Episode 3 The Big Questions

Today on The Big Questions...

President Trump's first year

in office - good or bad?

And inequality - a scourge

or a useful incentive?

Good morning, I'm Nicky Campbell.

Welcome to the 11th series

of The Big Questions.

Today we're live from

Netherhall School in Cambridge.

Welcome, everyone,

to The Big Questions.

APPLAUSE

Yesterday marked the first

anniversary of Donald Trump's

inauguration as the 45th President

of the United States of America.

And it also saw a complete shutdown

of the American government

after President Trump failed

to reach a deal with Democrats in

the Senate over the spending bill.

It is a presidency that has been

surrounded in controversy

since his election.

Critics have disparaged his

abilities and contested his stance

on immigration, health care,

climate change, North Korea,

Israel - the list goes on and on.

Yet the American stock market

is booming, unemployment is falling,

growth is on the up and business

confidence is buoyant -

maybe because one of the few

policies he has got through Congress

was to reduce corporate tax

rates from 35% to 21%.

Yet the uneasiness remains,

stirred daily by the output

from his Twitter finger.

Has President Trump been

good for the world?

Let's see what the achievements are.

Jan Halper Davies -- Jan

Jan Halper Davies -- Jan Halper

Hayes, I said Davies because I'm

speaking about Stormy Daniels, I had

the D where do my head. Never mind

all the gossip, Fire Interviewee,

the book, what has he achieved?

We

have over 2.1 million jobs he has

brought, we are at a seven-year high

in economic confidence and a 17 year

low in unemployment. GDP was not

supposed to hit 3% until 2019, that

is where we were in the last three

quarters. The tax reform has done an

enormous amount for bringing

businesses back and increasing

wages, as well as some of the

savings being passed on to

customers. An energy company is

lowering their electric bill by 5%.

But the great deal-maker could not

make this deal on the budget, we

have a government shutdown. The

statue of Liberty is shut. What a

piece of symbolism?

There is a

misnomer that the great deal-maker

could not make a deal. The fact of

the matter is that it takes when you

have a spending bill 60 senators to

pass it. That means that even though

we have the majority of the House

and the Senate and we have the White

House, you need to have a bipartisan

reaction. There was nothing in the

bill that either side disagreed

with, but the Democrats are

frightened of another positive thing

happening. They thought the tax

reform was Armageddon, and they

Trump fail. It is very strategic

what they are doing.

On his

achievements, taking away from the

depressed Democrats and Stormy

Daniels or Stormy Davies or

whatever, Alan Mendoza, what has

Trump achieved?

You need to look at

where the world was at the time

Trump came into office. We have just

had eight years of the Obama

administration which run down

America plasma prestige and power in

the world and through its actions

emboldened some of the worst regimes

in the world to do activities we

would want as he stopped. Iran was

rampant in the Middle East, it had

helped Assad fight his war in Syria,

it had extended terrorism across the

area. Russia has marched into

Ukraine, nothing happened as a

response. China flouted

international law in the South China

Sea and East China Sea and very

little response again.

Starting with that position and

looking at where we are now in terms

of one year into Trump, it is very

early but you had to look at the

successes. He called out the

Iranians for their brutality, he has

had various relations with China,

pushed one way and pull the other,

but it seems to be in a different

place, that relationship, than under

Obama. He demanded European military

spend more, which we knew was

necessary, and they have been

responding. North Korea is sitting

at the table for the first time in

two and a half years, speaking to

South Korea. There are achievements.

It is unorthodox and he may be

aggressive and even unpleasant in

how it works, but when you

how it works, but when you look at

the world, and enforcement of red

lines and international status, it

is any much better place than when

he came into office.

Jan, you love that?

I did.

I feel

Leslie might want to pick up on some

points? We have heard about the

achievements, an unconventional

approach, but paying dividends?

Very difficult for me to listen and

give it any credibility.

None at

all?

Given how strong the economy

is, isn't it extraordinary that a

president who controls both houses

of Congress has such extraordinarily

low approval rating is not only at

home, for a president only one year

in, but abroad. The Gallup

leadership polls put his global

approval rating at only 30%, very

dramatic drop.

Are you embarrassed

by him?

I find many of the policies

he has pursued, and especially the

style with which he has engaged not

only with many of his own people,

many of his Cabinet and the White

House and many foreign leaders, to

be far below the bar of what we

should expect from the leader of the

United States.

APPLAUSE

The problem with this debate always

is...

There is nothing wrong with this

debate! The blow people get sucked

in straightaway to the character of

Donald Trump and his activities,

that is what the media has focused

on people have focused on.

We need

to strip away the server stuff,

which can be debated, by all means,

and look at results. He has got

them. That is what we are

forgetting.

He has made nuclear war thinkable

again, that is the

again, that is the substance of

relationship with North Korea and

their willingness to do certain

things, but at the cost of making

people think that a nuclear conflict

could happen.

