perspective as a GP, child safety is very important. The German

ruling is interesting. It doesn't say that circumcision is illegal,

that it could be legal if there is therapeutic reasons and also that

it could be legal for a Jewish or Muslim adult male to make that

choice themselves. This is saying that it is harmful and

inappropriate to make this decision for a child before they are at a

stage when they can make their decision. It is recognising that

the operation is not without considerable harm. Jonathan, it is

a matter of consent, why can't children do it when they are old

enough to decide? In the Jewish community in the United Kingdom,

circumcision, it is a simple, straightforward and very safe

procedure. It is carried out on baby boys in a community, more than

1000 per year. Any sort of complication is virtually unknown

in this country. I am with Anthoney that it should be carried out

competently. If it is regulated, as it is in the Jewish community in

this country, there are no incidents of problems. But consent

itself, you don't accept that babies and infants are too young to

consent? They are too young to consent. They are too young to

consent to lots of things in the way they are brought up. But

parents have the legal right to make the decision for their

children, which is in the best interests of the children. My

argument, which I might go back to later, is that it is in the best

interests of children that are brought up in the Tennant's lager

ancient faith to have a circumcision. It would be very

cruel to deny them a circumcision. By the time they are 18, they had a

pretty rough time because they look different from their fellow Jewish

children. When they are 18, the operation is painful. It is not

when you are a baby. wholeheartedly disagree. There are

many children nowadays, many adults, who do not follow their parents

traditional religious beliefs. These children must be given the

same standards that we give all children in terms of safeguarding.

There are good standards already in terms of doing medical procedures

on anybody. As a doctor, I have to think very carefully about the

balance of risks and benefits when I treat a child or adult without

capacity. You must always take the least restrictive option. You must

think about whether the person will later have the capacity to make the

decision and also what is in the best interests. I take Jonathan's

point about them looking different, the same arguments were used in

terms of the law on female genital mutilation, which were very clear.

Section 15 says that it is very clear that the argument that it is

in it the best interests of the child to be part of their community

is thrown out because it does not hold water. These children must be

allowed to make their own decisions. The comparison with female genital

mutilation is deeply unfair. It is a harmful, invasive procedure, a

horrible thing to do with any child. There has never been a medical

reason for that? Circumcision does not come into that category. What I

was interested is that he is out of step with his own regulatory body,

the General Medical Council, and his own trade union, the British

Medical Association. They have both written guidance on the practice of

circumcision for faith reasons and they have both said the

formulations that I made earlier, that it is a doctor to respect what

is in the best interests of the child and take into account

parental wishes. It is certainly true that the doctor has' the

regulatory authorities sits on the fence at the moment. In terms of

the Medical Association, they have even said that circumcision may be

illegal under existing legal standards. I need to come back on

the point about the misperception that circumcision does not cause

harm. The evidence is growing quite dramatically, even over recent

weeks, about the harm. We know already that many adult men suffer

enormous harm. But they do not speak about it, a lot of them. A

lot of them get ridiculed when they do. We know from evidence that the

part that is removed is one of the most sensitive parts of the penis,

alters their sexual function for life. We know it affects their

partners, from a study published last year in Denmark. We had

evidence from the FE mayor -- Freedom of Information Research,

that show that in one hospital alone, in one year, 2011, the

serious, life-threatening complications, including

haemorrhage, infection, children admitted to paediatric intensive

care units was 11. 11 people in intensive care with serious

complications. If you were Jewish, do you think this is something you

would do? It is fundamental to so many families? It is. It has been

going on for thousands of years. For Muslims, Jews, children in hot

countries, it is clearly enshrined in Jewish faith. I think the fact

that it is a German court that has stuck their head up above the

parapet and said, no, no, no, I think it is deeply culturally

insensitive. Let's not forget that two-thirds of Europe's jury was

wiped out by the Germans. They sent 1 million children to their deaths.

And circumcision was one of the ways they used to look for them as

well? Leave Jewish practices alone. Let them get on with their faith.

