0:00:04 > 0:00:06Today on The Big Questions...
0:00:06 > 0:00:10President Trump's first year in office - good or bad?
0:00:10 > 0:00:17And inequality - a scourge or a useful incentive?
0:00:29 > 0:00:31Good morning, I'm Nicky Campbell.
0:00:31 > 0:00:33Welcome to the 11th series of The Big Questions.
0:00:33 > 0:00:35Today we're live from Netherhall School in Cambridge.
0:00:35 > 0:00:38Welcome, everyone, to The Big Questions.
0:00:38 > 0:00:43APPLAUSE
0:00:44 > 0:00:46Yesterday marked the first anniversary of Donald Trump's
0:00:46 > 0:00:50inauguration as the 45th President of the United States of America.
0:00:50 > 0:00:53And it also saw a complete shutdown of the American government
0:00:53 > 0:00:55after President Trump failed to reach a deal with Democrats in
0:00:55 > 0:00:59the Senate over the spending bill.
0:00:59 > 0:01:01It is a presidency that has been surrounded in controversy
0:01:01 > 0:01:02since his election.
0:01:02 > 0:01:04Critics have disparaged his abilities and contested his stance
0:01:04 > 0:01:06on immigration, health care, climate change, North Korea,
0:01:06 > 0:01:12Israel - the list goes on and on.
0:01:12 > 0:01:19Yet the American stock market is booming, unemployment is falling,
0:01:19 > 0:01:22growth is on the up and business confidence is buoyant -
0:01:22 > 0:01:24maybe because one of the few policies he has got through Congress
0:01:24 > 0:01:27was to reduce corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%.
0:01:27 > 0:01:29Yet the uneasiness remains, stirred daily by the output
0:01:29 > 0:01:33from his Twitter finger.
0:01:33 > 0:01:39Has President Trump been good for the world?
0:01:39 > 0:01:54Let's see what the achievements are. Jan Halper Davies -- Jan
0:01:54 > 0:01:56Jan Halper Davies -- Jan Halper Hayes, I said Davies because I'm
0:01:56 > 0:02:04speaking about Stormy Daniels, I had the D where do my head. Never mind
0:02:04 > 0:02:11all the gossip, Fire Interviewee, the book, what has he achieved?We
0:02:11 > 0:02:16have over 2.1 million jobs he has brought, we are at a seven-year high
0:02:16 > 0:02:20in economic confidence and a 17 year low in unemployment. GDP was not
0:02:20 > 0:02:26supposed to hit 3% until 2019, that is where we were in the last three
0:02:26 > 0:02:30quarters. The tax reform has done an enormous amount for bringing
0:02:30 > 0:02:37businesses back and increasing wages, as well as some of the
0:02:37 > 0:02:41savings being passed on to customers. An energy company is
0:02:41 > 0:02:46lowering their electric bill by 5%. But the great deal-maker could not
0:02:46 > 0:02:50make this deal on the budget, we have a government shutdown. The
0:02:50 > 0:02:57statue of Liberty is shut. What a piece of symbolism?There is a
0:02:57 > 0:03:01misnomer that the great deal-maker could not make a deal. The fact of
0:03:01 > 0:03:06the matter is that it takes when you have a spending bill 60 senators to
0:03:06 > 0:03:12pass it. That means that even though we have the majority of the House
0:03:12 > 0:03:17and the Senate and we have the White House, you need to have a bipartisan
0:03:17 > 0:03:24reaction. There was nothing in the bill that either side disagreed
0:03:24 > 0:03:26with, but the Democrats are frightened of another positive thing
0:03:26 > 0:03:32happening. They thought the tax reform was Armageddon, and they
0:03:32 > 0:03:37Trump fail. It is very strategic what they are doing.On his
0:03:37 > 0:03:42achievements, taking away from the depressed Democrats and Stormy
0:03:42 > 0:03:47Daniels or Stormy Davies or whatever, Alan Mendoza, what has
0:03:47 > 0:03:50Trump achieved?You need to look at where the world was at the time
0:03:50 > 0:03:56Trump came into office. We have just had eight years of the Obama
0:03:56 > 0:03:58administration which run down America plasma prestige and power in
0:03:58 > 0:04:02the world and through its actions emboldened some of the worst regimes
0:04:02 > 0:04:07in the world to do activities we would want as he stopped. Iran was
0:04:07 > 0:04:13rampant in the Middle East, it had helped Assad fight his war in Syria,
0:04:13 > 0:04:17it had extended terrorism across the area. Russia has marched into
0:04:17 > 0:04:21Ukraine, nothing happened as a response. China flouted
0:04:21 > 0:04:25international law in the South China Sea and East China Sea and very
0:04:25 > 0:04:27little response again. Starting with that position and
0:04:27 > 0:04:33looking at where we are now in terms of one year into Trump, it is very
0:04:33 > 0:04:36early but you had to look at the successes. He called out the
0:04:36 > 0:04:43Iranians for their brutality, he has had various relations with China,
0:04:43 > 0:04:47pushed one way and pull the other, but it seems to be in a different
0:04:47 > 0:04:51place, that relationship, than under Obama. He demanded European military
0:04:51 > 0:04:54spend more, which we knew was necessary, and they have been
0:04:54 > 0:04:58responding. North Korea is sitting at the table for the first time in
0:04:58 > 0:05:02two and a half years, speaking to South Korea. There are achievements.
0:05:02 > 0:05:05It is unorthodox and he may be aggressive and even unpleasant in
0:05:05 > 0:05:11how it works, but when you
0:05:13 > 0:05:15how it works, but when you look at the world, and enforcement of red
0:05:15 > 0:05:17lines and international status, it is any much better place than when
0:05:17 > 0:05:21he came into office. Jan, you love that?I did.I feel
0:05:21 > 0:05:27Leslie might want to pick up on some points? We have heard about the
0:05:27 > 0:05:30achievements, an unconventional approach, but paying dividends?
0:05:30 > 0:05:38Very difficult for me to listen and give it any credibility.None at
0:05:38 > 0:05:41all?Given how strong the economy is, isn't it extraordinary that a
0:05:41 > 0:05:46president who controls both houses of Congress has such extraordinarily
0:05:46 > 0:05:49low approval rating is not only at home, for a president only one year
0:05:49 > 0:05:59in, but abroad. The Gallup leadership polls put his global
0:05:59 > 0:06:04approval rating at only 30%, very dramatic drop.Are you embarrassed
0:06:04 > 0:06:08by him?I find many of the policies he has pursued, and especially the
0:06:08 > 0:06:13style with which he has engaged not only with many of his own people,
0:06:13 > 0:06:17many of his Cabinet and the White House and many foreign leaders, to
0:06:17 > 0:06:21be far below the bar of what we should expect from the leader of the
0:06:21 > 0:06:25United States. APPLAUSE
0:06:25 > 0:06:28The problem with this debate always is...
0:06:28 > 0:06:32There is nothing wrong with this debate! The blow people get sucked
0:06:32 > 0:06:35in straightaway to the character of Donald Trump and his activities,
0:06:35 > 0:06:40that is what the media has focused on people have focused on.We need
0:06:40 > 0:06:43to strip away the server stuff, which can be debated, by all means,
0:06:43 > 0:06:48and look at results. He has got them. That is what we are
0:06:48 > 0:06:51forgetting. He has made nuclear war thinkable
0:06:51 > 0:06:58again, that is the
0:06:59 > 0:07:01again, that is the substance of relationship with North Korea and
0:07:01 > 0:07:05their willingness to do certain things, but at the cost of making
0:07:05 > 0:07:11people think that a nuclear conflict could happen.