That is not fair. The reason there

is a conceivable nuclear

conflagration is North Korea has

been unable to develop a nuclear

programme under the preceding

president.

His comments after nuclear war came

after a golfing event, Trump has no

discipline.

Nuclear capabilities hands of North

Korea, it is due to the policies

pursued by Obama and Bush before

him, not the previous five months of

Trump. You don't just get a nuclear

weapon because you have a vulgar

halfwits in the White House. You

have to spend years doing that. But

chatter -- that should been

suppressed under the previous

administration, you cannot lay that

at Trump's door.

Trump is a gift to -- that should

have been suppressed under the

previous administration, you cannot

lay that at Trump's door. Trump is a

gifted keeps on giving, not only to

journalists but to Kim Jong Un.

Anti-Americanism is so important for

keeping the support of the North

Koreans and respecting and loving

their leader.

But I have heard some people make

the argument that this is an

extraordinary achievement by Donald

Trump, he has made Kim Jong Un look

sane.

Actually I think they are both not

as stupid as people like to say they

are. I think you need to look at

their actions and see the way they

are playing with one another, and I

would not call either one a fool.

Daniel, a Labour MP, you do not want

him to come here?

No, I think he is

lewd, crude, a disgusting man, the

antithesis of everything that this

great city here...

His attitude to

women? Not like Bill Clinton?

Politics is a complicated business

of trying to manage conflicting

demands, and you do that through

diplomacy and the grace and the

skill that Obama showed was an

inspiration to many people across

the world, and I think it is one of

the tragedies that we have had Obama

replaced by the most pantomime

villain. I suspect he does not know

what he's doing in many ways, his

example to young people and his

example to the is appalling.

Just on the point about his morals,

if morals are important, what did

you think of Bill Clinton? What you

think, retrospectively, of JFK?

Those are perfectly reasonable

points to make, but they did not

engage in this foul-mouthed

insulting of people all the time.

Behind-the-scenes, maybe?

We try to

teach our children...

Is there not

an honesty, what you see is what you

get, it is unvarnished?

Dustup about

his economic achievements, what he

is about is trying to line his

pockets and the pockets of his

cronies, the American economy will

not survive through this. Anyone can

splurge a load of money, let's see

where we are in a few years. It will

not work. We have seen it before.

We were told that the American

economy would be in ruins by the end

of his first year, it has never been

in better health.

Wait-and-see.

We

are waiting and seeing. You are

delineating a disaster before it

happens.

He made all these promises,

where are his steel factories? He

has not built an inch of the wall.

So just because he say something it

should exist the next day?! What is

happening is Apple is bringing back

$350 billion, they will employ

20,000 people. They will be spending

over $20 billion in building a

factory and taking it away from

China. There is your first step of

example of it working.

By building

protectionism you might get some

short-term gains, but it will make

us all poorer in the long term, that

is the issue. You can all be

protectionist up your own areas, but

it leads to less wealth in the

future.

He is not a protectionist,

he is not an isolationist. It is

America first, with the goal of

bilateral agreements. He does not

believe in multilateral agreements.

It is having your cake and eating

it, it does not work.

You might

think that, but just because people

develop these deals, these

agreements for simplification, some

of these deals are wrong.

Business

loves the deregulation and the tax

cuts. Is he a racist?

I think he is,

essentially, with what he is saying.

He is not a racist, he has said

offensive things, no doubt, he is

not a racist. Let's just look for

one second at what Daniel is trying

to say...

Do you agree with him not

being welcomed here?

He should be

welcome here.

He is not welcome

here.

It is embarrassing for a

country that the President of our

close to -- our closest ally does

not feel welcome. President Macron

has rolled out the red carpet, other

European leaders have. It is

shameful that this country cannot

welcome him. He is a close ally of

ours, we should be working more

closely with him, particularly in

the context of Brexit.

We have let

in some rum people in the past.

What

about President Xi of China, we even

suppress dissent in the streets of

London to let him come.

But

President Trump is re-tweeting

Nazis.

I was a disgraceful episode.

He claims he did not know what was

happening. He probably did not, to

be honest. But he should still come

to Britain to meet us in that way.

I think it is disgusting that you

can say somebody who is re-tweeting

Nazi tweets might not know what he

was doing

was doing when he is meant to be the

leader of the United States. How

much longer do we had to excuse

these men, they do not know they are

sexist or racist?! I think it is

disgraceful.

APPLAUSE

Audience? Hang fire. Hold fire.

Hello, audience. Donald Trump. OK,

madam?

One of the panellists was

saying that the media are always

focusing on his character. The

things he is tweeting about, it is

absolutely absurd. He is a racist,

he is a misogynist. He is targeting

communities, splitting families by

signing orders from the White House.

If he did not mean what he said, why

did he tweets these kind of things?

It is unacceptable, he is

normalising hate and bigotry and it

is totally unacceptable.