Circumcision is a key part of Jewish faith. The German embassy in

London gave a statement a couple of days ago. They said the decision in

Germany deviates from the usual legal rules in Germany. The embassy

would not have said that without the Government support. A baby they

said it because it was Germany? They have stuck their head above

the parapet. It is a relatively lower court decision. I'm sure it

will be appealed and I am confident it will be overturned. I fully

support freedom of religion. These babies and children have not yet

formed their view about what their religion is going to be. These

babies and children must be allowed the opportunity to to do that.

you would say that children cannot be christened. If you are not in

some while imposing your own standards on them, you bring your

children that, I have seen, with a secular agenda. That is your right.

I bring up my children with a faith agenda, surely that is my right?

May I respond? I think that is very important. We recognise in society

that of course parents have the right to share their views. But to

make a permanent, irreversible Bordley changed to somebody,

affecting their most private, intimate part, this goes against

every single principle of medicine, certainly the medicine that I know.

I want to bring on a contributor through webcam. There is evidence,

11 cases in Birmingham, they were Muslim children. People are

carrying it out, they are not thinking enough about the safety of

their children. Don't you have to accept, it may be your religion,

but you need to let them choose for themselves when they are old

enough? It is very interesting, the debate. Of course, it is not

straightforward. I have listened to all of the arguments. The faith of

a child does not depend on whether they have a piece of foreskin or

not. Once they are adults, clearly, even if they are circumcised, they

can choose to leave Islam if they want to, or Judaism. That does not

prevent them from making a choice of religion. But answer the

question about whether, when we know there are big relations going

on, operations going wrong, that it is right that religious people like

you are advocating it on infants? What we must do without any had a

patient -- hesitation is to make sure that these operations are

carried out by competent individuals, under clinical

conditions, where the child's safety is of utmost importance. If

we can continue to provide this provision for our diverse

communities, then we are well on the road of integrating our

communities. Let me put that to Anthoney. If it is done in hospital,

it used to be available on the NHS, many children have it done in

America for hygiene reasons, what We come back to the basic, medical

principles in that it should not be performed on the child without

their consent. Two Primary Care Trusts in Birmingham already

provide it on the NHS. But it would be saved. It would not be safe.

They are already losing the most sensitive part of their penis. The

level of complication is still there. The world horse -- World

Health Organisation figures say one third of males in the world are

circumcised. If it is the case that a whole lot of these people have

terrible, psychological traumas, I think we would know about it by now.

But is it not about protecting the most vulnerable when things go

wrong. I want to bring in another contributor. I understand you were

circumcised as a child, but not for religious reasons. It had a

terrible effect on me. I was not told anything about what had

happened to me. I only discovered it when I was in my teenage years.

I noticed I was different from all my friends. I thought I had been

born deformed. When I learnt somebody had actually done this to

me I was totally devastated. When you hear somebody like Jonathan

saying for Jewish children in their faith it is part of their

belongings. Do you accept your experience may not be typical?

it does not really matter whether you have a religion or not. I

receive calls and inquiries from men who are in a religious faith.

They still have the same psychological damage. Do not get

too disheartened because you are in good company because the royal

family have traditionally agreed circumcision and many members of

the royal family are circumcised. You are dismissing his experience

about he -- how he and other men feel. I would say in the Jewish

faith it is the opposite. If a Jewish child was not circumcised he

too would be a different because he did not look like the same as his

peers. I also felt devastated. The psychological damage is bad enough,

but it is when I discovered that physical damage and when I reached

puberty and things that should have been happening were not, I was

struggling with this. I realised it was a double whammy. I do not care

what anybody thinks, the effect it had on me is real and the effect it

has on many men is real. Thank you for speaking to us about it.