0:07:11 > 0:07:15That is not fair. The reason there is a conceivable nuclear
0:07:15 > 0:07:19conflagration is North Korea has been unable to develop a nuclear
0:07:19 > 0:07:25programme under the preceding president.
0:07:25 > 0:07:30His comments after nuclear war came after a golfing event, Trump has no
0:07:30 > 0:07:33discipline. Nuclear capabilities hands of North
0:07:33 > 0:07:38Korea, it is due to the policies pursued by Obama and Bush before
0:07:38 > 0:07:43him, not the previous five months of Trump. You don't just get a nuclear
0:07:43 > 0:07:47weapon because you have a vulgar halfwits in the White House. You
0:07:47 > 0:07:50have to spend years doing that. But chatter -- that should been
0:07:50 > 0:07:54suppressed under the previous administration, you cannot lay that
0:07:54 > 0:07:58at Trump's door. Trump is a gift to -- that should
0:07:58 > 0:08:00have been suppressed under the previous administration, you cannot
0:08:00 > 0:08:04lay that at Trump's door. Trump is a gifted keeps on giving, not only to
0:08:04 > 0:08:06journalists but to Kim Jong Un. Anti-Americanism is so important for
0:08:06 > 0:08:09keeping the support of the North Koreans and respecting and loving
0:08:09 > 0:08:13their leader. But I have heard some people make
0:08:13 > 0:08:16the argument that this is an extraordinary achievement by Donald
0:08:16 > 0:08:22Trump, he has made Kim Jong Un look sane.
0:08:22 > 0:08:25Actually I think they are both not as stupid as people like to say they
0:08:25 > 0:08:32are. I think you need to look at their actions and see the way they
0:08:32 > 0:08:40are playing with one another, and I would not call either one a fool.
0:08:40 > 0:08:46Daniel, a Labour MP, you do not want him to come here?No, I think he is
0:08:46 > 0:08:50lewd, crude, a disgusting man, the antithesis of everything that this
0:08:50 > 0:08:55great city here...His attitude to women? Not like Bill Clinton?
0:08:55 > 0:09:01Politics is a complicated business of trying to manage conflicting
0:09:01 > 0:09:06demands, and you do that through diplomacy and the grace and the
0:09:06 > 0:09:09skill that Obama showed was an inspiration to many people across
0:09:09 > 0:09:14the world, and I think it is one of the tragedies that we have had Obama
0:09:14 > 0:09:17replaced by the most pantomime villain. I suspect he does not know
0:09:17 > 0:09:20what he's doing in many ways, his example to young people and his
0:09:20 > 0:09:28example to the is appalling. Just on the point about his morals,
0:09:28 > 0:09:34if morals are important, what did you think of Bill Clinton? What you
0:09:34 > 0:09:38think, retrospectively, of JFK? Those are perfectly reasonable
0:09:38 > 0:09:42points to make, but they did not engage in this foul-mouthed
0:09:42 > 0:09:50insulting of people all the time. Behind-the-scenes, maybe?We try to
0:09:50 > 0:09:55teach our children...Is there not an honesty, what you see is what you
0:09:55 > 0:09:59get, it is unvarnished?Dustup about his economic achievements, what he
0:09:59 > 0:10:06is about is trying to line his pockets and the pockets of his
0:10:06 > 0:10:10cronies, the American economy will not survive through this. Anyone can
0:10:10 > 0:10:13splurge a load of money, let's see where we are in a few years. It will
0:10:13 > 0:10:20not work. We have seen it before. We were told that the American
0:10:20 > 0:10:24economy would be in ruins by the end of his first year, it has never been
0:10:24 > 0:10:30in better health.Wait-and-see.We are waiting and seeing. You are
0:10:30 > 0:10:35delineating a disaster before it happens.He made all these promises,
0:10:35 > 0:10:40where are his steel factories? He has not built an inch of the wall.
0:10:40 > 0:10:45So just because he say something it should exist the next day?! What is
0:10:45 > 0:10:49happening is Apple is bringing back $350 billion, they will employ
0:10:49 > 0:10:5520,000 people. They will be spending over $20 billion in building a
0:10:55 > 0:11:00factory and taking it away from China. There is your first step of
0:11:00 > 0:11:05example of it working.By building protectionism you might get some
0:11:05 > 0:11:09short-term gains, but it will make us all poorer in the long term, that
0:11:09 > 0:11:13is the issue. You can all be protectionist up your own areas, but
0:11:13 > 0:11:20it leads to less wealth in the future.He is not a protectionist,
0:11:20 > 0:11:25he is not an isolationist. It is America first, with the goal of
0:11:25 > 0:11:29bilateral agreements. He does not believe in multilateral agreements.
0:11:29 > 0:11:33It is having your cake and eating it, it does not work.You might
0:11:33 > 0:11:36think that, but just because people develop these deals, these
0:11:36 > 0:11:42agreements for simplification, some of these deals are wrong.Business
0:11:42 > 0:11:50loves the deregulation and the tax cuts. Is he a racist?I think he is,
0:11:50 > 0:11:56essentially, with what he is saying. He is not a racist, he has said
0:11:56 > 0:12:02offensive things, no doubt, he is not a racist. Let's just look for
0:12:02 > 0:12:06one second at what Daniel is trying to say...Do you agree with him not
0:12:06 > 0:12:11being welcomed here?He should be welcome here.He is not welcome
0:12:11 > 0:12:15here.It is embarrassing for a country that the President of our
0:12:15 > 0:12:18close to -- our closest ally does not feel welcome. President Macron
0:12:18 > 0:12:23has rolled out the red carpet, other European leaders have. It is
0:12:23 > 0:12:28shameful that this country cannot welcome him. He is a close ally of
0:12:28 > 0:12:32ours, we should be working more closely with him, particularly in
0:12:32 > 0:12:40the context of Brexit.We have let in some rum people in the past.What
0:12:40 > 0:12:45about President Xi of China, we even suppress dissent in the streets of
0:12:45 > 0:12:50London to let him come.But President Trump is re-tweeting
0:12:50 > 0:12:55Nazis.I was a disgraceful episode. He claims he did not know what was
0:12:55 > 0:12:59happening. He probably did not, to be honest. But he should still come
0:12:59 > 0:13:04to Britain to meet us in that way. I think it is disgusting that you
0:13:04 > 0:13:07can say somebody who is re-tweeting Nazi tweets might not know what he
0:13:07 > 0:13:17was doing
0:13:17 > 0:13:19was doing when he is meant to be the leader of the United States. How
0:13:19 > 0:13:22much longer do we had to excuse these men, they do not know they are
0:13:22 > 0:13:24sexist or racist?! I think it is disgraceful.
0:13:24 > 0:13:32APPLAUSE Audience? Hang fire. Hold fire.
0:13:32 > 0:13:38Hello, audience. Donald Trump. OK, madam?One of the panellists was
0:13:38 > 0:13:43saying that the media are always focusing on his character. The
0:13:43 > 0:13:49things he is tweeting about, it is absolutely absurd. He is a racist,
0:13:49 > 0:13:52he is a misogynist. He is targeting communities, splitting families by
0:13:52 > 0:13:57signing orders from the White House. If he did not mean what he said, why
0:13:57 > 0:14:02did he tweets these kind of things? It is unacceptable, he is
0:14:02 > 0:14:05normalising hate and bigotry and it is totally unacceptable.