APPLAUSE

You are not in?

When he came into office, quite a

few people thought it would be OK,

the hyper polarisation will reduce,

everyone will be united in their

hatred towards him almost, but that

has not happened, with the

Government shut down. They only

needed ten Democrats to votes in

favour, that did not happen. I think

that overrides some of his

characteristics, the fact that there

can't be that push forward for the

betterment of the nation when there

is the claim it is America first.

It is interesting, is anybody in the

audience who would describe

themselves as somebody sympathetic

in any way to what he has achieved?

Put your hand up. If you are in any

way on Trump's side. Oh, dear. No

one? This is interesting. Did I see

one over year?

Both sides of the argument are

actually correct, I think. He is

appalling in what he says, but the

other side of the argument is

correct as well. I think he's

achieved quite a lot. He's shaken

things up. I doubt North and South

Korea would have got together

without him shaking stuff up.

Interesting point. This is an

audience who applied to come to The

Big Questions. We do not skew it in

anyway. But I have done phone-ins

where there are quite a lot of

people in this country who are fed

up of being lectured to about what

they should think about Donald

Trump. They see it as a liberal,

intelligentsia media bubble, and

they come on the phone and say, shut

up and don't tell me what to think.

You have to go back to the reasons

why Trump won the election. He

appealed to people who were going to

work every day, working hard and not

seeing their efforts rewarded. He

was very clever. He looked to people

who voted for the Republican party.

He is a democratically elected

leader of the most powerful nation

in the world, and a key trading

partner of the UK. I don't agree

with Daniel that we shouldn't invite

him to the UK. We should respect the

views of the American people and we

should talk to Mr Trump. Clearly

there is no one in this room who

would back what he says on Twitter

or agree with his points, but

ultimately, he is a businessman who

has increased business opportunities

for the US, and we should be taking

advantage of that.

I want to pick up

on what you said, about people being

told what to think about Donald

Trump. Simon, you were on the News

quiz on Radio 4, and you said at one

point a couple of things that

perhaps Donald Trump had achieved

and positive about him, and there

was a bit of stunned silence.

People

not used a hearing that on a Radio 4

comedy programme! I find it hard to

defend him in conventional terms.

Is

very snobbery about this?

Absolutely, but it wouldn't matter

if there was a snobbery if these

people hadn't been let down by

generations of politicians, and the

Republican party taking a huge

amount of Republican voters for

granted, in the same way that a huge

number of Brexit voters were taken

for granted. You could make a nod in

the direction of abortion law and

gun control and people would vote

for them whatever. There was no

future for their young people. They

were promised again and again by

mealy-mouthed politicians who

delivered nothing for them.

Obviously, sooner or later, they

would turn to this old-fashioned...

He is like a Burt Lancaster

character in a 1950s movie. He a two

fisted American Bulgaria, but there

is part of that in the American

psyche, and so far he is delivering.

Yes, the Democrats in the US need to

take responsibility for allowing the

situation to get so bad for

working-class people, but he has

filled up jobs in the White House

with cronies from big business, and

he likes to point the finger at

migrants and other people to blame

for American problems, but wages are

not increasing significantly for

American people. His policies are

not going to deliver for American

working people.

Is there, on the

subject of what people think what

they think people should think, is

there an Brexit aspect for that? Is

it the same with Trump? Can you

understand the historical forces

that have led him to be there?

Did

to our similar phenomena. Brexit and

Trump both gave voices to the

people. I am anti-trump-macro, but I

am going to say something positive

for him. He has been a brilliant

politician. One of the politicians

who can keep his face in the news on

the front page for two and a half

years, as he has, and there is many

respect in many quarters for his

ability to drain a swamp that seems

undrivable. But my question is, is

he a man who can be trusted to

rebuild? Here is where nuclear

weapons become crucial. I understand

his force as a disruption. He has

opened up possibilities for

discussing certain things that have

not been on the table before, but I

don't have confidence that he can

leave us to a better place. His

inauguration speech, American

carnage, is probably the first

inauguration speech in American

history not to refer once to the

declaration of Independence, not to

refer once to the Constitution, not

to refer wants to the ideals of

liberty and the better angels of

America. It is like Lindsay Graham

saying, after a meeting with Trump

about immigration, he said, Mr

Trump, America is about ideals. He's

interested in power, advancement and

disruption, but can he fulfil

American ideals? My answer to that

is no.

And there we have it.

I'm not

sure the world wants American ideals

from the US president. I think the

world has always wanted somebody who

is going to come in and stop the bad

guys from taking over. That has

essentially been America's role for

the last 70 years. Obama effectively

abdicated that role from his

weakness internationally. Serie A, I

direct comparison between Obama and

Trump. Assad uses chemical weapons.

Obama runs away from it and Assad

continues murdering and killing.

Trump sees when Assad uses chemical

weapons and strikes immediately. No

more chemical weapons used since

then. There is a red line. You cross

it, we will hit you. That wasn't

done under Obama. Trump has restored

that.

