Skip to main content

tv   Politics and Public Policy Today  CSPAN  April 4, 2016 11:00am-1:01pm EDT

11:00 am
scribbled down the headings -- you said that there would not be any economic shock, even in the short term, of brexit, even though your own economic adviser -- and i'm quoting -- only recently said leaving the eu would be an economic shock, and economic shocks depress economic activity. you said that, in a speech very recently in darford, that 400 pounds was being added to the cost of food of every household. but anybody listening to that might think, oh, what, if i leave the eu, then i might pick up 400 pounds of benefit. but as you yourself, once you were cross examined on it thoroughly, acknowledged that's not the case. >> but there would be a saving -- >> hold on. >> okay, go on. >> you maintained that figure would be lower. you said about half an hour ago
11:01 am
in cross examination with john mann -- i think it was with john mann, that you make no comment on the directive that led to this dispute or this extraordinary exchange on tea bags, but actually, when you look at the speech you made, you described the directive as ludicrous, quite the opposite of -- >> sorry, what -- >> -- the impression that you gave in response to that question. and you said -- i mean, we can carry on with so many of these. >> well, go on. >> you've said that between half and two-thirds of everything that goes through parliament is being produced by brussels. but actually, the facts are that the best sources suggest between 50 and 59% is either produced or at least influenced, is the word you used, influenced by the eu. in other words, this is not produced by brussels, between half and two-thirds.
11:02 am
it's between 15% and 59%. and it's inferenced in some way, and this includes the decisions which relate often to individual firms, which constitutes about a third of the total number in itself. so, i come back to my original question -- by all means qualify further the answer you've given on each of those points or all, if you feel necessary -- >> yeah, i would. >> i just want you -- to ask you whether you'd be prepared to consider, given that we need to have a sensible debate about this subject -- there are some very foolish claims, as you've already seen, which many in this committee think are being made by the remain camp, but it seems that you are now fueling more of the fire. >> well, i'm grateful. let's get -- if i may, i'll go through your points one by
11:03 am
one -- >> and you may have the last word. >> one by one. i think that on perhaps a huge downward pressure on wages, yes, it's a matter of great economic control, but i think in some places, some sectors of industry, business, there has been considerable down pressure as a result of the flow, uncontrolled flow of unskilled labor. whether it's always huge or not, people will dispute, but i don't think many economists would debate, would really contest that there has been downward pressure on wages. >> just to clarify, the word huge -- >> i'm saying it might not always be huge, but in some cases, i'm sure it has been. secondly, on your point about -- and in this city alone, i think in real incomes have still, best of my memory, are still not back up to the levels for the bottom two, still not back up to the levels of 2008.
11:04 am
there has been substantial downward pressure on wages, and that is not -- there are many factors for that but immigration is certainly one of them. on the issue of what would happen if we left and the shock that people describe, i do think -- and i'm grateful for what you said about some of the alarmism of the remain campaign. i do think it is wildly done. the point i'm trying to make is i think by the time it were to happen, it would be very much priced in, people would understand the consequences. i think that if you look at -- the reason i make the analogy of the y2k bug is because, you know, by the time that happened, everybody had freaked out so much that it passed without a batting of an eyelid. i think that the same thing would happen with brexit. we would simply get on with it and business would get on with it, and the deals i have
11:05 am
described would be readily done on the back of what is already a huge free trade area. on the point about the cost of food, yes, there is a cost, an extra cost of food as a result of agriculture -- what i tried to say in my long exchange with mr. caravan is that we are big net contributors to the eu agriculture budget as well as to the overall budget. approximately 8.5 billion, maybe 10 billion pounds goes from us to the eu never to be seen again, and it's a long time since the -- they have spent a long time not signing off the accounts of the eu. even today they continually point out that a large percentage -- i'm sorry, not -- a significant percentage of the budget is misspent or can't be properly accounted for. i think the 5% is a lot of