0:14:05 > 0:14:12APPLAUSE You are not in?
0:14:12 > 0:14:17When he came into office, quite a few people thought it would be OK,
0:14:17 > 0:14:22the hyper polarisation will reduce, everyone will be united in their
0:14:22 > 0:14:27hatred towards him almost, but that has not happened, with the
0:14:27 > 0:14:31Government shut down. They only needed ten Democrats to votes in
0:14:31 > 0:14:37favour, that did not happen. I think that overrides some of his
0:14:37 > 0:14:41characteristics, the fact that there can't be that push forward for the
0:14:41 > 0:14:45betterment of the nation when there is the claim it is America first.
0:14:45 > 0:14:50It is interesting, is anybody in the audience who would describe
0:14:50 > 0:14:54themselves as somebody sympathetic in any way to what he has achieved?
0:14:54 > 0:15:03Put your hand up. If you are in any way on Trump's side. Oh, dear. No
0:15:03 > 0:15:12one? This is interesting. Did I see one over year?
0:15:12 > 0:15:17Both sides of the argument are actually correct, I think. He is
0:15:17 > 0:15:21appalling in what he says, but the other side of the argument is
0:15:21 > 0:15:26correct as well. I think he's achieved quite a lot. He's shaken
0:15:26 > 0:15:30things up. I doubt North and South Korea would have got together
0:15:30 > 0:15:35without him shaking stuff up. Interesting point. This is an
0:15:35 > 0:15:41audience who applied to come to The Big Questions. We do not skew it in
0:15:41 > 0:15:45anyway. But I have done phone-ins where there are quite a lot of
0:15:45 > 0:15:50people in this country who are fed up of being lectured to about what
0:15:50 > 0:15:55they should think about Donald Trump. They see it as a liberal,
0:15:55 > 0:16:00intelligentsia media bubble, and they come on the phone and say, shut
0:16:00 > 0:16:04up and don't tell me what to think. You have to go back to the reasons
0:16:04 > 0:16:10why Trump won the election. He appealed to people who were going to
0:16:10 > 0:16:14work every day, working hard and not seeing their efforts rewarded. He
0:16:14 > 0:16:22was very clever. He looked to people who voted for the Republican party.
0:16:22 > 0:16:26He is a democratically elected leader of the most powerful nation
0:16:26 > 0:16:32in the world, and a key trading partner of the UK. I don't agree
0:16:32 > 0:16:36with Daniel that we shouldn't invite him to the UK. We should respect the
0:16:36 > 0:16:41views of the American people and we should talk to Mr Trump. Clearly
0:16:41 > 0:16:44there is no one in this room who would back what he says on Twitter
0:16:44 > 0:16:50or agree with his points, but ultimately, he is a businessman who
0:16:50 > 0:16:54has increased business opportunities for the US, and we should be taking
0:16:54 > 0:16:59advantage of that.I want to pick up on what you said, about people being
0:16:59 > 0:17:06told what to think about Donald Trump. Simon, you were on the News
0:17:06 > 0:17:11quiz on Radio 4, and you said at one point a couple of things that
0:17:11 > 0:17:14perhaps Donald Trump had achieved and positive about him, and there
0:17:14 > 0:17:22was a bit of stunned silence.People not used a hearing that on a Radio 4
0:17:22 > 0:17:28comedy programme! I find it hard to defend him in conventional terms.Is
0:17:28 > 0:17:31very snobbery about this? Absolutely, but it wouldn't matter
0:17:31 > 0:17:37if there was a snobbery if these people hadn't been let down by
0:17:37 > 0:17:41generations of politicians, and the Republican party taking a huge
0:17:41 > 0:17:46amount of Republican voters for granted, in the same way that a huge
0:17:46 > 0:17:53number of Brexit voters were taken for granted. You could make a nod in
0:17:53 > 0:17:56the direction of abortion law and gun control and people would vote
0:17:56 > 0:18:04for them whatever. There was no future for their young people. They
0:18:04 > 0:18:08were promised again and again by mealy-mouthed politicians who
0:18:08 > 0:18:13delivered nothing for them. Obviously, sooner or later, they
0:18:13 > 0:18:19would turn to this old-fashioned... He is like a Burt Lancaster
0:18:19 > 0:18:27character in a 1950s movie. He a two fisted American Bulgaria, but there
0:18:27 > 0:18:33is part of that in the American psyche, and so far he is delivering.
0:18:33 > 0:18:38Yes, the Democrats in the US need to take responsibility for allowing the
0:18:38 > 0:18:43situation to get so bad for working-class people, but he has
0:18:43 > 0:18:47filled up jobs in the White House with cronies from big business, and
0:18:47 > 0:18:51he likes to point the finger at migrants and other people to blame
0:18:51 > 0:18:58for American problems, but wages are not increasing significantly for
0:18:58 > 0:19:03American people. His policies are not going to deliver for American
0:19:03 > 0:19:12working people.Is there, on the subject of what people think what
0:19:12 > 0:19:18they think people should think, is there an Brexit aspect for that? Is
0:19:18 > 0:19:26it the same with Trump? Can you understand the historical forces
0:19:26 > 0:19:35that have led him to be there?Did to our similar phenomena. Brexit and
0:19:35 > 0:19:39Trump both gave voices to the people. I am anti-trump-macro, but I
0:19:39 > 0:19:44am going to say something positive for him. He has been a brilliant
0:19:44 > 0:19:51politician. One of the politicians who can keep his face in the news on
0:19:51 > 0:19:59the front page for two and a half years, as he has, and there is many
0:19:59 > 0:20:03respect in many quarters for his ability to drain a swamp that seems
0:20:03 > 0:20:10undrivable. But my question is, is he a man who can be trusted to
0:20:10 > 0:20:15rebuild? Here is where nuclear weapons become crucial. I understand
0:20:15 > 0:20:20his force as a disruption. He has opened up possibilities for
0:20:20 > 0:20:24discussing certain things that have not been on the table before, but I
0:20:24 > 0:20:30don't have confidence that he can leave us to a better place. His
0:20:30 > 0:20:35inauguration speech, American carnage, is probably the first
0:20:35 > 0:20:40inauguration speech in American history not to refer once to the
0:20:40 > 0:20:44declaration of Independence, not to refer once to the Constitution, not
0:20:44 > 0:20:49to refer wants to the ideals of liberty and the better angels of
0:20:49 > 0:20:57America. It is like Lindsay Graham saying, after a meeting with Trump
0:20:57 > 0:21:02about immigration, he said, Mr Trump, America is about ideals. He's
0:21:02 > 0:21:08interested in power, advancement and disruption, but can he fulfil
0:21:08 > 0:21:17American ideals? My answer to that is no.And there we have it.I'm not
0:21:17 > 0:21:22sure the world wants American ideals from the US president. I think the
0:21:22 > 0:21:27world has always wanted somebody who is going to come in and stop the bad
0:21:27 > 0:21:31guys from taking over. That has essentially been America's role for
0:21:31 > 0:21:39the last 70 years. Obama effectively abdicated that role from his
0:21:39 > 0:21:43weakness internationally. Serie A, I direct comparison between Obama and
0:21:43 > 0:21:51Trump. Assad uses chemical weapons. Obama runs away from it and Assad
0:21:51 > 0:21:58continues murdering and killing. Trump sees when Assad uses chemical
0:21:58 > 0:22:02weapons and strikes immediately. No more chemical weapons used since
0:22:02 > 0:22:08then. There is a red line. You cross it, we will hit you. That wasn't
0:22:08 > 0:22:13done under Obama. Trump has restored that.That is such a
0:22:13 > 0:22:19mischaracterisation. America was in a terrible position with its
0:22:19 > 0:22:26reputation until Obama restored it, as a civilised leader of the world.