That is such a

mischaracterisation. America was in

a terrible position with its

reputation until Obama restored it,

as a civilised leader of the world.

Trump is leading America back down

into the gutter. We need that

leadership, those ideals and values

that matter across the world. I feel

so sorry for the Americans. You are

an embarrassment again. I'm sorry,

but objectively, you look at the

power of authoritarian states at the

end of the Obama regime against the

start of it, but they have

increased. The leadership did not

deliver results.

Jan Halper-Hayes,

let's talk about the wider world.

We've mentioned North Korea,

Jerusalem, the North American Free

Trade Agreement. Let's talk about

the wider word and the implications.

Pulling out of the Paris climate

change accord. He doesn't know the

difference between weather and

climate. I'm going with scientific

consensus here. This is an act of

environmental, planet tree

vandalism, and our grandchildren

will look back and they will say,

shame on us and shame on him.

They

very well might, but he decided to

pull out of it because the

requirements that were on America's

shoulders were far greater than that

of China and other nations, and we

were supposed to act...

What about

taking the lead of the free world?

Donald Trump is not interested in

taking believed. It is America

first. People have a hard time with

that. It means that other countries

that have counted on America for so

long...

This is going to mean,

ultimately, the deaths of millions

of people, and it's going to mean

the extinction of species...

Margaret Thatcher spoke against

global warming. You are eliminating

the responsibility of other

politicians, George Bush, Barack

Obama...

Don't take it out on me! I

am just asking the questions!

It's

been going on for 40 years!

It is

undoubtedly the case that President

Trump has taken America out of many

things that are absolutely vital for

the stability, prosperity of the

world. The Irani deal was very

important to stability, and the

Paris accords. But we have to look

at one thing. The United States is

not Donald Trump. Donald Trump

happens to be the leader for this

time, but there are a lot of things

going on in the US right now that

are tremendously productive. They

were there before and are taking

momentum on right now. To push back

what is seen as a president taking

negative steps on an environmental

front...

But he is withdrawing

funding for environmental agencies.

But many people are on board with

Paris, trying to keep as close as

they can in the context of a

difficult set of politics to hit

those targets that were negotiated.

If you look at the courts, civil

society, they have been pushing back

very, very hard. That is not over

yet, so there is a tremendous amount

of positive engagement in the US to

try and keep America engage with the

world. When we come back to the

question of whether Donald Trump

should come to the UK for a visit,

it's very important not to collapse

this relationship into one that is

simply about Theresa May and Donald

Trump.

One fifth of our trade is

with the US.

It's not just trade. It

is a relationship grounded in

intelligence sharing, values and

many things. The key for the leader

of the UK is to frame it in a way

that says that we do not agree with

racist language, but we do need to

hold onto what is valuable and

productive in that way.

He has put a

spring in the step of many a climate

change denier. Do you think that if

a nuclear conflagration were to

happen, and a million people were to

die on the Korean peninsular...

At

least a million.

Would that play on

his conscience?

I don't think that's

the most important question.

It is a

question I'm asking. It's a question

about responsibility

internationally.

There is a very

serious concern by many of us who

are watching that Donald Trump

doesn't feel the consequences of his

actions. That he acts without taking

that into account.

That's quite a

thing to say.

But he has to stand up

to the threat from Korea. He can't

just let North Korea actors they

are, putting missiles across Japan.

That has to be the job of the United

States to stand up to Kim Jong-un

and say, we cannot take any more

this. Ultimately, the North Koreans

are sitting at the table with South

Koreans. Will it result in peace? We

know that when President Kennedy

stood up to the Russians, it created

the Cold War, guess, but eventually

we got to the situation where

America and Russia got rid of

nuclear weapons.

There was an

element of logic on both sides in

the Cold War. Do we have that

balance to logic on both sides now?

There is a feeling in the Republican

party that this man can serve

purposes, including your purpose of

standing up to North Korea, and the

wager is that they can control this

unpredictable, unreliable man. The

conceit in Washington is that the

three generals around him each day

will be in charge and will feel the

consequences of going to nuclear

war. The wager is that these men can

control it. The bottom belongs to

him. He is not the first president

to try the madman theory, to make

someone think he is crazy to submit.

It was done in Vietnam's with the

North Vietnamese, but it didn't

work. In the Cuban missile crisis,

if the military people had been in

charge at that point, we probably

would have had a nuclear

conflagration with Cuba. I don't

feel comfortable with this decision

being in the hands of the generals.

I don't have confidence in this man

to make the right decision for them

is under that analysis, you would be

happy for Kim Jong-un when to walk

over South Korea or invade Japan.

You are saying there is no

possibility that America could

withstand and assault in that way.

You have to have some credibility

internationally, so that the other

guy thinks carefully about his

actions. Under President Obama, we

had no credibility. Everybody knew

he would not resist the use of

force, or even the threat of force.