11:06 am
money. the eu budget's about, 2007 to 2013 about 868 billion euros. you know, 4% of that, 5% of that, you're talking about serious sums of money just going missing. it is not good use of taxpayers' money, and it needs to come back to this country. afterward there would be savings on the agriculture budget if we did. on the point about the animal hygiene by-products legislation, regulation, my point there was very simple. i made it repeatedly both to you and to john mann. i do think that the real issue there is about gold plating, it's about how officials in our country take eu legislation -- >> i'm just -- i'm sorry to interrupt, boris. i only want to read you what you actually said only very recently, just sometimes easing eu rules sound simply ludicrous, like the rule that you can't recycle a tea bag. >> i think most people would say that that does sound -- >> that's pretty much of a reference there to gold plating, a criticism of domestic --
11:07 am
>> i think you will find that certainly frequently i've made the point about domestic gold plating, and it does sound ludicrous. it is a result of the hideous confluence of the eu regulation and overzealous implementation by officials in this country. as for the percentage of eu regulation or legislation coming through this place, i think after a lengthy mastication, we basically agree that you get to the figure -- if you just look at the directives, you get you're down at about 13%. but if you include the statutory instruments -- and we had a long discussion about this -- if you include the statutory instruments, you're up at almost two-thirds, 59% of law going through this place. that is a huge amount. and the -- >> being produced? >> emanating from brussels in such a way -- this is the
11:08 am
crucial thing -- as to fall within eu competence. and once it's within eu competence, it is by european law. that is the crucial thing. and i'm grateful -- >> very helpful to have that clarification. >> i'm grateful for this opportunity to make these points, because i feel that far from my having to clear up some of the things i've said, it is up to the remain campaign and their running and infax and others to explain why they have gone -- >> you're in danger of -- >> stunningly -- [ everyone talking at once ] >> delivering us grains of truth with mountains of nonsense, i'm afraid. >> i'm sorry. i'm telling you the truth. >> you were dangerously close to making some very specific points a moment ago. >> let me just consider -- >> by all means, do have the last word. >> three points. the reasons for wanting brexit,
11:09 am
the fundamental three. one, it's too expensive, the eu as it currently stands. we need our money back. 8.5 billion, 20 net is wasted. secondly, it's about power, about democracy, about this place, it is really being undermined. it is absurd that we can't control our borders. the volume is absurd. the third reason is the fundamental dishonesty of continuing to pretend that we are part of a free trading arrangement in what is a political project and we should level with the british public about what is really going on. >> that's extremely helpful clarification of your justification for your decision, and i'm very grateful to you for having stayed three hours, an hour longer than we normally have sessions without an interval. you've provided some extremely interesting, varied and, how should i say, evidence-softening primary colors, as we've come to expect of you, and -- >> i'm most grateful to you and to your heroic committee for --
11:10 am
>> who -- [ everyone talking at once ] >> most of them not even con consulting their blackberrys, unbelievable. the extraordinary diligence that you -- >> we may even need to see you again if you carry on like this. that might finally shut you up. thank you very much, boris. >> if you don't want me to talk, you don't have to invite me. here's a look at what's live today on the c-span networks. at noon, a discussion on counterterrorism efforts with the co-authors of the book "terror, security and monday: balancing the risks, benefits and costs of homeland security." they're speaking at the cato institute here in washington, d.c., and it's live at noon on c-span. at 1:30, a discussion on expanding opportunities in the digital economy. it's co-hosted by the american enterprise institute, the center for american progress and the markel foundation.