0:22:26 > 0:22:32Trump is leading America back down into the gutter. We need that
0:22:32 > 0:22:36leadership, those ideals and values that matter across the world. I feel
0:22:36 > 0:22:43so sorry for the Americans. You are an embarrassment again. I'm sorry,
0:22:43 > 0:22:47but objectively, you look at the power of authoritarian states at the
0:22:47 > 0:22:51end of the Obama regime against the start of it, but they have
0:22:51 > 0:22:58increased. The leadership did not deliver results.Jan Halper-Hayes,
0:22:58 > 0:23:04let's talk about the wider world. We've mentioned North Korea,
0:23:04 > 0:23:08Jerusalem, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Let's talk about
0:23:08 > 0:23:12the wider word and the implications. Pulling out of the Paris climate
0:23:12 > 0:23:17change accord. He doesn't know the difference between weather and
0:23:17 > 0:23:27climate. I'm going with scientific consensus here. This is an act of
0:23:27 > 0:23:31environmental, planet tree vandalism, and our grandchildren
0:23:31 > 0:23:40will look back and they will say, shame on us and shame on him.They
0:23:40 > 0:23:45very well might, but he decided to pull out of it because the
0:23:45 > 0:23:50requirements that were on America's shoulders were far greater than that
0:23:50 > 0:23:55of China and other nations, and we were supposed to act...What about
0:23:55 > 0:24:00taking the lead of the free world? Donald Trump is not interested in
0:24:00 > 0:24:06taking believed. It is America first. People have a hard time with
0:24:06 > 0:24:11that. It means that other countries that have counted on America for so
0:24:11 > 0:24:16long...This is going to mean, ultimately, the deaths of millions
0:24:16 > 0:24:24of people, and it's going to mean the extinction of species...
0:24:24 > 0:24:31Margaret Thatcher spoke against global warming. You are eliminating
0:24:31 > 0:24:35the responsibility of other politicians, George Bush, Barack
0:24:35 > 0:24:43Obama...Don't take it out on me! I am just asking the questions!It's
0:24:43 > 0:24:51been going on for 40 years!It is undoubtedly the case that President
0:24:51 > 0:24:56Trump has taken America out of many things that are absolutely vital for
0:24:56 > 0:25:05the stability, prosperity of the world. The Irani deal was very
0:25:05 > 0:25:10important to stability, and the Paris accords. But we have to look
0:25:10 > 0:25:14at one thing. The United States is not Donald Trump. Donald Trump
0:25:14 > 0:25:18happens to be the leader for this time, but there are a lot of things
0:25:18 > 0:25:23going on in the US right now that are tremendously productive. They
0:25:23 > 0:25:27were there before and are taking momentum on right now. To push back
0:25:27 > 0:25:34what is seen as a president taking negative steps on an environmental
0:25:34 > 0:25:39front...But he is withdrawing funding for environmental agencies.
0:25:39 > 0:25:44But many people are on board with Paris, trying to keep as close as
0:25:44 > 0:25:48they can in the context of a difficult set of politics to hit
0:25:48 > 0:25:56those targets that were negotiated. If you look at the courts, civil
0:25:56 > 0:26:00society, they have been pushing back very, very hard. That is not over
0:26:00 > 0:26:04yet, so there is a tremendous amount of positive engagement in the US to
0:26:04 > 0:26:09try and keep America engage with the world. When we come back to the
0:26:09 > 0:26:13question of whether Donald Trump should come to the UK for a visit,
0:26:13 > 0:26:18it's very important not to collapse this relationship into one that is
0:26:18 > 0:26:24simply about Theresa May and Donald Trump.One fifth of our trade is
0:26:24 > 0:26:31with the US.It's not just trade. It is a relationship grounded in
0:26:31 > 0:26:35intelligence sharing, values and many things. The key for the leader
0:26:35 > 0:26:41of the UK is to frame it in a way that says that we do not agree with
0:26:41 > 0:26:45racist language, but we do need to hold onto what is valuable and
0:26:45 > 0:26:52productive in that way.He has put a spring in the step of many a climate
0:26:52 > 0:27:00change denier. Do you think that if a nuclear conflagration were to
0:27:00 > 0:27:05happen, and a million people were to die on the Korean peninsular...At
0:27:05 > 0:27:12least a million.Would that play on his conscience?I don't think that's
0:27:12 > 0:27:20the most important question.It is a question I'm asking. It's a question
0:27:20 > 0:27:25about responsibility internationally.There is a very
0:27:25 > 0:27:28serious concern by many of us who are watching that Donald Trump
0:27:28 > 0:27:33doesn't feel the consequences of his actions. That he acts without taking
0:27:33 > 0:27:40that into account.That's quite a thing to say.But he has to stand up
0:27:40 > 0:27:45to the threat from Korea. He can't just let North Korea actors they
0:27:45 > 0:27:51are, putting missiles across Japan. That has to be the job of the United
0:27:51 > 0:27:55States to stand up to Kim Jong-un and say, we cannot take any more
0:27:55 > 0:28:01this. Ultimately, the North Koreans are sitting at the table with South
0:28:01 > 0:28:06Koreans. Will it result in peace? We know that when President Kennedy
0:28:06 > 0:28:12stood up to the Russians, it created the Cold War, guess, but eventually
0:28:12 > 0:28:16we got to the situation where America and Russia got rid of
0:28:16 > 0:28:21nuclear weapons.There was an element of logic on both sides in
0:28:21 > 0:28:27the Cold War. Do we have that balance to logic on both sides now?
0:28:27 > 0:28:32There is a feeling in the Republican party that this man can serve
0:28:32 > 0:28:37purposes, including your purpose of standing up to North Korea, and the
0:28:37 > 0:28:43wager is that they can control this unpredictable, unreliable man. The
0:28:43 > 0:28:48conceit in Washington is that the three generals around him each day
0:28:48 > 0:28:51will be in charge and will feel the consequences of going to nuclear
0:28:51 > 0:28:58war. The wager is that these men can control it. The bottom belongs to
0:28:58 > 0:29:08him. He is not the first president to try the madman theory, to make
0:29:08 > 0:29:11someone think he is crazy to submit. It was done in Vietnam's with the
0:29:11 > 0:29:15North Vietnamese, but it didn't work. In the Cuban missile crisis,
0:29:15 > 0:29:20if the military people had been in charge at that point, we probably
0:29:20 > 0:29:23would have had a nuclear conflagration with Cuba. I don't
0:29:23 > 0:29:27feel comfortable with this decision being in the hands of the generals.
0:29:27 > 0:29:31I don't have confidence in this man to make the right decision for them
0:29:31 > 0:29:38is under that analysis, you would be happy for Kim Jong-un when to walk
0:29:38 > 0:29:43over South Korea or invade Japan. You are saying there is no
0:29:43 > 0:29:46possibility that America could withstand and assault in that way.
0:29:46 > 0:29:51You have to have some credibility internationally, so that the other
0:29:51 > 0:29:56guy thinks carefully about his actions. Under President Obama, we
0:29:56 > 0:30:00had no credibility. Everybody knew he would not resist the use of
0:30:00 > 0:30:08force, or even the threat of force. We have dealt with that, if I may.