would like to say how enormously brave Jonathan is to speak about

this. One of the reasons we do not hear about it is it is so hard for

men to stand up and say, I have been harmed. I have met many of

them. There are large organisations of Jewish and Muslim groups where

people belong and they say, it did not have a serious side effect on

me. There are also individuals who have left the faith who realise

they have been harmed and they can do nothing about it. I want to

bring in a contributor from Jerusalem. You are Jewish. You have

heard the discussion. If the procedure was done properly in a

hospital, would that be the way out? It is about protecting

people's faith, you know how strongly Jews and Muslims be about

this. It would be a step in the right direction and should be

welcomed and encouraged for it to be done in a sterile, medical

environment. But it does not get around the fundamental issue which

is that this is an elected a surgical procedure that has been

performed without the person concerned knowing and it is the

most intimate body part. It needs all manner of -- it leads to all

manner of post traumatic stress disorder at. That is something that

is true as well for Jews. I do not agree it is just those who are not

part of the Jewish community. you think it is morally wrong if

you are a Jewish parent and you do not have your child circumcise?

I do. The child would know at a very early stage that the

Commandments going back 4000 years of which Jewish people have

faithfully observed and are intrinsic to your sense of identity

and who you are and what you look like as a Jewish male, he would not

have had that. When he is old enough to have it electively done,

it is a much more intrusive and unpleasant procedure. Having it

back at eight days, the biblical command, is the best time for a

child. Obviously it should be done properly and in a hospital. It is

not for us, another grey, to dictate what this group does with

its children and it is for that group to basically decide. With

trial safeguarding we must not neglect their children just because

they happen to have been born in one or other different religious

group. Traditions change. There is a tradition which is a peaceful

welcoming of the child into the Jewish community. If more Jewish

and Muslim parents knew about the harm they were causing their

children, they would move away from Des. One comment, in years to come

people will look back on things like circumcision and think we were

brutal, bling fed and archaic. Discuss. Later on Sunday morning

live, some pensioners may be living in poverty, but for others this is

a golden age. They have benefited from a free university education, a

growth in house prices and generous pensions. But the younger

generation cannot afford houses, they are paying for university and

many of them are unemployed. Is it time the older gave up their

privileges? Or is it time that the younger stopped moaning and worked

harder? Keep voting in our poll. His bankers' greed good for

Britain? You have got about five minutes before the polls close. Or

you can vote online. It is time for our moral moments of the week. A

British man on death row in Abu Dhabi caught selling a very small

amount of marijuana. The he was given the death penalty for selling

one ounce of marijuana. That seems pretty disproportionate to me. Drug

dealing is a terrible offence, it should be punishable by a stiff

sentence. If you live in these countries, you should understand

there are steps sentences, but having said that death for selling

one ounce of marijuana seems to be way out of line. I could not agree

more. I think taking someone's the life away for any crime is

reprehensible, but certainly for minor crimes. People have to

respect the general laws within the countries they find themselves, but

I cannot support killing an individual. We know this is the law.

They go out to work their tax free and this is the flipside of this.

It is a barbaric and let us hope there is a global horror and this

will not happen. It is good it has got such big publicity because it

is outrageous. Will they commute it? We have such a strong

relationship and they always do. am sure they will. This is about

proposals to change the name. it has been changed. The tower in

which Big Ben is housed is now going to be called the Elizabeth

Power after the Jubilee to match a similar power in the House of Lords

called the Victoria Tower. I think this is disgraceful. This is the

seat of our Parliament, the mother of parliaments where the nation has

a safe. It is nothing to do with the royal family. We have too many

monuments with Royal attached to them. Let's have more national

monuments. If that is not a national monument, I do not know

what is. We are giving buildings affectionate names like the gherkin.

Big Ben is the name of that building. I am going to agree

wholeheartedly with Rosie. As far as Queen Elizabeth goes, set her

free. Pension her off. I think the Queen's name should be commemorated

in this Diamond Jubilee year, wherever it is suitable, but I

would not like to see Big Ben changed. It is one of our biggest

tourist attractions. It is called the clock tower, Big Ben is the

name of the clock. That is appropriate, it is not part of the

Royal set up. The Queen is not allowed in the House of Commons.

have deep affection for the name Big Ben and it is an icon. Anthony,

you have got a story about a problem in a school in Portsmouth.