11:11 am
that's on c-span2. and on "the road to the white house" tonight, senator ted cruz holds a campaign rally in waukesha, wisconsin, ahead of the state's primary tomorrow. he'll be joined by former republican presidential candidate carly fiorina and utah senator mike lee. that gets under way tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. campaign 2016 continues on tuesday, april 5th, with the wisconsin primary. live coverage begins tuesday night at 9:00 eastern. tune in for complete election results, candidates' speeches and viewer reaction. taking you on the road to the white house on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. next, bbc parliament looks back at some of the major events in the british parliament since january in their program "westminster in review" hosted by alicia mccarthy. topics include the uk's upcoming
11:12 am
referendum on membership in the european union, the 2016 budget, and the terrorist attacks in brussels. hello, there, and welcome to "westminster in review," our look back at the big events since the start of 2016. coming up, the uk is to vote on whether to be in or out of europe, a battle that's long stirred passions. >> i believe the choice is between being an even greater britain inside a reformed eu or a great leap into the unknown. >> we have a net migration of about 240,000 at the moment. surely, that is unsustainable and what is negotiated will not prevent that from happening. >> george osborne presents his eighth budget but is forced into a rethink after a dramatic resignation. labor says the process is in
11:13 am
chaos. >> he hasn't been very successful at producing a balanced budget in the interests of everyone in this country, particularly those with disabilities! >> and the lourdes put pressure on the government, voting against a string of bills on disability, child migration and party funding. >> i do not wish to be party to a move that would seriously disadvantage one of the great parties of this country. >> but first, to the referendum on britain's membership of the european union. david cameron promised in his manifesto that he'd renegotiate britain's relationship with the eu and put the results of that deal to a vote. the prime minister wanted restrictions on migrants' inward benefits. he wanted child benefit for the children of eu migrants living overseas to be scrapped, a promise that the eu commitments to ever closer union wouldn't apply to britain and safeguards to protect the city of london. after weeks of toing and froing,
11:14 am
the prime minister came forward with a package he agreed with the principal representative of the eu. mr. cameron had to get all 27 other member states to agree it, but the outline deal got a frosty reception from his own euro skeptics. >> the thing has been further watered down, mr. speaker. >> david cameron went away and negotiated the detail of the package with other eu leaders, making concessions along the way. for example, abandoning a proposal to scrap child benefit paid overseas, and instead, limiting the amount paid. and instead of a four-year ban on migrants claiming benefits, an agreement that entitlements to things like tax credits would be phased in for new arrivals. with the details finalized, mr. cameron came back to the commons, confirming the referendum would be held on june 23rd. >> we will be in the parts of europe that work for us, influencing the decisions that affect us in the driving seat of
11:15 am
the world's biggest single market and with the ability to take action to keep our people safe, but we will be out of the parts of europe that do not work for us, out of the euro, out of the eurozone bailout, out of the passport-free, no-borders sharing area, and permanently and legally protected from ever being part of an ever closer union. >> and he finished on a personal note. >> i believe the choice is between being an even greater britain inside a reformed eu or a great leap into the unknown. the challenges facing the west today are genuinely threatening. putin's aggression in the east, islamic extremism to the south. in my view, this is no time to divide the west. when faced with challenges to our way of life, our values and our freedoms, this is a time for strength in numbers. and mr. speaker let me end by saying this -- i am not standing for re-election. i have no other agenda.
11:16 am
i have no other agenda than what is best for our country. i'm standing here telling you what i think. my responsibility as prime minister is to speak plainly about what i believe is right for our country, and that is what i will do every day for the next four months, and i commend this statement to the house. >> the changes the prime minister secured do nothing to address the real challenges of low pay in britain, undercutting of local wage rates and industrywide pay agreements. they won't put a penny in the pockets of workers in britain, nor will they stop the grotesque exploitation of many migrant workers or reduce inward migration to britain. >> scotland is a european nation and the smp is a pro-european party. we will campaign positively to remain within the eu. hopefully, the prime minister can confirm today that he will reject the tactics of project fear and make a positive case
11:17 am
for remaining part of a reforming european union. >> my right, honorable friends, the prime minister, to explain to the house and to the country in exactly what way this deal returns sovereignty over any field of law making to these houses of parliament. >> this deal brings back some welfare powers it brings back some immigration powers, it brings back some bailout powers. but more than that, because it carves us forever out of ever closer union, it means that the ratchet of the european court taking power away from this country cannot happen in future. >> can i thank my friend for the referendum, first of all. he and i fundamentally disagree, as he knows. my concerns for immigration, which he said he would contain -- we have a net migration of about 240,000 at