We have dealt with that, if I may.

The credibility is that he might do

it, and that goes down to

rationality on both sides. The

reason we didn't have a nuclear

conflagration in the Cold War was

because both sides were rational

actors. I believe Donald club is a

rational actor, despite an

unorthodox approach. If Kim Jong-un

is not, we are going to have a Cold

War anyway.

Do you feel he is a

rational actor? Put your hand up. We

have talked about nuclear

conflagration and climate change.

What about population growth? He's

changed his mind. He used to be

pro-choice, but he's changed his

mind on abortion, which could be

playing to his base support. He's

also withdrawn government funding

for groups working around the world

with women on contraception, which

is often a driver of fighting

poverty and inequality, so that our

potential impacts on inequality

across the globe.

One of the things missing from this

debate, you have said America has

higher GDP, higher growth, creating

more jobs, but we need to look at

the quality of the jobs. Poverty has

increased in America, the median

wage has gone down. We need to look

at the different factors there, and

the reality. When you say America

first, who in America? Not the 9

million children who will

potentially be denied health care,

it is not the poorest who will have

no

no health care, he is putting first,

his corporate buddies. He will be at

Davos next week, mixing with the

billionaires who he said he

despised, draining the swamp. The

first thing he has done is introduce

a huge corporate tax rate. When you

cut corporate tax, you cut the

resources the state has to support

the most vulnerable people in its

country.

Gentleman from the audience is

shaking his head?

I will really put

that to bed.

I will be the judge

about!

I will try. When you cut

corporate tax you create enterprise,

you create wealth.

Not true.

That a

good thing.

good thing.

Pack of lies.

That is

where you fund the National Health

Service and get a better, strong...

He has reduced tax rates.

If you

look at the 1980s, there was a

reduction in taxes and the actual

tax take went up. In a strong

economy with a big incentive for

people to go out and work and earn

and create wealth, there is more

wealth to spend on things like the

National Health Service.

35%, down

to 21%, it is a pretty vertiginous

drop.

Yes, but it has an effect.

Welcome back, Jan. I will consume,

Joseph, don't worry. I said I would

come to you earlier, I am a man of

my word. -- I will come to you,

Joseph.

I would like to combine the

point about the media telling people

how to think, when I listen to the

liberal comments and how superficial

they are, and they do not show an

understanding of what it's really

going on. Let's take draining the

swamp, he puts his corporate cronies

in. He has eliminated over 1500

regulations, which has spurred on

business.

Environmental regulations.

Let me finish my point. The fact is

that people go, oh, he has only done

things for his corporate buddies

with the tax reform. What people do

not realise is that 95% of the

private workforce is employed by

small and medium-sized companies.

They have been responsible for over

half of the jobs created in the past

15 years. It is not corporate

America that everyone works for. It

is a lot of the small and

medium-size businesses. And as a

result of an rating 1500

regulations, and he said for

everyone he introduced he would

eliminate two, it is actually 22-1.

Those are the kind of things about

draining the swamp that go much

broader than just making a

superficial comment, his cronies are

corporate America.

Many of the

successes that Donald Trump claims

on deregulation were begun under

Obama, I think there is an contest

over the numbers. He is pushing hard

on environmental deregulation and on

the regulation put in place after

the financial crisis to protect from

happening again.

He has increased regulation and

trade. I think it is a much more

complicated picture than you

suggest. He would certainly like to

be seen as deregulating and away

that is looking out for all people.

It is early days.

Joe Sugg, early days?

It is always

difficult to say whether the effects

are coming through from something

Obama did previously or it is

happening now. I think there is a

sense of the direction he is

travelling in. It is interesting

this job saying he will put ideas to

bed and the people saying you

believe in triple down, but this

argument has been going on since

Marx, nobody knows. But there is a

rate of corporate tax which raises

the level of total receipts and

anything above that is basically

being done on ideological grounds,

in order to punish people.

Regulation quite often creates jobs.

The most successful part of the UK

economy.

But nobody wants those

jobs, bureaucrats!

Tackling climate

change, the green economy in this

country, it has been the part that

has done best. This deregulation

myth that has taken hold has caused

a lot of problems to the UK economy.

We have a very successful

businessman who will have the last

word. I promised you a word earlier,

you will beautifully tied this all

up.

I will put a different spin on

the Micro saga. I am hearing a lot

of noise from everybody and a lot of

disagreement, but I want to look at

a guy who said he would become

president, and a specific part of

that journey, and a message to the

people. The guy said I will become

president, he started his

presidential campaign and through

that whole thing he fought against

all odds, OK, and overcame

everything to become president. For

me as an entrepreneur, I don't care

about detail policy right now, I see

that is quite an inspirational

journey and I think people should

take the message, OK, from a

specific section that if you set

your mind to something, you say you

are going to do it against all odds,

actually, anything can be achieved.

