 |
PRESENTER: Nick Clarke
PANELLISTS:
Robin Cook
David Willetts
Nick Clegg
Bronwen Maddox
FROM: The Queen Katherine School, Kendal, Cumbria
CLARKE
Welcome to Kendal in Cumbria, a gateway to the Lake District national park and a town of great charm in its own right. We're the guests of Queen Katherine School, celebrating its 25th anniversary this year and recently made a specialist technology college.
Our panel: Robin Cook, who resigned from the Cabinet over the Iraq War, has not been a conventional rebel since then but the former Foreign Secretary has hammered away relentlessly at the government over the war and its aftermath, he declared after May 5th that Mr Blair's reputation was so damaged that he should consider quitting at the end of Britain's EU presidency in December.
David Willetts, the Tory trade and industry spokesman, has today made the latest in a series of speeches outlining his vision of where his party should go from here. Like many another possible leadership contender he insists that at this stage he is writing and speaking exclusively to the greater good of the party and certainly not for personal ambition.
Nick Clegg, an MP for just 57 days, is already being spoken of as leadership material by some Liberal Democrats. He's already a foreign affairs spokesman and his qualifications for that include a spell working at the European Commission, running an EU aid programme in Kazakhstan, five years as an MEP and he has rather an exotic family background with only one British grandparent and a Spanish wife. Oh yes he speaks five languages too.
And finally a seasoned observer of the weird way the world works - Bronwen Maddox, foreign editor of The Times. Her regular analysis of international events provides much of the background detail that makes many of the rest of us seem so well informed.
Ladies and gentlemen, our panel. [CLAPPING]
And could we have our first question please?
PLANT
Jimmy Plant. Will Live 8 make any impression on the G8?
CLARKERobin Cook.
COOKOh it has the capacity to do that, as a matter of fact the officials who will be preparing for the summit are having their discussion on Saturday within earshot of the Live 8 performance in Hyde Park and I therefore hope that the performance at Live 8 will sing very loudly so that the officials aware out there, there are so many people who do want to see a success of the G8 summit. And I think that message of the public concern has got through. I don't believe, for instance, we would have seen George Bush announcing he's going to double aid to Africa if he was not aware that all the others coming to G8 had agreed to do that and have agreed to do so because they know of the public interest. My one reservation and I could say this about the Live 8 performances - I was distressed today to discover that 5,000 guests of big business will get the best seats at the front and will be served champagne and Pimms while the rest get bottled water. [CLAPPING] It's a shame that big bucks buy privilege even at Live 8. It would have been so nice if just this once there was a signal that we're all in it together, we're all equal and we all want the same result. [CLAPPING]
CLARKEYou're going to Edinburgh yourself, aren't you, you're not going to listen to the music or are you?
COOKOh I'm going to go to the march in Edinburgh to Make Poverty History, I will be wearing [CLAPPING] I'll be wearing my white T-shirt and parading the human wrist band round Edinburgh Castle to show the very large number of people in Scotland and outside Scotland who want that summit at Gleneagles to give the same priority to Making Poverty History as all the people on the march.
CLARKEDavid Willetts.
WILLETTSNot only will Live 8 affect the G8 it has already done so. And the effect that Bob Geldof has had in the past 20 years in just making people focus on the problems of Africa has been quite extraordinary and I think he's - I think we can all - we've all been moved and affected by what he's done and what Live 8 is going to do tomorrow. I think the important thing though is that we then expect of our political leaders that rather than simply riding on the tide of emotion - though very emotionally engaging what's happening - it's also important that they just think about some of the practical problems - governance in Africa is still an issue, look at what is happening in Zimbabwe, look at what is happening in Sudan and Darfur, look at what's happening in Ethiopia. People - politicians in Africa have to be held to account as well as politicians here in Britain and across the West. So yes it's very important and let's also have some rigorous thinking so we really make Africa better as a result.
CLARKEYou speak rather reverentially about Bob Geldof, why is it necessary to have somebody like that to create this effect, what's going on here?
WILLETTSWell I think what's going on is we're seeing that politics takes lots of different forms and it's a good thing that it does. There are disciplines of party politics and the disciplines of being a constituency member of parliament and that's one form of politics and I think it's a good form of politics but it's not the only way you can carry out politics. Bob Geldof has now become in a way a different sort of politician and a good thing too. And he's just reminding us that we, as politicians, don't just have to engage with people across the chamber of the House of Commons, we have to engage people who make powerful political points and raise political awareness of issues without being conventional politicians and that's a good thing, it makes the British political debate richer and better as a result.
CLARKEThank you. Bronwen Maddox.