11:18 am
the moment. every year for three years, that would be about 700,000, 750,000. that's the size of the city of leeds every three years in this country. surely, that is unsustainable and what he is negotiated will not prevent that from happening. >> in a debate on parliamentary sovereignty, conservative euro skeptics made clear that opposition to the deal before them. >> we have actually reached the point of no return. we have to say no. we have to leave. that is the position i don't need to say any more as far as i'm concerned. this is about the liberties of this country. >> let me conclude on a note of freedom with the words of john milton himself. me thinks i see in my mind a noble and presont nation, rousing herself like a strong man after sleep and shaking her
11:19 am
invincible locks. me thinks i see her as an eagle mewing her mighty youth and kingdling her undazzled eyes at the full, midday being. and when he spoke those words, he spoke in defense of freedom and truth. let us believe in the genius of our country. >> while opinion in the conservative party is clearly divided, labor, the lipdems and the smp are for staying in the eu and the democratic unionists for coming out. the house of lords is broadly more pro-european, and when peers had their chance to discuss the subject, one former eu commissioner strongly supported the deal david cameron had done. >> once the dye is cast, there will be no turning back. we cannot leave the european union, and for economic and trade purposes be treated as if
11:20 am
we are still in it. that is the unescapable fact of what we are facing. >> the case for getting out seems to me to rest on a strangely old-fashioned view of sovereignty, almost old india sovereigntiy when the power rested in the old nation state. it's no longer true. i suspect there is more power resting on the global stage today that affects the lives of ordinary citizens that is rested and vested in the institutions of the nation states like ourselves. >> i have come to the conclusion that the european union in its present form is a flawed and failing project which is making its inhabitants poorer than they shouldn't need be and because it's failing, contrary to what's being said by some of your lordships this afternoon to keep its people safe. >> the real scare story is staying in an unreformed eu with still no control of our borders
11:21 am
and subject to bureaucrats we cannot vote out and who have made it clear they do not care what we think. there are 195 sovereign nations in the world and 167 manage without being members of the eu. withdrawing from the eu is the safe option. our continued membership is a further leap into the economic chaos created by the euro and uncontrolled migration. >> now, a little bit like birthdays, they seem to come around much more often the older you get. in mid-march, george osborne delivered his eighth budget, one which would prove to be the most decisive yet for his government. stepping into the political spotlight once again, the chancellor flagged his announcement as a budget for the next generation. there were many conflicting pressures on george osborne ahead of his big day. with sagging growth predictions on one hand and demands not to raise unpopular taxes on the other. the chancellor was said not to
11:22 am
provide fodder for his party's euro skeptics ahead of the eu referendum in june. making this budget even more of a political and financial balancing act than ever. >> we said our country would not repeat the mistakes of the past and instead live within our means. today we maintain that commitment to long-term stability in challenging times, decisive action to achieve a 10 billion pound surplus. we act now so we don't pay later. we put the next generation first. >> there was an eye-catching proposal to put a tax on high-sugar soft drinks, and there was a tax cut for business. >> next we want to help people to invest in our business and help them to create jobs. the best way to encourage that is to let them keep more when that investment is successful. our capital gains tax is now one of the highest in the developed world when we want our taxes to be among the lowest.
11:23 am
the headline rate of capital gains tax currently is at 28%. today i am cutting it to 20%, and i am cutting the capital gains tax paid by basic rate taxpayers from 18% to just 10%. >> there would also be an increase in the income tax threshold and an increase in the amount people could earn before paying higher income tax. >> mr. deputy speaker, we made another commitment in our manifesto, and that was to increase the threshold to which people pay the higher rate of tax. that threshold stands at 42,385 pounds today. i can tell the house that from april next year, i am going to increase the high-rate threshold to 45,000 pounds. that's a tax cut of over 400 pounds a year. it's going to lift over 500,000 people who should never have been paying the higher rate out of that higher-rate bound altogether, and it's the biggest above inflation cash increase since nigel lawson introduced the rate over 40 years ago.
11:24 am
this is a budget that gets the investors investing, savers saving, businesses doing business so that we build for working people a low-tax, enterprise-driven, securer home, strong in the world. i commend to the house a budget that puts the next generation first. >> conservative mps roared and waved their papers, but their initial enthusiasm was soon overshadowed when it became clear that the chancellor was proposing to cut some taxes while at the same time planning to save 4.4 billion pounds from payments known as pifs made to some of the most disabled people. the move provoked a wave of critical newspaper headlines. disquieted among conservative back benches and an immediate rebuke from labor. >> this budget, mr. deputy speaker, has unfamous at its very core, paid for by those who can least afford it. he could not have made his priorities clearer.