The head teacher banned the peoples from talking. They had to whisper

to each other in break time. headmaster said the noise level was

breaking health and safety rules. Absolutely and it sounded as if the

teachers were getting too much noise in the classroom, so they

were worried if they had it louder they would get migraine. Brunel

might have approved of the solution, give it back to the children and

help them explain what the problem is. They be it is an engineering

issue with the building. The sound of children laughing and talking is

one of the most joyous sounds in the world. It is a mark of

civilisation to be able to talk and eat and they should be allowed to

do it. As a society we seem to be so risk averse. When we disapprove

of something, we ban it. There has to be a balance struck between the

likelihood of harm caused and the far-reaching effects of what

happens when you ban something. Dani to release all that energy.

White our children are always being told to keep quiet. You love them

dearly, but they are out of control. To stop children from being heard

in a school is patently ludicrous. If they do not allow the children

to release the energy, they were just really sit back in the

classroom again. Is this a problem you can understand? Jewish schools

are supposed to be terribly noisy it. The kids are exuberant, but

give them a break at break time. You have been voting in our poll.

The poll is closing now. Please do not text as your vote may not count.

We will bring you the result at the end of the show. David Cameron said

this week he would let rich pensioners keep their free bus

passes, winter fuel allowances and TV licences while telling young

people many do not deserve housing benefit. He is he right to give to

the old and take from the young? Or is the growing power and wealth of

the older generation damaging the chances of young people? Research

out this week suggests the economic gap between young and old is

getting bigger. There is no doubt the young are facing significant

challenges. It is harder to find a job, pay for education and it is

more difficult to get on the housing ladder. Some say it is

because the old are getting it to good and they should downsize,

giving up bigger homes or younger families. They should be lower down

on the NHS lists and stay out of the workforce. But have pensioners

earned the right to live as best they can? They have paid their dues

and endured hardships. Many have no option but to find a job or stay in

work as long as possible. This week as the BBC launches its special

season looking at life for pensioners, the future it seems is

even bleaker. The Government has not told us how high the pension

age is likely to rise, but we are meeting someone who has worked it

out. The Government published a study which suggested a third of

people born today might live to 100. That is quite scary because it is

rare for people to live to 100. question is, who is going to pay

for them? Faced with an ever ageing population is it our elders' job to

step aside? Or in a broken economy should all generations be working

together towards a better future? You can join in on this one by a

webcam or online. We are joined by Jonathan Arkush. Is it right that

the over-sixties have it all and 80% of the wealth is owned by over-

sixties. But they are not means tested for bus passes, eye care,

fuel allowances. Yet mothers with small children are means tested.

The universal benefit for parents has been removed. Children are

going to have to pay to go to university. Students do not get

free bus passes. Wouldn't you rather have free bus passes used by

young people to go and get jobs, or apply for jobs, and old people to

use them to go to museums and galleries? Simon, you have been a

teacher for three decades. Young people do have it tougher now,

surely? You mean children? young people. At well, I wouldn't

have thought so. Things like learning support, there is a whole

industry that now exists. Careers advice. We do everything we

possibly can, graduate schemes, it internships. They need jobs and

can't find them. When I was at school in the 1970s, it was sink or

swim. The only bit of advice... I wasn't given any advice, I was

asked what I had to do when I grow up. You got a free university

place! They are not paying at source. They only pay the money

when they get their jobs. If they don't get the job that pays

whatever it happens to be, �20,000 plus, they don't have to pay back.