MADDOXThank you. I think Bob Geldof has had a big effect already on the G8. He's told these politicians that a lot of people care, very likely people who are not particularly interested in politics anyway, certainly not a member of those parties. But where I begin to worry is we start asking what exactly - what kind of effect it should have on the G8, what kind of response there should be. Because one of the things I don't like about Bob Geldof, and as the non-politician here I guess I can say that, is the menace behind it - that if you start raising questions about how aid should be given to Africa you immediately seem hardhearted. And it isn't shortage of compassion it seems to me that has kept aid away from Africa, it's shortage of solution. People are very - rightly worried of what happens to their money when it goes there, there has been so much corruption. Now I think Bob Geldof's timing may be brilliant in that enough African countries are now on a better road, enough are well governed that more aid may come at just the right time and turn the corner. But it doesn't mean that those questions about how Africa governs itself are going to go away, he hasn't got all the solutions. And there's one other thing I don't like about it which is Tony Blair's incentive in this to use this as a way of changing the subject from Iraq. That [CLAPPING] that is the biggest development project that he's involved this country on, he says that Iraq is a country that would benefit enormously from British intervention, while it's very stubbornly refusing to develop in the way that he foresaw and to my mind that's the development project that he still should be judged by.
CLARKENick Clegg.
CLEGGWell for the benefit of the listeners to this programme it's worth just noting that we're sitting in a school hall which has got the Make Poverty History white banner running all the way round the side of the hall. And that, I think, really speaks to the way in which this issue - Making Poverty History - expressing concern and solidarity for those less fortunate than ourselves in other parts of the world has really captured the imagination of young people and I'm sure David and Robert would confirm this, I'm amazed visiting schools in my constituency how kids of all ages really feel very, very strongly about that and that has to be a good thing. My only note of warning is I saw a picture of Tony Blair and Bob Geldof in an MTV studio on this evening's newspapers with Bob Geldof, rather curiously, having his head on Tony Blair's shoulder. Now these two characters ...
WILLETTSYou wouldn't see Gordon Brown doing that would you.
CLEGGThese two - ...
CLARKEWhat put his head on Tony Blair's shoulder?
CLEGGYeah anyway. These two characters in different ways are great at orchestrating the media and they have mobilised public opinion in a dramatic fashion. The key thing though - the key test will be can they sustain that interest - can they sustain that level of public interest and commit themselves to it in the long term? Because there is just no way that the problems that the leaders in the G8 purport to be addressing will be solved in a few days, weeks or months, this will take sustained action over many, many years - that I think is the real challenge - will the spirit of Live 8 and of Make Poverty History last well into the future?
CLARKEOur questioner, Jimmy Plant, is going to come back briefly.
PLANTYeah, I think I agree with most things that the panel has said but I think it just reflects a rather sad state of human affairs because if there were 30,000 children dying everyday in the US or Europe then I don't think there'd be any need for such a concert.
CLARKEOkay, thank you. [CLAPPING] If you would like to join in that particular debate please don't forget you can either call us on 08700 100 444 for Any Answers after the Saturday edition of the programme or you can e-mail us at any.answers@bbc.co.uk. Let's have another question please.
HARTLEY
Simon Hartley. I'm interested in politics and current affairs but at the first mention of the EU I switch off - why?
CLARKERight. Even on the first day of the EU presidency of Britain? Yes even on the first he says. Okay Nick Clegg why?
CLEGGI think it's a slightly autobiographical question - only you can answer why you switch off.
CLARKEI think he may be speaking for others.
CLEGGIndeed, indeed. I think part of the reason is that the manner in which the European Union is discussed by politicians in this country is perhaps more disfigured by polemic yelling across the floor of the House of Commons than almost any other issue I can think of and that by definition turns a lot of people off. The procedures of the European Union frankly aren't wildly exciting either, it's more exciting looking at paint drying on your living wall than listening to the way in which various committees do their work in Brussels. But I don't think any of that should obscure the fact that in Europe the nations that constitute the European Union can do things together that they simply can't do on their own. From dealing with global warming, with cross border crime, regulating the activities of large multinational companies - none of these things can be done by European nations on their own. So there is a real virtue in seeking, if you like, strength and safety in numbers and I think that is often lost in all the polemic but it is an enduring virtue I think of European integration which needs to be restated more baldly than is at least today the case.
CLARKEAre you expecting people to feel more enthused by it at the end of the next six months?