0:30:08 > 0:30:13The credibility is that he might do it, and that goes down to
0:30:13 > 0:30:16rationality on both sides. The reason we didn't have a nuclear
0:30:16 > 0:30:20conflagration in the Cold War was because both sides were rational
0:30:20 > 0:30:25actors. I believe Donald club is a rational actor, despite an
0:30:25 > 0:30:30unorthodox approach. If Kim Jong-un is not, we are going to have a Cold
0:30:30 > 0:30:37War anyway.Do you feel he is a rational actor? Put your hand up. We
0:30:37 > 0:30:41have talked about nuclear conflagration and climate change.
0:30:41 > 0:30:48What about population growth? He's changed his mind. He used to be
0:30:48 > 0:30:52pro-choice, but he's changed his mind on abortion, which could be
0:30:52 > 0:30:59playing to his base support. He's also withdrawn government funding
0:30:59 > 0:31:03for groups working around the world with women on contraception, which
0:31:03 > 0:31:09is often a driver of fighting poverty and inequality, so that our
0:31:09 > 0:31:15potential impacts on inequality across the globe.
0:31:15 > 0:31:20One of the things missing from this debate, you have said America has
0:31:20 > 0:31:23higher GDP, higher growth, creating more jobs, but we need to look at
0:31:23 > 0:31:27the quality of the jobs. Poverty has increased in America, the median
0:31:27 > 0:31:31wage has gone down. We need to look at the different factors there, and
0:31:31 > 0:31:37the reality. When you say America first, who in America? Not the 9
0:31:37 > 0:31:39million children who will potentially be denied health care,
0:31:39 > 0:31:48it is not the poorest who will have no
0:31:48 > 0:31:53no health care, he is putting first, his corporate buddies. He will be at
0:31:53 > 0:31:56Davos next week, mixing with the billionaires who he said he
0:31:56 > 0:31:59despised, draining the swamp. The first thing he has done is introduce
0:31:59 > 0:32:04a huge corporate tax rate. When you cut corporate tax, you cut the
0:32:04 > 0:32:08resources the state has to support the most vulnerable people in its
0:32:08 > 0:32:10country. Gentleman from the audience is
0:32:10 > 0:32:17shaking his head?I will really put that to bed.I will be the judge
0:32:17 > 0:32:22about!I will try. When you cut corporate tax you create enterprise,
0:32:22 > 0:32:30you create wealth.Not true.That a good thing.
0:32:30 > 0:32:34good thing.Pack of lies.That is where you fund the National Health
0:32:34 > 0:32:40Service and get a better, strong... He has reduced tax rates.If you
0:32:40 > 0:32:45look at the 1980s, there was a reduction in taxes and the actual
0:32:45 > 0:32:50tax take went up. In a strong economy with a big incentive for
0:32:50 > 0:32:56people to go out and work and earn and create wealth, there is more
0:32:56 > 0:33:01wealth to spend on things like the National Health Service.35%, down
0:33:01 > 0:33:08to 21%, it is a pretty vertiginous drop.Yes, but it has an effect.
0:33:08 > 0:33:15Welcome back, Jan. I will consume, Joseph, don't worry. I said I would
0:33:15 > 0:33:19come to you earlier, I am a man of my word. -- I will come to you,
0:33:19 > 0:33:24Joseph.I would like to combine the point about the media telling people
0:33:24 > 0:33:30how to think, when I listen to the liberal comments and how superficial
0:33:30 > 0:33:33they are, and they do not show an understanding of what it's really
0:33:33 > 0:33:38going on. Let's take draining the swamp, he puts his corporate cronies
0:33:38 > 0:33:42in. He has eliminated over 1500 regulations, which has spurred on
0:33:42 > 0:33:54business.Environmental regulations. Let me finish my point. The fact is
0:33:54 > 0:33:58that people go, oh, he has only done things for his corporate buddies
0:33:58 > 0:34:03with the tax reform. What people do not realise is that 95% of the
0:34:03 > 0:34:09private workforce is employed by small and medium-sized companies.
0:34:09 > 0:34:17They have been responsible for over half of the jobs created in the past
0:34:17 > 0:34:2415 years. It is not corporate America that everyone works for. It
0:34:24 > 0:34:29is a lot of the small and medium-size businesses. And as a
0:34:29 > 0:34:33result of an rating 1500 regulations, and he said for
0:34:33 > 0:34:39everyone he introduced he would eliminate two, it is actually 22-1.
0:34:39 > 0:34:45Those are the kind of things about draining the swamp that go much
0:34:45 > 0:34:50broader than just making a superficial comment, his cronies are
0:34:50 > 0:34:54corporate America.Many of the successes that Donald Trump claims
0:34:54 > 0:34:58on deregulation were begun under Obama, I think there is an contest
0:34:58 > 0:35:04over the numbers. He is pushing hard on environmental deregulation and on
0:35:04 > 0:35:09the regulation put in place after the financial crisis to protect from
0:35:09 > 0:35:11happening again. He has increased regulation and
0:35:11 > 0:35:15trade. I think it is a much more complicated picture than you
0:35:15 > 0:35:20suggest. He would certainly like to be seen as deregulating and away
0:35:20 > 0:35:25that is looking out for all people. It is early days.
0:35:25 > 0:35:29Joe Sugg, early days?It is always difficult to say whether the effects
0:35:29 > 0:35:32are coming through from something Obama did previously or it is
0:35:32 > 0:35:36happening now. I think there is a sense of the direction he is
0:35:36 > 0:35:41travelling in. It is interesting this job saying he will put ideas to
0:35:41 > 0:35:45bed and the people saying you believe in triple down, but this
0:35:45 > 0:35:49argument has been going on since Marx, nobody knows. But there is a
0:35:49 > 0:35:54rate of corporate tax which raises the level of total receipts and
0:35:54 > 0:35:58anything above that is basically being done on ideological grounds,
0:35:58 > 0:36:09in order to punish people. Regulation quite often creates jobs.
0:36:09 > 0:36:17The most successful part of the UK economy.But nobody wants those
0:36:17 > 0:36:20jobs, bureaucrats!Tackling climate change, the green economy in this
0:36:20 > 0:36:24country, it has been the part that has done best. This deregulation
0:36:24 > 0:36:29myth that has taken hold has caused a lot of problems to the UK economy.
0:36:29 > 0:36:32We have a very successful businessman who will have the last
0:36:32 > 0:36:36word. I promised you a word earlier, you will beautifully tied this all
0:36:36 > 0:36:42up.I will put a different spin on the Micro saga. I am hearing a lot
0:36:42 > 0:36:54of noise from everybody and a lot of
0:36:59 > 0:37:02disagreement, but I want to look at a guy who said he would become
0:37:02 > 0:37:04president, and a specific part of that journey, and a message to the
0:37:04 > 0:37:06people. The guy said I will become president, he started his
0:37:06 > 0:37:08presidential campaign and through that whole thing he fought against
0:37:08 > 0:37:10all odds, OK, and overcame everything to become president. For
0:37:10 > 0:37:13me as an entrepreneur, I don't care about detail policy right now, I see
0:37:13 > 0:37:15that is quite an inspirational journey and I think people should
0:37:15 > 0:37:18take the message, OK, from a specific section that if you set
0:37:18 > 0:37:22your mind to something, you say you are going to do it against all odds,
0:37:22 > 0:37:25actually, anything can be achieved. Out of the whole thing and
0:37:25 > 0:37:28everything we have spoken about, that is one positive message for me
0:37:28 > 0:37:33to take as an entrepreneur, regardless of whether I agree or
0:37:33 > 0:37:37disagree. I think that is where a lot of people should put their focus
0:37:37 > 0:37:41on, especially when they are trying to create something and they are up
0:37:41 > 0:37:46against it. I quite like that. That is what I will finish on.