Out of the whole thing and

everything we have spoken about,

that is one positive message for me

to take as an entrepreneur,

regardless of whether I agree or

disagree. I think that is where a

lot of people should put their focus

on, especially when they are trying

to create something and they are up

against it. I quite like that.

That is what I will finish on.

You're hired! Would you work for

him?

I won't work there anybody but

myself.

Thank you all very much

indeed.

-- I won't work for anybody

but myself.

If you have something to say

about that debate, log on

to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions,

and follow the link to where you can

join in the discussion online.

Or contribute on Twitter.

Next at Netherhall School

here in Cambridge, we'll be debating

if inequality is a vital incentive.

But before that, take a note

of this email address -

[email protected] -

if you'd like to apply

to be in the audience

at a future programme.

We're in Newcastle upon Tyne next

Sunday, Southampton on February 4th,

and Oxford the week after that.

Cambridge, where we are today,

has been dubbed the most unequal

city in the whole of the UK

by the Centre for Cities.

It is also a very successful city,

topping the league tables on growth,

with its booming high tech sector.

More patents are published in

Cambridge than in any other UK city.

But while unemployment

is very low here, it's not

a boom town for everyone.

40% work in the public sector,

so have seen their real

incomes steadily fall.

And the average price of a house,

at £475,000, is 15 times the level

of average annual earnings here.

So the success has come at a price

for many Cambridge residents.

Is inequality a vital incentive?

It would be good to start with you

on this, Joseph.

It is a vital

incentive. I came from a

working-class background, we

struggled growing up, my mum worked

three jobs, my father didn't work. I

made a decision at a very early age

that I was not going to let my

circumstances permit, I was going to

work hard and I was going to get

better and I was going to become

more successful. But I was very,

very lucky at an early age

very lucky at an early age because I

saw both scales, I saw the working

class and I also had an uncle that

was very close to me that was very

wealthy. So I was able to see that

there was another life that you

could live. And I used to compare my

father and my uncle.

Do you think

young people see that, they see the

flashy and unrealistic lifestyles on

social media, are those kind of

images, that kind of example, a good

thing?

I think you are on the money.

You are on the money, mate!

Because

it was my uncle, I saw it as

realistic. But if you come from a

council estate and your

council estate and your family are

not working, people around you are

not successful and your neighbours

are not, you find it quite hard to

have a realistic vision that it is

achievable. But because he was part

of my family I could see that it was

there, I saw his journey and how

hard he worked. It made it realistic

for me, it may did achievable and

made me see I could work towards

that if I truly wish to.

Can young people see this? I know

Stewart wants to come in, but in

what way is a lack of good

circumstances when someone is

growing up and the difficulties and

even poverty, in what way is it an

incentive?

Because why would you

want to live like that? Why would

you want to live poor? That is the

incentive in itself, right? If you

are struggling for food, you have

second-hand clothes, you have an old

banger car, you can't go on holiday,

you are saying that is not incentive

enough to want the good things in

life? About one of the issues with

that is that not every young people

can start a business and employ a

lot of other people. Why?

Not

everybody can own a business, we

need some people to work for them.

Unfortunately the fastest-growing

demographic of poverty in this

country is people in work. People

working hard, who cannot lift

themselves out of poverty.

Are they

working hard at the wrong thing?

Can

you let me finish? When you have

gross inequality, like we have at

the moment, it damages the equality

of opportunity, because less people

are able to grasp those

opportunities. You need families to

have a minimum basic income to feed

their children, you need good health

and good schooling for us all, that

relies on having some level of

equality to begin with.

It means the level playing field.

APPLAUSE

There are the same disparities in

wealth, education and circumstances?

I am not saying that there would

ever be complete equality, but we

have a gross level of inequality in

our country at the moment, and in

the most unequal country in the

developed world, the US, you are far

less likely to be able to achieve

those dreams than in more equal

countries like the Scandinavian

countries. It is much easier to

predict your income based on the

income of your parents, than in more

equal countries.

We do not have equal chances to

begin with?

There are equal chances,

but it is obvious we need to do more

to create opportunities for those

feeling left out of society. The

current education system in the UK

as part of the problem. It is far

too academically -based, we are

missing masses of people who could

be taking huge advantage of what is

happening here in Cambridge, for

example.

Untapped potential.

Absolutely. There have been

improvements in apprenticeships etc,

but schools are not genuinely

engaged in how we can improve the

lives of those people who do not

meet the five A-C grade. We do not

need to send 50% of the population

to university, it is ridiculous.

Is

inequality and incentive?

Inequality

happens because of the lack of

opportunities. If we increase the

opportunities to those people who

are not getting them now, we will

decrease inequality. Quite frankly,

I disagree slightly with the fact

that you had to be earning lots of

money to be happy. I have not always

been a politician, I used to be a

milkman, I was perfectly

milkman, I was perfectly happy as a

milkman, I was earning a low-wage

but it did not make me unhappy. I

knew that I had to work hard, and I

did. You do not have to be wealthy

to be happy, that is completely

wrong. Not everybody wants to run

their own business or be a

politician or take on the pressure

of the senior role, some people do

not want to do that. But you need to

give them the opportunity at a young

age to make a choice, I do not

believe we are doing.