CLEGGNo, my worry is that Tony Blair and he often does this - he's given a fantastic speech last week, we're all behind him against Jacques Chirac, there seems to be great cross party consensus that we all loathe the Common Agricultural Policy, want to, if you like, invoke the spirit of the Battle of Trafalgar all over again and yet we will have to ask Blair after the six month presidency what results has he got to show for his presidency? And my fear is by continually condescending towards the rest of Europe and portraying Britain as the only country with a successful economy and everybody else is somehow in the doldrums, he a. gives us the impression that the European Union is not a successful enterprise when it is in many cases, but also he won't win any friends in getting achievements by conducting that kind of rhetoric.
CLARKEBronwen Maddox, does your heart sink [CLAPPING] on the days when you have to tackle this subject?
MADDOXIt does and I completely agree with the questioner. And one of the answers is just a simple one - a lot of it is boring and rather peculiar. I always enjoy going to Brussels, the sense of stepping into a film set and everyone terribly well dressed, a lot of them fiercely bright, it's pulled in the best and brightest of this continent and you sit there thinking - what are they doing with their lives - a lot of the time. [CLAPPING] That is not to say that interesting things can't come out of it. But I think what we're seeing at the moment, not just with the French and Dutch votes, but a lot of the comments you have here, people's unease about what's happening in Europe - about how big it's got, about what it's going to ask us to do in the future, about what might come out of its procedures which are very hard to understand and there is very, very few ways of making them simpler. And I think what Tony Blair has set himself to do in the next six months is sort out what people want to keep from what, at this point, ought to be ditched. So perhaps what might liven up Europe in the next year or two is trying to work out whether some should be jettisoned of this enormous project, leaving us with the few things that we do want to do together.
CLARKEDavid Willetts.
WILLETTSYeah I mean it is very odd, you can sit at one of those meetings with your headphones on and the words are being translated into English, you're listening, but you realise after a few minutes they don't actually mean anything, it's just sort of flowing past you. But if someone said to you right what has just been said - it would be very hard to distil and get anything out of it that any of us could engage with. So there is a problem. I think we've just had a clue to the problem in the discussion we're having about Bob Geldof - there are different sorts of politics, Bob Geldof practises a kind of politics which is a very morally challenging form of politics, there is the politics of our country with our constituencies and our organised physical parties. The EU operates on a third model of politics, which is, as we heard from the commissioner, the news clip at the beginning of this programme, terrified of populism. And what that means is there are countries that think that populist democracy of the sort we have here is dangerous - people do dangerous things. Maybe because of their history they're more worried than we would be. And as a result of that it is explicitly often in many countries an elite project and the aim is for the elite to stop mass democracy doing dangerous things, as people follow gut instincts. And I think that makes it so bloodless and technocratic. That's part of the problem. As to the way forward, the way forward is surely to recognise what is truly the source of Europe's greatness, which was not an attempt to imply uniformity across the whole European continent, the reason why for centuries Europe was where the scientific research was carried out, where the arts advanced so marvellously, which precisely that if the Prince didn't like the scientific experiments you were conducting you fled over the border to a place where you could do them. It was the diversity that was the source of Europe's dynamism and the attempt to stifle its diversity is wrong and it's not even true to Europe's own traditions. [CLAPPING]
CLARKEAnd Robin Cook.
COOKWell I believe you've got a very profound problem in Britain in that there is an increasing number of the British public switching off from politics generally, we've got a serious problem of disengagement between those who are elected and those who are electors within Britain. And of course that problem gets put on stilts when you move further away even from Westminster to the European or even a global level. Having said all that I think it's desperately important that we do engage the public in British politics and in European politics. And I think the response I think to the questioner from me is well no I don't turn off when I hear the word Europe, after all let's remember what Europe has given us - we have got the richest largest single market anywhere in the world, it's the only hope our businesses have of the scale on which they can compete with the new giants like China or India or Brazil. It has given us an improvement in the environment because you get better water in your taps and better beaches to go to in the summer. It has achieved greater competition of consumers because it has halved the price of air fares in Europe and halved the price of phone calls across European borders. It has guaranteed us peace for 50 years and it has guaranteed the democracy of the new countries from Eastern Europe. That is why the countries of the Balkans are now so desperate to get in. And frankly if all of that turns you off then I'm not sure I can help you any further. [CLAPPING]
CLARKESo Simon Hartley there it is, you can't have had a more eloquent description as to why you should be enthused - are you?
HARTLEYI understand the huge importance of the EU, perhaps the presentation is just too grey, perhaps they should employ Geldof to present it.
CLARKEAlright, thank you very much. We'll move on to another question please.
FERGUSON
Malcolm Ferguson. Does the panel agree with Mayor Ken's suggestion that you should only flush the loo after a number two?
CLARKEI think Mayor Ken Livingstone is slightly anxious about water shortages all round and this is one of his solutions. Bronwen Maddox, are we in this desperate state yet do you think?