All I'm saying is, as far as old people are concerned, they are

living longer, healthier lifestyles. I think we should celebrate that

fact. But they are not going for the same sort of jobs that young

people are getting. Older people, 50 plus, they are not hankering

after some young apprentices scheme, some graduate scheme at Marks &

Spencer or wherever, or any other high street retailer. The sort of

jobs they are going for it is different anyway. 80,000 pensioners

who live abroad claimed their winter fuel allowance. That costs

our country �10 million. That is a nonsense, if you are living in

Spain on your pension and claiming winter fuel allowance, madness!

may be an anomaly if you can claim your allowance if you are abroad,

but I think she is falling for something that the Government is

using as a tactic, turning old against young, indigenous people

against immigrants, there are challenges facing young people but

they are not because old people have a pension they can live on. It

is because we are now having to spend billions as a society to bail

out the banks. Because we have a generation of politicians who

believe in a smaller state, and as part of their pretext for cutting

state benefits they say, look at all of these old people. No. There

may be anomalies, I'm not saying that. But the previous generation

have had it better. The what do you mean, we have had it better?!

baby-boomers got the benefit of all of the free stuff and final salary

pension schemes... Lower house prices, their parents died earlier

and they got hold of the assets. of course, there are a generation

of people who benefited from a welfare state, free health care and

education. But I'm afraid I believe in universal benefits. Its old

fashioned, but I believe that a range of universal benefits. But

you have a taxation system at the high end. Setting old against Young

is dangerous. Old people don't feel they should be getting winter fuel

allowances for staff those people can send their money back. We paid

the tableau that young people had it so hard. When I asked my

adoptive mother when I was 20 a 21, could I have a car? She said, of

course, as long as you can afford to pay for it and pay for the tax

and insurance. Now we see more and more people, they had everything

they want. That's complete nonsense! This picture that they

are hard done by his nonsense. have an actual young person joining

as through webcam. Charlotte Buchanan, you are a student.

Absolute nonsense about you lot of moaning about having a tough? You

just need to get on with it like the older generation did? Yeah, we

do have it tough. It is impossible to get a job at the moment with the

economic climate. They awry internships, but they are often

unpaid. That means you cannot do it unless you have a supportive family

that can pay at least for the transport. There are so few

opportunities. The older generation, they had these opportunities to

work harder, which we just don't have any more. Tell me about your

view on the winter fuel allowance, what could you do with that �200?

So much money! I think it is shocking, it is not even means

tested like someone was saying earlier. How fair is it that

someone who has worked hard and probably lead to a comfortable

lifestyle now... Can I just say, this winter fuel allowance stop and

go let her finish. Young people, �200 would be an awful lot of money.

To somebody with a comfortable lifestyle, it is an insignificant

amount. A left the comfort you with words to say that most people who

are reasonably comfortable, my friends who could claim, they don't

claim. Don't be too worried about its. Doesn't it can automatically

into your account? If you can opt out. Most people don't. We are

joined on a webcam by somebody from the National pensioners' Convention.

In a time of austerity, when benefits are being cut, how can we

justify the universal ones that people like you get on bus passes

on fuel allowances? Thank you for asking me to speak on this. First

of all, the division is not between the old and the young, it is

between the rich and poor. The National pensioners' Convention is

joining with young people in a campaign called generations united.

We think the fact that we bailed out the banks and we had successive

governments undermining the welfare state is a reason for us to join

with young people, to bring back what was fought for after the

Second World War. When you talk about drawing the line, where do

you draw the line on paying people, getting people a bus pass? For

instance, at the moment, means tested pension credit is used as a

line, people below that get concessions that those on a higher

income do not receive. But does that mean that you are rich? It has

been proved that the troubled past helps old people with mobility. It

helps them to take part in social activity and it overcomes stress

and loneliness. It actually saves the NHS a lot of money. Thank you.

A hang on! If the likes of Alan Sugar and other rich people want to

refuse these things on Paul Grounds, that is fine. But they can drive

around in big cars anyway. Also joining us is Ian from the Social

Market Foundation. A lot of people say this should not be framed as

old against Young, is that right? think it is not helpful to frame it

as old against young. But it is true? The Government needs to find

�15 billion per year in cuts from 2015 onwards. It's almost

inevitable that if we are going to keep universal benefits like the

winter fuel payment for older people, we need to find a way to

pay for that. It's either by taxing young people more, means testing

their benefits more, as we heard with housing benefit plans for

those under 25, or about means testing older people's benefits.