Should the

Government be doing more?

I don't

think so. Looking at the economic

evidence, financial inequality,

there are lots of other

inequalities, but financial

inequality, which

we are talking about, in fact...

And

inequality of ambition.

Apart from a

few strange places like Saudi

Arabia, people want to make

themselves better off. They do not

care about other people. I do not

know who the richest person in

Cambridge is, and I do not care. Nor

do other people. They want to make

themselves better off. The best way

to do that is the Government getting

out of their hair and allowing them

to do that. And in particular

safeguarding the quality of civil

and political rights but

safeguarding property, so

governments and others cannot

just...

If you are in a public

sector job and a wage restraint, it

is not easy?

And that is the case in

Cambridge, we have a silly

centralised system instead of local

government.

To say the evidence points to people

wanting to better themselves is

ludicrous. The evidence is

overwhelming and has been for some

time. In countries with a high level

of inequality, we also see higher

rates of mental and physical

ill-health, higher rates of obesity

and infant mortality. You are far

more likely to lose your child if

you come from a disadvantaged

background. We see higher rates of

incarceration, lower levels of

trust, and status anxiety. We feel

we must have what the person know

that there has, and that causes

stress.

Can it be an incentive?

If

inequality were an incentive, you

would see black people, women, LGBT

plus people, women and even,

storming the bastions of our private

schools, elite institutions, the

media and Parliament, because the

entrenched inequalities that many

people live with would have given

them that incentive if this were

true to go and do that, and that's

just not the case. We don't have

equality of opportunity.

We don't

have equality of opportunity, but as

a feudal list, I'm not dismayed by

that. I think there is a natural

hierarchy. I think there is

inequality because people are not

equal, and I think delusions of

social mobility are ludicrous, which

is why we have upstarts like Thomas

Cromwell. The thing that no one

wants to admit in these discussions

is that people are unequal. Not

everyone can start a business. Why?

Because we need people to work for

businesses. Lots of people are just

not up to it. There are loads of

people who just don't have that

capacity. Being anxious about social

mobility is often a greater sign of

some kind of mental disquiet than

simply accept in yet.

The point

made, if you had entire equality of

opportunity, and absolutely level

playing field, there would still be

inequality, wouldn't there?

Yes

there would. We are saying we need

to reduce inequality to levels of

countries such as the Scandinavian

countries.

Give everyone the same

chance as somewhere like that.

We

have to make sure there is as level

a playing field as possible.

In the

audience, good morning.

A lot of the

discussion is based around the

question of inequality being a vital

incentive. Let's say it is. The next

question to me is, is the level of

inequality we are seeing in this

country and the US the level that we

want? In Scandinavian countries,

there is inequality, and that's good

for their society at the moment,

because they do have entrepreneurs,

businessmen like you, they get on

fine. There are problems, but not as

many problems as we do, so

inequality is good, but reduce it.

Inequality by definition is that

there are people at the top and

people at the bottom. The extent of

the inequality we have in Cambridge

at the moment, one of the richest

cities in the UK and therefore one

of the richest cities in the world,

is that Cambridge food bank said 25%

more last year than before. There is

extreme poverty in Cambridge, and

that's simply not acceptable. We are

trying to claim we are still a

civilised society. And it's getting

worse because of failures in the

benefits system, because of the an

affordability in housing, where

housing in Cambridge is particularly

challenging for people on low

incomes.

I see it very directly why

it's getting worse, and it's a

consequence of political decisions

that this government has chosen to

make. If you cut the welfare system,

it's not just dreadful for the

people at the receiving end, but it

destroys the quality of life for

everybody in Cambridge. We don't

want rising numbers of people

sleeping on the streets in a city

like Cambridge. People are rightly

furious about it.

The situation of

people sleeping on the streets in

Cambridge is not central

government's fault.

It is!

The

responsibility for homelessness on

the streets of any town or city in

the UK is the local council. When I

was on the council in East Cambs,

there was no homelessness and people

on the street, because of the

policies I put forward. I have

offered those policies to Cambridge

City Council, and they have not

taken them up, and I believe it's

because they want to blame the

government for something they can

solve. £17 million for housing in

the city, yet people are still on

the streets and houses have not been

built. This problem could be sold.

Cambridge City Council gets £9.5

million a year simply from car

parking in the city. It is the

mistake of the City Council change

the word inequality to reward.

Its

reward a vital incentive? Everyone

here would probably say yes in that

context. The idea that if you work

hard and have the right

opportunities, you will make

progress. People want to be

rewarded. The issue comes with the

balance of quality and inequality,

where people think others are being

rewarded for not working hard or

doing those things. How do we run

the system so that we reward and

incentivise hard work? That is a

real question we are asking.