MADDOXI don't think we are yet and as you were saying it I was thinking of how I would explain that to my two year old daughter where flushing it once is a new concept. I think no I would go for the more technical solution of trying to plug a few of those many leaks in the pipes before we have to retreat to Ken's solution.
CLARKEDoes it surprise you that we go on having these problems year after year?
MADDOXNo, our water is extremely expensive, as Robin was just telling us, it's down to extremely European standards, it takes a lot of money and there isn't often in the summer quite as much of it as we think when we step out on the street and it's falling on our heads. What comes out of the tap is extremely high quality water and perhaps we should think of maybe the continental system of having lower quality water for what goes through the toilets and separating it out from the drinking system - that is the kind of discussion you get into when you're asked for an answer ...
CLARKEWe asked, you answered - it's fair.
MADDOXBut no I think Ken's answer is a - should be a last solution.
CLARKERobin Cook.
COOKWell he was at pains to say it was a purely voluntary participation. And that you didn't have to do this if you felt you couldn't. But to reassure the bulk of the listeners here he was of course speaking only for the population of London, the population of Kendal I don't think faces this problem and indeed the aftermath of the problem actually and we should face this is that there are so many people moving from the North West and from the North of England and from Scotland down to the South East that there is now an acute pressure on resources such as water across the South of England. And I only wish they would come back to the North West and Scotland and enjoy the high standard of living we're able to give them up here. [CLAPPING]
CLARKEHow you got from the question to that... Nick Clegg. No, no sorry I didn't mean to interrupt - Robin Cook do you want to go on?
COOKWell that is the big pressure on water, there's an enormous increase in the water reduction across the South of England and part of that is population pressure and industrial growth there. Part of it also of course is the fact that for every tonne of water they deliver through the tap they lose four tonnes in the pipes in between and somebody should tackle that before they ask us to stop flushing the loo. [CLAPPING]
CLARKENick Clegg.
CLEGGNo, it is striking the way which millions of Londoners now have Ken Livingstone, if not physically lurking in their loos, then at least in their minds as they prepare for number twos, number ones, number seventy five and a half or whatever they wish to do there. It slightly redefines what he might mean by extending the congestion charge of course. [LAUGHTER] And does make one fear about exactly what he means by that. I think it's actually peculiarly quite a - it's typical Ken Livingstone, he has a talent for going - touching, if you like, on taboos in a way which is both colourful and memorable but actually does raise quite a serious point. And if it does make people think about how they use the water - sorry to give such a po faced answer - it's probably quite a good thing. I think one technical solution might be [LAUGHTER] red faced - might be to deploy more variable flushing mechanisms by which different quantities of water are used for different purposes, which is something that is actually deployed more widely in other European countries and there Simon, back to your earlier question, might enliven your interest in other European matters too.
CLARKE[CLAPPING] And David Willetts.
WILLETTSWell I think Nick Clegg has just told us the first policy that's going to be in the next Lib Dem manifesto. Which is exactly the sort of thing we'd expect from, as we were told, a future leader of the party. I mean I think he's clearly a great phrase maker and he's clearly got a point. And I was - I think he's talking common sense. I must say though I was very relieved to hear from Robin Cook, as the Labour representative, the assurance that it's going to be voluntary. Under this government you can never be quite sure and for all we know we're going to have to present an ID card and get an official agreement in triplicate but at the moment it's going to voluntary and that's a relief. If I were to say - if I were to sort of focus on the underlying problem that Robin referred to I would say that what we face here is a looming question across several of the essential utilities which is just that we are not investing enough and there is a pattern emerging. I've been thinking a lot about energy recently, you see exactly the same in energy. Have we got enough infrastructure in place, are we going to face brown outs in the next few years? And you see the same with the transport - with rail and road - you see the same with the water infrastructure. We are not putting enough investment into the essential boring things we need, just to keep the basic services flowing and we need to be better and it's going to be a cost we're all going to have to bear in the years to come.
CLARKEThank you. [CLAPPING] Never let it be said there is any area where Any Questions fears to tread. And if you want to join in that discussion as well don't forget Any Answers 08700 100 444. Another question please.
THOMAS
Jeff Thomas. Does the panel consider that Tony Blair misled the country when he insisted it was impossible to put a figure on illegal immigration during the election campaign?
CLARKEThank you. That was during an interview with Jeremy Paxman and this week figures have emerged. Somewhere approaching half a million, is what the government thinks maybe an approximate figure. Nick Clegg what do you think about this?
CLEGGIf I understand it correctly the Home Office published an estimate, rather than actually a guesstimate, using some statistical methodology from the United States, which says that there's a range of I think between 300 and 570 million ...