0:37:46 > 0:37:51You're hired! Would you work for him?I won't work there anybody but
0:37:51 > 0:37:57myself.Thank you all very much indeed.-- I won't work for anybody
0:37:57 > 0:37:58but myself.
0:37:58 > 0:38:01If you have something to say about that debate, log on
0:38:01 > 0:38:03to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions, and follow the link to where you can
0:38:03 > 0:38:04join in the discussion online.
0:38:04 > 0:38:05Or contribute on Twitter.
0:38:05 > 0:38:08Next at Netherhall School here in Cambridge, we'll be debating
0:38:08 > 0:38:09if inequality is a vital incentive.
0:38:09 > 0:38:12But before that, take a note of this email address -
0:38:12 > 0:38:14audiencetbq@mentorn.tv - if you'd like to apply
0:38:14 > 0:38:16to be in the audience at a future programme.
0:38:16 > 0:38:18We're in Newcastle upon Tyne next Sunday, Southampton on February 4th,
0:38:18 > 0:38:25and Oxford the week after that.
0:38:25 > 0:38:27Cambridge, where we are today, has been dubbed the most unequal
0:38:27 > 0:38:30city in the whole of the UK by the Centre for Cities.
0:38:30 > 0:38:33It is also a very successful city, topping the league tables on growth,
0:38:33 > 0:38:37with its booming high tech sector.
0:38:37 > 0:38:40More patents are published in Cambridge than in any other UK city.
0:38:40 > 0:38:43But while unemployment is very low here, it's not
0:38:43 > 0:38:46a boom town for everyone.
0:38:46 > 0:38:4840% work in the public sector, so have seen their real
0:38:48 > 0:38:50incomes steadily fall.
0:38:50 > 0:38:54And the average price of a house, at £475,000, is 15 times the level
0:38:54 > 0:38:57of average annual earnings here.
0:38:57 > 0:39:02So the success has come at a price for many Cambridge residents.
0:39:02 > 0:39:08Is inequality a vital incentive?
0:39:08 > 0:39:14It would be good to start with you on this, Joseph.It is a vital
0:39:14 > 0:39:18incentive. I came from a working-class background, we
0:39:18 > 0:39:22struggled growing up, my mum worked three jobs, my father didn't work. I
0:39:22 > 0:39:28made a decision at a very early age that I was not going to let my
0:39:28 > 0:39:32circumstances permit, I was going to work hard and I was going to get
0:39:32 > 0:39:36better and I was going to become more successful. But I was very,
0:39:36 > 0:39:43very lucky at an early age
0:39:43 > 0:39:45very lucky at an early age because I saw both scales, I saw the working
0:39:45 > 0:39:48class and I also had an uncle that was very close to me that was very
0:39:48 > 0:39:51wealthy. So I was able to see that there was another life that you
0:39:51 > 0:39:55could live. And I used to compare my father and my uncle.Do you think
0:39:55 > 0:39:59young people see that, they see the flashy and unrealistic lifestyles on
0:39:59 > 0:40:04social media, are those kind of images, that kind of example, a good
0:40:04 > 0:40:10thing?I think you are on the money. You are on the money, mate!Because
0:40:10 > 0:40:14it was my uncle, I saw it as realistic. But if you come from a
0:40:14 > 0:40:22council estate and your
0:40:22 > 0:40:24council estate and your family are not working, people around you are
0:40:24 > 0:40:27not successful and your neighbours are not, you find it quite hard to
0:40:27 > 0:40:29have a realistic vision that it is achievable. But because he was part
0:40:29 > 0:40:32of my family I could see that it was there, I saw his journey and how
0:40:32 > 0:40:35hard he worked. It made it realistic for me, it may did achievable and
0:40:35 > 0:40:38made me see I could work towards that if I truly wish to.
0:40:38 > 0:40:44Can young people see this? I know Stewart wants to come in, but in
0:40:44 > 0:40:47what way is a lack of good circumstances when someone is
0:40:47 > 0:40:51growing up and the difficulties and even poverty, in what way is it an
0:40:51 > 0:40:56incentive?Because why would you want to live like that? Why would
0:40:56 > 0:41:01you want to live poor? That is the incentive in itself, right? If you
0:41:01 > 0:41:05are struggling for food, you have second-hand clothes, you have an old
0:41:05 > 0:41:09banger car, you can't go on holiday, you are saying that is not incentive
0:41:09 > 0:41:13enough to want the good things in life? About one of the issues with
0:41:13 > 0:41:16that is that not every young people can start a business and employ a
0:41:16 > 0:41:24lot of other people. Why?Not
0:41:34 > 0:41:37everybody can own a business, we need some people to work for them.
0:41:37 > 0:41:38Unfortunately the fastest-growing demographic of poverty in this
0:41:38 > 0:41:40country is people in work. People working hard, who cannot lift
0:41:40 > 0:41:43themselves out of poverty.Are they working hard at the wrong thing?Can
0:41:43 > 0:41:46you let me finish? When you have gross inequality, like we have at
0:41:46 > 0:41:48the moment, it damages the equality of opportunity, because less people
0:41:48 > 0:41:50are able to grasp those opportunities. You need families to
0:41:50 > 0:41:54have a minimum basic income to feed their children, you need good health
0:41:54 > 0:41:57and good schooling for us all, that relies on having some level of
0:41:57 > 0:42:01equality to begin with. It means the level playing field.
0:42:01 > 0:42:07APPLAUSE There are the same disparities in
0:42:07 > 0:42:12wealth, education and circumstances? I am not saying that there would
0:42:12 > 0:42:15ever be complete equality, but we have a gross level of inequality in
0:42:15 > 0:42:20our country at the moment, and in the most unequal country in the
0:42:20 > 0:42:24developed world, the US, you are far less likely to be able to achieve
0:42:24 > 0:42:26those dreams than in more equal countries like the Scandinavian
0:42:26 > 0:42:30countries. It is much easier to predict your income based on the
0:42:30 > 0:42:33income of your parents, than in more equal countries.
0:42:33 > 0:42:41We do not have equal chances to begin with?There are equal chances,
0:42:41 > 0:42:43but it is obvious we need to do more to create opportunities for those
0:42:43 > 0:42:46feeling left out of society. The current education system in the UK
0:42:46 > 0:42:50as part of the problem. It is far too academically -based, we are
0:42:50 > 0:42:55missing masses of people who could be taking huge advantage of what is
0:42:55 > 0:42:59happening here in Cambridge, for example.Untapped potential.