11:25 am
while 500,000 people with disabilities are losing over 1 billion pounds in personal independence payments, corporation tax has been cut and billions handed out in tax cuts to the very wealthy. every library that's been closed, every elderly person left without proper care, every swimming pool with reduced opening hours or closed altogether is a direct result of government underfunding our local authorities and councils. far from presiding over good quality employment, he is the chancellor that's presided over underemployment and insecurity. with nearly -- over the past six years, the chancellor's set targets on deficit, on debt, on productivity, on manufacturing and construction, on exports. he's failed in all of them and
11:26 am
he's failing this country. >> this is all about political choices, and we said at the election, and we hold to it, a very modest 0.5% real tax increase in expenditure could have released money not just for investment, but to make sure those on benefit did not fall any further behind. that would have been a sensible, humane and productive thing to do. the chancellor and this government have gone against that one more time. he may be able to sell that to some of his back benchers. he's been unable to sell it in scotland, and i fear that will continue to be the case for him. >> stewart hosie. well, as it turned out, the person george osborne couldn't sell his budget to was one of his cabinet colleagues, iain duncan smith. the man who had been working pensions secretary for six years and the architect of many of the government's welfare changes dramatically resigned two days later with a savage attack on
11:27 am
the budget. iain duncan smith described plans for multibillions in savings on disability benefits as indefensible. the decision of the euro skeptic and former conservative party leader to quit dealt a huge blow to the government. the prime minister, david cameron, was due to make comments monday to make a statement on migration but took time to defend his government and direction. despite the stinging tone of mr. duncan smith's resignation letter, the prime minister paid tribute to him. >> my right, honorable friend spent almost a decade campaigning for welfare reform and improving people's life chances, and he has spent the last six years implementing those policies in government. and in that time, we've seen nearly 500,000 fewer children living in workless households, over a million fewer people on out-of-work benefits, and nearly 2.4 million more people in work. my right, honorable friend contributed an enormous amount to the work of this government, and he can be proud of what he
11:28 am
achieved. >> in the wake of the budget eruptions, the government bowed to pressure from mps across the commons, including some of its own, and agreed to cuts in vat on women's sanitary product and solar panels. and the newly installed working pension secretary steven crabb used his first day on the job to confirm proposed cuts to payments for some disabled people wouldn't go ahead and no other welfare cuts were planned. so, less than a week after he delivered his budget, george osborne took the unusual step of coming back to the commons to wind up the budget debate and began by praising iain duncan smith. >> i'm sorry that my right, honorable friend chose to leave the government. and let me here in this house recognize his achievements in helping to make work pay, protecting the vulnerable and breaking the decades-old cycle of welfare dependency. >> he confirmed he was reversing planned cuts to personal
11:29 am
independents payments. >> it's been cut from 155 billion pounds when we came to office to 55 billion pounds next year. it falls in every year. higher spending on disabilities will be reflected in the autumn statement forecast, and we do not propose to make any further changes ahead of that. these are the changes you can afford to absorb when you're getting public spending under control. >> it's f it's been so relatively simple to absorb this change, why on earth did he put it in the first place and threaten the life of the people with disabilities in this country? people were terrified by this and now you're saying it's easily absorbed. why were you doing it in the first place? >> mr. speaker, if you take no decisions to control welfare spending, to control public expenditure, you destroy the nation's finances, and the people who suffer are precisely the most vulnerable in society. so, yes, we've taken difficult decisions. where we have not got them
11:30 am
right, we've listened and we've learned. but if we had not taken all of these decisions, the country would be in even a bigger mess than the one we inherited. >> but george osborne's labor shadow was unrelenting. >> in my view, and i believe that of many others, the behavior of the chancellor over the last 11 days calls into question his fitness for the office he now holds. what we've seen is not the actions of a chancellor, a senior government minister, but the grubby, incompetent manipulations of a political chancellor. >> so, a dramatic few months for the government with the confirmation of the referendum on europe and the row over the budget. with me to discuss it all is our parliamentary correspondent, sean curran. sean, let's start with talking about europe. it's worth remembering that the conservative party and the labor party have pretty much completely reversed their positions on this over the