CLARKEThousand.
CLEGGSorry 570,000 ...
CLARKEThat is a lot.
CLEGGWhoops. And that this is a very guess about how many people are here, if you like, illegally and invisibly. I simply cannot answer the question whether these figures - these guesstimates, were hidden or not. If it proves to be the case I think that would be a shocking - shocking act of political slight of hand because of the highly charged nature in which those figures would have been interpreted and debated during the election. But I think we need to work out what to do with these figures. My own view is that the worst reaction would be to say well how do we find these people and somehow kick them out? Many of these people actually I should think have lived here for a long time, have children, have put down roots, it seems to me that other countries where they have confronted this issue have best handled it by in effect extending an amnesty to those who are in that position and legalising them but in return making sure that our borders are more securely monitored so that you don't get that kind of illicit leakage in the future. My great fear is that by just banding round these guesstimates you create a climate of unnecessary fear when many of these people actually are living perfectly peaceable productive lives in the middle of our communities already.
CLARKE[CLAPPING] Bronwen Maddox.
MADDOXI do think he misled the country in that if he didn't have those figures to hand I don't believe he couldn't have had some figures to hand had he chose. I think he also misled the country in saying that he was going to do an awful lot about it. He said immediately after the election - he said I'm chastened by the election results and I know that immigration was one of the things that people really cared about and they told me about it and alright I'm going to do something about it now. And it is another of the things that have been swept up in this summer's Africa fest, which I'm not decrying but it's amazing the number of things that have got hidden underneath it and immigration - people's concern about it - is one of them.
CLARKEThank you. David Willetts.
WILLETTSWell of course Tony Blair is always very - he's a very smart lawyer - he's very careful what he says and whether he had, when he was being questioned by Jeremy Paxman, whether he knew a figure that was already circulating in the Home Office I don't know, I really don't know and I hope that still we can trust a prime minister not to deceive us to actively. But what we do know is that he himself had already commissioned the research to find out what the figures were. We know that this whole exercise that was underway was underway because of a request from 10 Downing Street, from the Prime Minister. So just to sit there and say I haven't got the faintest idea what the figure is, when he himself had already set in train an exercise to reach some estimates, I think that is pretty shocking in itself. And as there were already stories appearing in the press he must have recognised the stories that were appearing in the press were as a result of the exercise he himself had set in train. So I think that is a of itself pretty seriously misleading. And for the future - well - nobody would say that the way in which people should get into this country was by getting in illegally and then giving up on the effort to ensure that they are repatriated or if they have no legal right to be here. It's not fair if the way to get into the country is just to smuggle yourself in or pay a people smuggler and we all know how immigrants are abused in those circumstances - that shouldn't be the way of getting into the country, it should - the only fair and equitable way an advanced Western country like us can do it is by having a clear system of public rules and assessment around the world of people who have a case to come to the country. You cannot defend any other system and it's outrageous that we now know how large this estimate is.
CLARKERobin Cook.
COOKWell I had rather assumed, when the questioner began, about had Tony Blair misled us, that it was going to be a question about Iraq. And having proved my credentials with Iraq I think I can therefore with some degree, I hope, of credibility say that no I don't think he did mislead us on the question of illegal migration. If you look at what is said by the head of research at the Home Office this week he said that he himself did not know those figures at the time of the Prime Minister's interview. And the figures themselves have only been produced very recently indeed. But look I think we've got to get this in perspective. People trafficking is an appalling crime, a great evil, absolutely right we should bear down heavily on it and I think the new fines that we're bringing in to tackle those who employ illegal migrants may actually help us to crack down on that trade. But we also have to keep a balance and we should remember the enormous contribution made to our society and economy by the people who've come here to make their life here, to make their earnings here and to make a contribution to our society. People who actually keep our hospitals open, who keep our buses running, who actually make sure that our food chain operates from picking the food out of the fields and serving it in the restaurants and in the shops. If they were not here we would be much worse off. Even the Tory party at the last election used migrant labour to deliver their leaflets in London, telling people they'd stop immigration. [CLAPPING]
WILLETTSWell there is a world of difference - there is a world of difference between the Polish people who are indeed working on our buses, who are recruited to run our buses and who have a legal right to be here, there's a world of difference between that and just saying anybody can get in, you can pay your thousand dollars or whatever the rate is in your province of China to some extremely dangerous and dubious people and be smuggled into the country, quite possibly abused and then don't worry the British government will turn a blind eye. Nobody could defend that way of getting into the country, it's not right for anyone.
CLARKERight. We'll take another question please.