0:42:59 > 0:43:04Absolutely. There have been improvements in apprenticeships etc,
0:43:04 > 0:43:07but schools are not genuinely engaged in how we can improve the
0:43:07 > 0:43:15lives of those people who do not meet the five A-C grade. We do not
0:43:15 > 0:43:21need to send 50% of the population to university, it is ridiculous.Is
0:43:21 > 0:43:25inequality and incentive?Inequality happens because of the lack of
0:43:25 > 0:43:28opportunities. If we increase the opportunities to those people who
0:43:28 > 0:43:33are not getting them now, we will decrease inequality. Quite frankly,
0:43:33 > 0:43:37I disagree slightly with the fact that you had to be earning lots of
0:43:37 > 0:43:41money to be happy. I have not always been a politician, I used to be a
0:43:41 > 0:43:51milkman, I was perfectly
0:43:51 > 0:43:53milkman, I was perfectly happy as a milkman, I was earning a low-wage
0:43:53 > 0:43:56but it did not make me unhappy. I knew that I had to work hard, and I
0:43:56 > 0:43:58did. You do not have to be wealthy to be happy, that is completely
0:43:58 > 0:44:01wrong. Not everybody wants to run their own business or be a
0:44:01 > 0:44:04politician or take on the pressure of the senior role, some people do
0:44:04 > 0:44:07not want to do that. But you need to give them the opportunity at a young
0:44:07 > 0:44:10age to make a choice, I do not believe we are doing.Should the
0:44:10 > 0:44:15Government be doing more?I don't think so. Looking at the economic
0:44:15 > 0:44:18evidence, financial inequality, there are lots of other
0:44:18 > 0:44:29inequalities, but financial inequality, which
0:44:33 > 0:44:36we are talking about, in fact...And inequality of ambition.Apart from a
0:44:36 > 0:44:38few strange places like Saudi Arabia, people want to make
0:44:38 > 0:44:41themselves better off. They do not care about other people. I do not
0:44:41 > 0:44:43know who the richest person in Cambridge is, and I do not care. Nor
0:44:43 > 0:44:46do other people. They want to make themselves better off. The best way
0:44:46 > 0:44:49to do that is the Government getting out of their hair and allowing them
0:44:49 > 0:44:51to do that. And in particular safeguarding the quality of civil
0:44:51 > 0:44:53and political rights but safeguarding property, so
0:44:53 > 0:44:56governments and others cannot just...If you are in a public
0:44:56 > 0:45:02sector job and a wage restraint, it is not easy?And that is the case in
0:45:02 > 0:45:04Cambridge, we have a silly centralised system instead of local
0:45:04 > 0:45:10government.
0:45:10 > 0:45:15To say the evidence points to people wanting to better themselves is
0:45:15 > 0:45:18ludicrous. The evidence is overwhelming and has been for some
0:45:18 > 0:45:24time. In countries with a high level of inequality, we also see higher
0:45:24 > 0:45:29rates of mental and physical ill-health, higher rates of obesity
0:45:29 > 0:45:35and infant mortality. You are far more likely to lose your child if
0:45:35 > 0:45:40you come from a disadvantaged background. We see higher rates of
0:45:40 > 0:45:46incarceration, lower levels of trust, and status anxiety. We feel
0:45:46 > 0:45:50we must have what the person know that there has, and that causes
0:45:50 > 0:45:56stress.Can it be an incentive?If inequality were an incentive, you
0:45:56 > 0:46:06would see black people, women, LGBT plus people, women and even,
0:46:06 > 0:46:13storming the bastions of our private schools, elite institutions, the
0:46:13 > 0:46:16media and Parliament, because the entrenched inequalities that many
0:46:16 > 0:46:20people live with would have given them that incentive if this were
0:46:20 > 0:46:26true to go and do that, and that's just not the case. We don't have
0:46:26 > 0:46:31equality of opportunity.We don't have equality of opportunity, but as
0:46:31 > 0:46:36a feudal list, I'm not dismayed by that. I think there is a natural
0:46:36 > 0:46:41hierarchy. I think there is inequality because people are not
0:46:41 > 0:46:46equal, and I think delusions of social mobility are ludicrous, which
0:46:46 > 0:46:50is why we have upstarts like Thomas Cromwell. The thing that no one
0:46:50 > 0:46:56wants to admit in these discussions is that people are unequal. Not
0:46:56 > 0:47:01everyone can start a business. Why? Because we need people to work for
0:47:01 > 0:47:08businesses. Lots of people are just not up to it. There are loads of
0:47:08 > 0:47:12people who just don't have that capacity. Being anxious about social
0:47:12 > 0:47:17mobility is often a greater sign of some kind of mental disquiet than
0:47:17 > 0:47:30simply accept in yet.The point made, if you had entire equality of
0:47:30 > 0:47:34opportunity, and absolutely level playing field, there would still be
0:47:34 > 0:47:38inequality, wouldn't there?Yes there would. We are saying we need
0:47:38 > 0:47:43to reduce inequality to levels of countries such as the Scandinavian
0:47:43 > 0:47:48countries.Give everyone the same chance as somewhere like that.We
0:47:48 > 0:47:54have to make sure there is as level a playing field as possible.In the
0:47:54 > 0:48:00audience, good morning.A lot of the discussion is based around the
0:48:00 > 0:48:05question of inequality being a vital incentive. Let's say it is. The next
0:48:05 > 0:48:09question to me is, is the level of inequality we are seeing in this
0:48:09 > 0:48:17country and the US the level that we want? In Scandinavian countries,
0:48:17 > 0:48:21there is inequality, and that's good for their society at the moment,
0:48:21 > 0:48:25because they do have entrepreneurs, businessmen like you, they get on
0:48:25 > 0:48:30fine. There are problems, but not as many problems as we do, so
0:48:30 > 0:48:35inequality is good, but reduce it. Inequality by definition is that
0:48:35 > 0:48:40there are people at the top and people at the bottom. The extent of
0:48:40 > 0:48:44the inequality we have in Cambridge at the moment, one of the richest
0:48:44 > 0:48:48cities in the UK and therefore one of the richest cities in the world,
0:48:48 > 0:48:56is that Cambridge food bank said 25% more last year than before. There is
0:48:56 > 0:49:02extreme poverty in Cambridge, and that's simply not acceptable. We are
0:49:02 > 0:49:06trying to claim we are still a civilised society. And it's getting
0:49:06 > 0:49:11worse because of failures in the benefits system, because of the an
0:49:11 > 0:49:16affordability in housing, where housing in Cambridge is particularly
0:49:16 > 0:49:24challenging for people on low incomes.I see it very directly why
0:49:24 > 0:49:28it's getting worse, and it's a consequence of political decisions
0:49:28 > 0:49:33that this government has chosen to make. If you cut the welfare system,
0:49:33 > 0:49:37it's not just dreadful for the people at the receiving end, but it
0:49:37 > 0:49:40destroys the quality of life for everybody in Cambridge. We don't
0:49:40 > 0:49:45want rising numbers of people sleeping on the streets in a city
0:49:45 > 0:49:51like Cambridge. People are rightly furious about it.The situation of
0:49:51 > 0:49:55people sleeping on the streets in Cambridge is not central
0:49:55 > 0:50:01government's fault.It is!The responsibility for homelessness on
0:50:01 > 0:50:10the streets of any town or city in the UK is the local council. When I
0:50:10 > 0:50:15was on the council in East Cambs, there was no homelessness and people
0:50:15 > 0:50:17on the street, because of the policies I put forward. I have
0:50:17 > 0:50:24offered those policies to Cambridge City Council, and they have not
0:50:24 > 0:50:28taken them up, and I believe it's because they want to blame the
0:50:28 > 0:50:32government for something they can solve. £17 million for housing in
0:50:32 > 0:50:37the city, yet people are still on the streets and houses have not been
0:50:37 > 0:50:44built. This problem could be sold. Cambridge City Council gets £9.5