11:31 am
years. but just how strong is euro skepticism in the conservative party now? >> you're right to say they've changed position. in the 1980s, it was labor that was the euro skeptic party, when the conservatives were very pro europe. but over the years, we've seen that change. and of course, when tony blair was prime minister, he was very pro european at a time when the conservatives were becoming increasingly euro skeptic. i think what we've seen over the past two elections in 2010 and 2015 is that the new generation of conservative mps are much more euro skeptic than their predecessors. it's taken almost right now that conservatives would be euro skeptic. and as we've seen, for some, that means they're willing to campaign for the uk to leave the european union. so, whilst all mps on that side will describe themselves as euro skeptic to some degree, almost half would like to leave the eu. >> what about labor party? they, in contrast, have been much more quiet on the whole european issue. >> the labor party still has its
11:32 am
euro skeptics, and some of those people are some of the most vocal people in the european debate. but as a whole, the party's decision is that it wants the uk to stay in the europon union. but you're right, we have not seen much of an effort by the labor party to capitalize upon the debate that's going on within the conservative ranks, and it's not an issue that labor have really pushed in parliament. now, outside parliament they've got figures who are involved in the referendum campaign, but inside parliament, we haven't seen very many challenges to the government over the conservative splits on europe, which we've seen emerge in the last few weeks. >> all right. now, let's move on to george osborne's budget. george osborne is always counted as a real tactician, a very political chancellor. how has it all gone so wrong for him? >> well, one of the things that his supporters say is that he is a great strategist and he can think ahead. one of the things his critics say is that sometimes he's got a bit of a tin ear and he doesn't
11:33 am
always understand how things will go down in the country. so, things that can look very clever on paper and in treasury sometimes don't go down well in the media and with the wider public. and we've seen that before with the famous pasty tax and the caravan tax and other problems that he's had. and of course, now with his latest budget. what he'd hoped we'd all be talking about, the sugar tax. instead, it turned into a big row about changes to the welfare budget, and of course, the most damaging thing for george osborne was the fact that many of his critics weren't on the opposition benches, they were from his own side, his own mps who were unhappy with the budget. so, yes, you can't ever, i don't think, rule him out, because he's had a bit of a roller coaster career, but this has certainly been a difficult time for the chancellor. >> all right, sean. we'll come back to you later in the program, but for now, thank you very much, indeed. now let's take a look at some of the other stories from around westminster in "brief." the government's been told its latest bill to give new surveillance powers to the
11:34 am
security services is fantastically intrusive. the investigatory powers bill means that for the first time, judges will approve interception warrants signed by ministers. the secretary said thanks to numerous reports and inquiries, the original bill had been much improved. >> today, terrorists and criminals are operating online with a reach and scale that never existed before. they're exploiting the technological benefits of the modern age for their own twisted ends, and they will continue to do so as long as it gives them a perceived advantage. we must ensure that those charged with keeping us safe are able to keep pace. >> mrs. may turned to one of the more controversial measures. >> the only new power in the bill is the ability to require communications service providers to retain internet connection records. when served with a notice issued by the secretary of state and after consultation with the provider in question. and i want to be quite clear and reiterate what i said earlier, that internet connection records do not provide access to a
11:35 am
person's full web browsing history. an internet connection record is a record of what internet services a device or a person has connected to, not every work page they have visited. >> the time has come for this house to lay politics aside and find that point of balance between privacy and security in the digital age that can command broad public support. >> the powers authorized by this bill are formidable and capable of misuse. in the absence of a written constitution, it is only the subjective tests of necessity and proportionality that stand in the way of that misuse. the bill should be far, far more explicit than it currently is, that these powers are the exception from standing principles of privacy and must never become the norm. it's being claimed that hundreds of thousands of women born in the 1950s are facing hardship following the decision to equalize the state pension
11:36 am