BAYGOT
David Baygot. Given that Labour won a solid majority with only a third of votes cast, does the panel think a more proportional system needs to be introduced?
CLARKEThank you. Bronwen Maddox, what do you think about this?
MADDOXI entirely agree with the questioner. I think we do need a more proportional system of representation. I don't think it helps people feel that the government is doing what they want and I think the government would have been saved from some of its worst mistakes, maybe even from Iraq, if we'd had a more proportional system of representation.
CLARKEWhat do you think [CLAPPING] - Nick Clegg, what do you think?
CLEGGI think we desperately need a fairer electoral system in this country. The present system we have creates - really disfigures the way in which we conduct election and also creates real imbalances in the way in which power is wielded by the government. For a start during elections the only seats where politicians really devote a lot of attention where party - national political leaders really focus on are those seats which are marginal. Everybody else is more or less ignored and disenfranchised. And then when a government gets into power, as this government has, with only 35% of the vote, I think 22% of the eligible vote, it still has a thumping great majority, it can still drive through legislation, totally ignoring reasoned opposition from other parties, reasoned opposition from the public. Look at the debate on ID cards, look at the debate on the religious hatred bill over the last two weeks. Basically the government is locked in a debate between itself, between its own front benches, and those who might - those clutch of people who might object on their own back benches. This is not a democratic open debate, it really gives - it gives government an excessive amount of authority on a very small democratic mandate and that simply cannot be right. [CLAPPING]
CLARKEAnd your passion has nothing to do with the fact that it's the only real way that a third party can make the breakthrough that you didn't really make at the last Election?
CLEGGAs it happens there are more and more people, and I think I'm sitting next to one of them, from the other two major parties who also appreciate the objective principled case for a fairer electoral system.
CLARKERobin Cook, you're pointed to, so it's your turn next.
COOKWell it was Margaret Thatcher that convinced me to the beauty of proportional representation. [CLAPPING] She never got elected with a majority of the votes, always with a minority and it seemed to me it was quite wrong that the rest of us had to put up with her prejudices, catering not even to the bulk of the people who voted Conservative but a minority of them at the time. I mean reverse the situation - suppose that we had a Conservative government elected in May with a 35% share of the electorate and a majority in the House of Commons, would the Labour Party then be saying this is a beautiful aesthetic electoral system which has the merit of delivering strong government with a clear majority in Parliament? No we would not, we'd be rising and throwing the benches around in the House of Commons and demanding a fairer system and quite right too. We touched earlier on the disconnect between the elected and the electors and there's a problem of trust in the political system and Parliament at the present time. How do we hope to restore that trust if we have a situation in which the Parliament does not represent the way the electors vote? It is a simple matter of democracy, we should have a system that gives us a parliament that represents the nation and not one third of the nation. [CLAPPING]
CLARKEAnd do you think, Robin Cook, that the fact that Labour only got 35% or 22% of those eligible to vote, does that affect the mandate which a government, like Mr Blair's, says it has?
COOKI think it's very important that we proceed with the manifesto we put to the electorate ...
CLARKEHowever small the vote?
COOKIt would touch even further the trust in politics if we did not deliver on the manifesto which we put to the electorate. But having said that Nick, that manifesto itself, of course, was tailored by the electoral system because Nick Clegg is absolutely right - what you get in this present system is the tyranny of the swing vote in the marginal seats, which is why so much of British politics is an arid debate over the centre ground. I would like to have an electoral system in which everybody's opinion matters and that's why we need an electoral system in which every vote counts and not just those in key marginal seats. [CLAPPING]
CLARKEDavid Willetts.
WILLETTSI think there's a clue because several of the people in the panel who've advocated PR have done so on the grounds that it stops things they don't like, it would have stopped Margaret Thatcher or it would have stopped ID cards. And that is indeed one of the arguments for PR. But I think it's a bad argument. It seems to me that ultimately although all governments make mistakes it is better to have governments that can be effective than the opposite. I mean we've talking about Europe today - many European governments do operate in some form of coalition building, which is a consequence of PR - deals are done after the election, rather than people knowing what they're choosing before the election. That's why it's so hard for them to do the sort of economic reforms we've all been talking about that they need to make their countries more successful and more dynamic. You get - you can't do tough and difficult things. So even though I disagree with the ID cards proposal I think that it's right that we have a government with a clear majority. I've been, as a Conservative, on the receiving end of that. In 1997 the removal vans turned up outside 10 Downing Street on the morning after the election and the furniture was moved out and the Conservatives were out of office. That is a powerful cathartic thing in the election and we should be proud of the fact in Britain we have elections with those clear results. People don't want two weeks of negotiation afterwards where deals are done, in which a party that you never thought - you never took seriously suddenly gets two seats in a government and suddenly controls a department affecting - policies affecting millions of people. I think it's right to have a clear government and I also think in terms of connection, in terms of politics that's accountable and vivid having a member of parliament with a constituency that she or he has to represent and where people know exactly who their member of parliament are, I think that is a very precious thing and in virtually every form of PR you lose it and I think only if we were to lose it would we realise precisely how valuable and how fundamental a part of our democracy it had become.