0:50:44 > 0:50:49million a year simply from car parking in the city. It is the
0:50:49 > 0:50:56mistake of the City Council change the word inequality to reward.Its
0:50:56 > 0:51:00reward a vital incentive? Everyone here would probably say yes in that
0:51:00 > 0:51:04context. The idea that if you work hard and have the right
0:51:04 > 0:51:08opportunities, you will make progress. People want to be
0:51:08 > 0:51:12rewarded. The issue comes with the balance of quality and inequality,
0:51:12 > 0:51:17where people think others are being rewarded for not working hard or
0:51:17 > 0:51:23doing those things. How do we run the system so that we reward and
0:51:23 > 0:51:28incentivise hard work? That is a real question we are asking.People
0:51:28 > 0:51:33in the public sector are awarded a lot less, and they are working as
0:51:33 > 0:51:39hard as anyone. A nurse on the wards is working just as hard as you,
0:51:39 > 0:51:44Joseph. You are exemplary in your work efforts, but a nurse on the
0:51:44 > 0:51:52ward and she or he could not work harder but just not getting the
0:51:52 > 0:51:57reward.I agree with that. That goes back to providing opportunity. If
0:51:57 > 0:52:03somebody is working hard at the same job every day, there is a cap on
0:52:03 > 0:52:07what they can and. So it's providing the opportunity for them to go into
0:52:07 > 0:52:12a different career or train or what ever that is, and that's very, very
0:52:12 > 0:52:18important. We are launching a Joseph Valente Academy at the moment, which
0:52:18 > 0:52:24is about giving back opportunity to young people. For me, it's about
0:52:24 > 0:52:28providing them with opportunity. If you provide them with an opportunity
0:52:28 > 0:52:35and that person still doesn't want to take that a level up, or change
0:52:35 > 0:52:37their lifestyle that they are potentially not happy about, what
0:52:37 > 0:52:43more can we possibly do?There is a guy behind you who's had his hand up
0:52:43 > 0:52:49for ages.I think it's something that Joseph said, creating these
0:52:49 > 0:52:51opportunities to create entrepreneurs in society, but is it
0:52:51 > 0:52:56not then the goal of these people to create a more equal society? Where
0:52:56 > 0:53:04does that cycle and?The trouble with this debate, and here is an
0:53:04 > 0:53:09example, is that we take a snapshot and we say, at a snapshot in time,
0:53:09 > 0:53:14there are some people who are very rich and some are very poor. It's
0:53:14 > 0:53:20like taking a snapshot of a drop of water in midair. When I was a
0:53:20 > 0:53:25student, I was poor. After 40 years of working and honing my skills, and
0:53:25 > 0:53:31saving and so on, I'm now well off. But I'm the same person. What we
0:53:31 > 0:53:36actually want is a system where the poorest people can actually make
0:53:36 > 0:53:39themselves better off, and that's why I say that government needs to
0:53:39 > 0:53:46get out of the way here, and for example take people on the minimum
0:53:46 > 0:53:49wage out of national insurance. Let's have some building on the
0:53:49 > 0:53:52green belt that's strangling Cambridge so that house prices come
0:53:52 > 0:54:00down.I make my decisions based on evidence, so looking at evidence,
0:54:00 > 0:54:04since we have allowed gross levels of inequality, it has not been good
0:54:04 > 0:54:10for the economy. The economy has grown at a lesser rate. Since the
0:54:10 > 0:54:15crash, Britain's millionaires have doubled their wealth, but wages for
0:54:15 > 0:54:20working people have stagnated. It's the same in the UK and the US. The
0:54:20 > 0:54:2610% who are poorest in the UK, pay a bigger percentage of tax of their
0:54:26 > 0:54:32incomes than the rich do. Wealth does not trickle down. The rich hide
0:54:32 > 0:54:36their money by making donations to political parties, who tell the rest
0:54:36 > 0:54:43of us...I'm getting the impression that Cambridge is being singled out
0:54:43 > 0:54:46from having the huge levels of inequality, but they come from the
0:54:46 > 0:54:52fact there is a lot of highly earning individuals rather than a
0:54:52 > 0:54:57high proportion of lower earning people. The higher earning
0:54:57 > 0:55:03individuals appear to be working in very wordy fields. I agree with you
0:55:03 > 0:55:10that it is preposterous that 0.1% who are absolutely flying away with
0:55:10 > 0:55:16trillions of dollars, it's an absurd situation, and if anyone can solve
0:55:16 > 0:55:21that without plunging us into socialism, I will sign up to it. But
0:55:21 > 0:55:26it's not fair to look at Cambridge and say, it's disgraceful, your
0:55:26 > 0:55:30house prices are many times the natural... National average, because
0:55:30 > 0:55:35you are a world centre of excellence.People with decent jobs
0:55:35 > 0:55:40cannot get a mortgage.It depends if you want to centralise it or not. If
0:55:40 > 0:55:44you have a centralised public sector with centralised salaries, a
0:55:44 > 0:55:48centralised welfare state and centralised notion of national
0:55:48 > 0:55:54Insurance, places like Cambridge will have inequality because the
0:55:54 > 0:56:00process of creating wealth is not centralised, but distributing it is.
0:56:00 > 0:56:07I would love to see Cambridge return to a Machiavellian, walled citadel.
0:56:07 > 0:56:14Builds that wall!There is more to life than finance. A lot of dons in
0:56:14 > 0:56:18Cambridge are not paid very well, but they lived like princes. There
0:56:18 > 0:56:23is more to life than money.I always find it interesting that people
0:56:23 > 0:56:29who... You have said you are comfortable now, the people who say
0:56:29 > 0:56:33there is more to life than money are generally the people who have enough
0:56:33 > 0:56:38money to put food on the table, close their kids and are not worried
0:56:38 > 0:56:43about that. Cambridge has topped the league. That's what's happened. It
0:56:43 > 0:56:51is a snapshot...The poorest people in Cambridge are the students, who
0:56:51 > 0:56:56have loans so have negative wealth. But they are going to earn far more
0:56:56 > 0:57:02than other people.On this central question we have here. You work in
0:57:02 > 0:57:07the world of comedy. If there is a comedian playing in a pub every
0:57:07 > 0:57:14night, is he or she going to be spurred on by seeing a comedian who
0:57:14 > 0:57:20sells out at the Apollo?It is like acting. Around 1% of actors have a
0:57:20 > 0:57:26lifestyle who is inspirational, and only about 10% have a job at any one
0:57:26 > 0:57:33time. We all accept that. The world of comedy is overwhelmingly
0:57:33 > 0:57:39left-wing, and they preach a lot of socialism, but it's incredibly petty
0:57:39 > 0:57:46bourgeois.Do they live like socialists?In the sense that they
0:57:46 > 0:57:52are poor, they do. But in your first 15 years of comedy... It is driven
0:57:52 > 0:57:58by the idea that your name could be up in lights one day. And it's fun
0:57:58 > 0:58:04on the way as well, of course.You have to have something to strive
0:58:04 > 0:58:09for, but you also have to have some reasonable chance of realising that
0:58:09 > 0:58:13aspiration. Of course, that means having structures in place that
0:58:13 > 0:58:19protect you. The welfare state, health, unemployment benefits. But
0:58:19 > 0:58:24you also need incentives, but that's not to say that you need a society
0:58:24 > 0:58:28that's deeply unequal and in which the structural constraints make it
0:58:28 > 0:58:35impossible to achieve.When your grandparents have come from Bulgaria
0:58:35 > 0:58:40and the Isle of Lewis, but you made it to the White House. That's the
0:58:40 > 0:58:41previous debate!
0:58:41 > 0:58:44As always, the debates will continue online and on Twitter.
0:58:44 > 0:58:46Next week, we're in Newcastle upon Tyne, so do join us then.
0:58:46 > 0:58:52But for now, it's goodbye and have a great Sunday.