People

in the public sector are awarded a

lot less, and they are working as

hard as anyone. A nurse on the wards

is working just as hard as you,

Joseph. You are exemplary in your

work efforts, but a nurse on the

ward and she or he could not work

harder but just not getting the

reward.

I agree with that. That goes

back to providing opportunity. If

somebody is working hard at the same

job every day, there is a cap on

what they can and. So it's providing

the opportunity for them to go into

a different career or train or what

ever that is, and that's very, very

important. We are launching a Joseph

Valente Academy at the moment, which

is about giving back opportunity to

young people. For me, it's about

providing them with opportunity. If

you provide them with an opportunity

and that person still doesn't want

to take that a level up, or change

their lifestyle that they are

potentially not happy about, what

more can we possibly do?

There is a

guy behind you who's had his hand up

for ages.

I think it's something

that Joseph said, creating these

opportunities to create

entrepreneurs in society, but is it

not then the goal of these people to

create a more equal society? Where

does that cycle and?

The trouble

with this debate, and here is an

example, is that we take a snapshot

and we say, at a snapshot in time,

there are some people who are very

rich and some are very poor. It's

like taking a snapshot of a drop of

water in midair. When I was a

student, I was poor. After 40 years

of working and honing my skills, and

saving and so on, I'm now well off.

But I'm the same person. What we

actually want is a system where the

poorest people can actually make

themselves better off, and that's

why I say that government needs to

get out of the way here, and for

example take people on the minimum

wage out of national insurance.

Let's have some building on the

green belt that's strangling

Cambridge so that house prices come

down.

I make my decisions based on

evidence, so looking at evidence,

since we have allowed gross levels

of inequality, it has not been good

for the economy. The economy has

grown at a lesser rate. Since the

crash, Britain's millionaires have

doubled their wealth, but wages for

working people have stagnated. It's

the same in the UK and the US. The

10% who are poorest in the UK, pay a

bigger percentage of tax of their

incomes than the rich do. Wealth

does not trickle down. The rich hide

their money by making donations to

political parties, who tell the rest

of us...

I'm getting the impression

that Cambridge is being singled out

from having the huge levels of

inequality, but they come from the

fact there is a lot of highly

earning individuals rather than a

high proportion of lower earning

people. The higher earning

individuals appear to be working in

very wordy fields. I agree with you

that it is preposterous that 0.1%

who are absolutely flying away with

trillions of dollars, it's an absurd

situation, and if anyone can solve

that without plunging us into

socialism, I will sign up to it. But

it's not fair to look at Cambridge

and say, it's disgraceful, your

house prices are many times the

natural... National average, because

you are a world centre of

excellence.

People with decent jobs

cannot get a mortgage.

It depends if

you want to centralise it or not. If

you have a centralised public sector

with centralised salaries, a

centralised welfare state and

centralised notion of national

Insurance, places like Cambridge

will have inequality because the

process of creating wealth is not

centralised, but distributing it is.

I would love to see Cambridge return

to a Machiavellian, walled citadel.

Builds that wall!

There is more to

life than finance. A lot of dons in

Cambridge are not paid very well,

but they lived like princes. There

is more to life than money.

I always

find it interesting that people

who... You have said you are

comfortable now, the people who say

there is more to life than money are

generally the people who have enough

money to put food on the table,

close their kids and are not worried

about that. Cambridge has topped the

league. That's what's happened. It

is a snapshot...

The poorest people

in Cambridge are the students, who

have loans so have negative wealth.

But they are going to earn far more

than other people.

On this central

question we have here. You work in

the world of comedy. If there is a

comedian playing in a pub every

night, is he or she going to be

spurred on by seeing a comedian who

sells out at the Apollo?

It is like

acting. Around 1% of actors have a

lifestyle who is inspirational, and

only about 10% have a job at any one

time. We all accept that. The world

of comedy is overwhelmingly

left-wing, and they preach a lot of

socialism, but it's incredibly petty

bourgeois.

Do they live like

socialists?

In the sense that they

are poor, they do. But in your first

15 years of comedy... It is driven

by the idea that your name could be

up in lights one day. And it's fun

on the way as well, of course.

You

have to have something to strive

for, but you also have to have some

reasonable chance of realising that

aspiration. Of course, that means

having structures in place that

protect you. The welfare state,

health, unemployment benefits. But

you also need incentives, but that's

not to say that you need a society

that's deeply unequal and in which

the structural constraints make it

impossible to achieve.

When your

grandparents have come from Bulgaria

and the Isle of Lewis, but you made

it to the White House. That's the

previous debate!

As always, the debates will continue

online and on Twitter.

Next week, we're in Newcastle

upon Tyne, so do join us then.

But for now, it's goodbye

and have a great Sunday.