CLARKENick Clegg. [CLAPPING]
CLEGGCan I just challenge this very familiar argument that David has just set out in favour of the electoral system? I think it is potentially extremely dangerous. If your main criterion for selecting an electoral system is that it produces effective or efficient government - to push it to its extremes you might as well dispense with elections altogether - the most efficient form of government might be that you just proceed with what you wish without any care or hindrance from what public opinion wishes. Efficiency is not the spirit of democracy. Surely what you want from any reasonable democratic system is that it is fair and that it represents the views of the people who voted in it. I can't understand this rather sort of technocratic top down, very London centric view from David, which says I don't like any fiddling with the electoral system because I don't think it will allow us in Westminster to drive through what we wish.
WILLETTSThat is not - that is an absolute counter to what I'm saying. What I'm talking about is the case for a government where people know what they are getting. And the trouble with all these models of PR is that the coalitions - the coalitions that are assembled which involve endless deals done in smoke filled rooms and that nobody knows what their government is standing for or trying to do. And I would rather know where I stand and have a government that could be booted out and you'd know they're out of office ...
CLEGGPeople in Spain, people in Germany ...
CLARKEOkay. There are obviously divided views on the platform, also in the hall. Let's just have a very quick meaningless vote from our Cumbrian straw poll here. Hands up if you think there should be proportional representation to replace our current first past the post system? I'm not even going to take the other vote - that's a large majority in favour of a change to PR. For what it is worth. And thank you for that. Let's have another question please.
WILLIAMS
Paul Williams. With the advantage of medical science in recent years is it now time to revisit the abortion debate?
CLARKEThank you. The BMA have reconsidered the Abortion Act and decided that the current 24 week limit for abortions should remain in place in their view. What do you think about this Bronwen Maddox?
MADDOXI think it's time to look at it but I'm not convinced yet that it's time to drop the limit. We've had a lot - we've heard a lot about how difficult it is for babies born prematurely, even if you could help them survive, the kind of difficulties they may have later in life and the doctors, it seems to me, have been really very careful in saying look let's look at it now but they're not coming out in a pack saying it's time for 23 weeks, 22 weeks, they're really being very, very careful about whether or not they can offer the parents the hope of that child living if it's born early, whether they can offer that child the chance of health or a secure life after that. So I don't think - I wouldn't rush into this at all. The furthest I would go is say that there are now grounds to look at it again but I'd be sorry to see a great clamour for a fall in the limit because I don't think we're really heard that from the doctors themselves, even though they say the technology makes it worth looking at now.
CLARKEDavid Willetts.
WILLETTSWell I agree with what Bronwen has said. I mean obviously the sort of nightmare that we have at the back of our minds is that you'll be in a hospital where in one part of the hospital an abortion is being carried out, in another part of the hospital a foetus or a baby that is of a similar age is being heroically rescued having been born very prematurely and that would be an extraordinary position for our society to have got ourselves into. That's why I think Bronwen is right, we need to think about it, we need to review it, I don't believe we have yet reached that position but if the BMA believe that this is something that needs to be further looked at we should.
CLARKEBut the BMA of course are only part of the constituency, if you like, on this aren't they, are you not impressed by the fact that David Steel, who helped introduce the act in the first place, now believes the time has come for a change?
WILLETTSI mean I think - I see the arguments and I think I was seeing in the papers - might even have been in Bronwen's paper The Times - a list of how different countries set the age and in many countries now the age - the embryo I think was rather less than 24 weeks. So I think it's right to look at it and we need advice from the medics about what they think is feasible and what they think is right.
CLARKENick Clegg.
CLEGGI think it's one of those issues is so laden with moral and ethical and emotional intensity that whatever we do we have to do in as a consensual a manner as possible and I quite agree with both Bronwen and David that one would need to - we need to proceed with some caution. It's clearly something that we need to keep under review, simply because science has advanced so much since the 24 week was established that it would be naïve to suggest that that has not had an impact on the debate. But it's something that I would suggest should only ever be considered in Parliament and only any change should really be considered in Parliament once the debate has progressed much, much further than it has so far. And the BMA decision today is an important one but I don't think should be regarded as the definitive one.
CLARKERobin Cook.