All of your pen of -- panellists need to decide which they will do.

If it's part of a social contract. You pay your taxes when you're

young, when you are older you get all of this stuff. Young people

know they will not get these free bus passes. There was the social

contract. The reason it has broken down is not because of the greed of

the elderly. We have a government that manifestly wants to cut public

spending. I would say one small thing. One of the reasons why David

Cameron is reluctant to cut benefits for the elderly, is

nothing to do with social contract, he knows that old people vote.

Exactly, it's classic. I really don't like his old against a young

antics. One of the reasons young people feel they have it so tough

is that their expectations are so much higher than previous

generations. Young people want to do a job that they enjoy. My

parents never expected that. that's not entitlement. A people

did not expect to enjoy their job, they did their job because they

needed to. Is that the trouble? Kids expect too much? Absolutely.

Children were told to go to university, it will improve your

chances. They did what they were told. That was preposterous, that

everybody should go to university. Ridiculous, Tony Blair said he

wanted 50% of young school-leavers to go to university. Why? What was

the point of that? All I would say to young people, and I passionately

believe this, if you work hard and you get qualified and you search

for work and aim high, you will be successful. Never mind about older

people was that really? In the current circumstances? There are

jobs around, providing we take control of immigration, that we

don't allow too many immigrants in, too quickly, to take jobs away, I

do believe that, providing people are responsible about the number of

children they produce, provided we get those factors right. If you

can't afford children, you shouldn't have them. Can I just

say... I have four and I hope they all do look forward to enjoying

their jobs. I don't want any of them to work in things they don't

want to do. I don't want them to live under the ground, there are

young people, students, living underground in a flat because they

cannot afford... Of a basement flat? It is not a basement flat. It

was on television last week. They are under the pavement. You don't

understand. There are elderly people running around in a family

houses, they should be in courage to -- encouraged to sell.

compulsory downsizing? So if you buy a house, you are told after a

certain number of years, thank you, your children have left, you have

to move? A house is more than just bricks and mortar. There is the

sentimental side. Emma, she edits SAGA Magazine. Prosperous

pensioners probably by your magazine. Shouldn't they be paying

back the equivalent of their tuition fees, at least as a gesture,

that we are all in it together? Amongst our readers, we are finding

that they are not living the life of Riley, very few of them. A lot

of pensioners are under a great deal of financial stress at the

moment. Their annuities have suffered enormously from

quantitative easing, which affects how much money they get every year

when they have to buy an annuity. Plus the rate of inflation for all

the people are higher for them than the general population. There are

very few pensioners living the high Not all pensioners are living high

on the whole, but quite a few of their are rattling around in family

homes that young people could move into. It is their property, make

them move out? Do thank you all very much indeed. We have your

online poll votes. We asked if Anyone surprised? I'm not surprised

a tall. Public opinion is moving decisively against bankers and in

favour of some sort of regulation, having something done about the

bonus culture. I'm not surprised. We are fed up of the Leveson

Inquiry and we would rather the time, money and energy be spent on

this disgrace, this banker's disgrace, forget the Leveson

Inquiry. We are not interested, we are interested in the bank has

scandal. The Barclays scandal has changed things? Have a Leveson

Inquiry for the bankers. I still think people will feel powerless

and that they will get away with it. There is a resignation and that 84%.

I have to say, it is an indictment of the new Labour era that Tony

Blair was so in love with bankers. If you were honest, did you buy it

at the time? No, why would I buy it? This guy had nothing to do with

me. In the 90s I was on the Treasury select committee and we

did a major investigation into two scandals, the Barings Bank scandal

and the BCCI scandal. I understood about the nature of banking. Some

of my colleagues, old and better, did not understand until it was too

late. A couple of comments from you. I am a pensioner and I have worked

all my working life. I would happily give up my bus pass that my

granddaughter could have it to get to college every day. I find it

ironic that we are having to justify corporate greed and then

ask for sacrifice is to be made by pensioners. What is the world

coming to? Thanks to all of you who have taken part. Diane Abbott,