COOKI think we have to pay attention to what was said by the BMA in their debate Nick, I accept entirely the point you make, that they are only part of the constituency. But remember these are the doctors who see the women who are going through the abortions and the reason why they voted by three to one not to reduce the upper limit is because they know that the very small number of abortions that take place late in the stage are often the most difficult cases of women who've discovered that there is a severe deformity about the baby they're carrying or very young children who may not have come forward earlier on. And that's why they were very reluctant to remove from those women the opportunity of abortion. That said, I would entirely agree, it's surely in everybody's interest, that we reduce the number of late abortions. And that's why I've got to say I'm rather puzzled by some of the people who most often argue for the reduction in the upper limit and late abortions are often the same people who are opposed to making it easier to get an early abortion or indeed to provide sex education to stop the pregnancy in the first place. And I think if we tackle some of those issues we would not have the same problem of late abortions. [CLAPPING]
CLARKEYou all seem to be in broad agreement about this and a very gentle approach to it but Nick Clegg I wonder what you think about the fact that certainly in the last election and presumably much more so in the next election the churches, the Catholic church in particular, wants this to be, as the Cardinal Archbishop said, part of the electoral debate at election time, he would like it to be more like the American system - what do you think about that?
CLEGGI think it's right that the churches make their voice heard on this. I think it is wrong, and I'm not to be honest sure if any church leader was actually suggesting this, that this should become a party political issue ...
CLARKENot party political but just that it should be part of the discourse of an election.
CLEGGFine, but I think one would be - I'd be careful. Party - I mean election are by definition contests between parties and I don't think this issue is susceptible to yaboo party politics. So by all means let's have the debate, by all means let the churches inspire and provoke debate but I would council against doing that precisely at election time, I think it's when you get the most simplistic and shrill arguments being deployed on both sides.
CLARKEPaul Williams, our questioner [CLAPPING] what do you think?
WILLIAMSYeah I just think it's a very complex issue but I just feel a bit uneasy about the kind of scenario that Mr Willetts mentioned about having the same scenario in two different beds - one can live and one can't - that's the thing that makes me worry.
CLARKEAlright, thank you very much indeed. Well let's have another question please, I think we've got one lined up and here it comes.
MCGRATH
Bob McGrath. We've had the crazy frog ringtone, now the Lake District Tourist Board has created the barmy sheep ringtone in the tune of Jerusalem. What ringtones or what animal ringtones would the members of the panel choose and why?
CLARKE[CLAPPING] I'm allowing the applause generously to give you time to think here. And also just to enter a caveat is that I don't think any of us checked whether the Lake District Tourist Board had indeed done it, I'm sure you - exactly what - they are, everyone's nodding, everyone knows about it here. Has anyone got the barmy sheep ringtone? Yep somebody has - no don't play it to us please. Right that's enough thinking time. David Willetts.
WILLETTSWell I guess that in terms of - I must confess that for me the ringtone that I most like is that incredible and effort eventually after large amounts of sophisticated technology of recreating the sound of a 1950s telephone and they've finally managed to get it to sound just like phones used to sound. If I were to go for an animal sound I guess we have a marvellous Golden Retriever and I would - especially if it was going to get my attention - the barking of our Golden Retriever might be a good sound to hear.
CLARKEBronwen Maddox.
MADDOXThanks. I - well I was going to say, before you got to the animal bit, I was going to say Dr Who which was the most wonderful alien sound I heard on someone's phone and it stopped the traffic. But if an alien doesn't quite count as an animal then I'd go for lion's growl - I heard someone playing one and this menacing growl started up from the back of a very quiet meeting and it brought the whole thing to a halt.
CLARKENick Clegg.
CLEGGDo newts make noise? I'm afraid since the discussion about lavatories, water and Ken Livingstone, the only animal that's popped in my mind is a newt.
CLARKELet's leave it there - let's leave it there. Go no further. Robin - Robin Cook.
COOKNick, what you're suggesting is you could have a flushing toilet noise. The animal which I love most and which I like to spend Saturday's watching are horses and do go to the race meetings and I would be quite happy to have a neighing horse on my phone because one of the beauties of horses - I've never yet met a horse that actually wants to talk politics.
CLARKEThank you. Thanks very much to you all and don't forget Any Answers 08700 100 444 after Saturday's programme. Next week, with Jonathan Dimbleby back in the chair, the programme will be at Deddington in Oxforshire with Alan Johnson the trade secretary, David Cameron the Conservative education spokesman, Brian Eno the music producer and the political editor of the Sunday Express Julia Hartley-Brewer. But from all of us here goodbye. [CLAPPING]
|
|