age with men. in the 1990s, the government agreed that women and men should both retire at 65, but ministers then raised the age to 66. and in 2011, speeded up the change. in a commerce debate, mps claim that women born in the 1950s weren't told in time to make extra savings, and they demanded the government make so-called transitional arrangements. >> setting up in that gallery right now, they did not cause the financial crash, they did not cause the state of economyism and they did not make the irresponsible decisions that have gotten us here. i understand, i fully understand the question, where are you going to find the money, but i refuse to accept or believe that it's got to come out of the pensions of older women. >> some women born in the 1950s will have started their working lives without even the protection of the 1970 equal pay act. many of those women will have carried out work at a lower rate than men for no other reason
11:37 am
than that they were women. the gender pay gap is at its widest for many of the women who are under discussion today. and let's not forget, either, the time that many of them have taken, part time or to bring up children, and have not even had the chance to contribute to occupational pensions. >> it is regrettable that people have sought to make this on a political basis and have conveniently forgotten that after 1995, there was 13 years of labor government, and i have here a list -- i have here a list of some ten pensions ministers all during the labor administration, and they totally failed to do anything, yet, they conveniently seek to put the blame post 2010. should the laws on prostitution be changed? some of the activities around prostitution are illegal, such as curb crawling or soliciting on the streets, but the act of
11:38 am
exchanging money for sex is legal. campaigners say the people who buy sex should be criminalized. the home affairs committee heard some powerful testimony from a woman who was a sex worker for six years. >> i was beaten and abused or raped by buyers. removing them or making them smaller amount does not make it more dangerous. >> but another we wanted protection, not criminalization. >> we as sex workers are seeking the right to work together for safety, and in doing so, to increase our labor rights as well as workers. at present, the sex industry is the only industry in the uk that i can think of which compels me as a woman to work alone and leaves me wide open to attack from predators and attackers. a deal has finally been reached between the westminster and hollywood governments over future scottish spending.
11:39 am
after months of haggling, ministers have settled the financial deal which will accompany new tax powers due to come to scotland next year. the first minister made the announcement to msps. >> i have been clear throughout that i would not sign up to a systemic cut to scotland's budget, whether that cut is being applied today or by a prejudged review in five or six years' time. during the course of this afternoon, negotiations have continued on that basis, and i have spoken to the chancellor. as it is out of these conversations, i can report to parliament that there is now an agreement in principle that i believe we can recommend to parliament. >> the next day at prime minister's questions, the smp's westminster leader raised the deal with david cameron. mr. cameron said it was an excellent deal for scotland and the rest of the united kingdom. >> for those of us who want to keep the united kingdom together, what we've just demonstrated is that you can have full on devolution with a
11:40 am
powerhouse parliament, with a fair fiscal settlement inside the united kingdom, and i think that is something to be celebrated. now we're going to move to the situation where the scottish government and the scottish parliament will have to start talking about policies and decisions, rather than processes. >> there was drama in the welsh assembly when a bill which would ban e-cigarettes in some public places was tied on the final vote. despite cross-party support for many of the measures in the bill, a deal between them collapsed. plied voted against the bill in a last-minute move, meaning the assembly was tied 26-26. the casting vote fell to the presiding officer, who's obliged to maintain the status quo, meaning that the bill didn't pass. you're watching "westminster in review" with me, alicia mccarthy. still to come, more trouble for the government over welfare, trade unions and sunday shopping. >> goods are delivered on a
11:41 am
sunday, call centers open on a sunday, many sectors and professions work on a sunday -- >> those on the internet between midnight and 3:00 a.m. in the morning, is that an argument for the shops being open during that time? but before all that, it's been a difficult couple of months for the health secretary jeremy hunt. he's been in dispute with england's junior doctors over a proposed new contract and plans for a seven-day nhs. doctors staged a series of protests and launched industrial action in their long-running row. in mid-february, the doctors union, the british medical association, rejected a final take it or leave it offer. jeremy hunt came to the commons and announced the government would impose the new contract on junior doctors. >> under the existing contract, doctors can receive the same pay for working quite different amounts of unsocial hours. doctors not working nights can be paid the same as those who do.
11:42 am
and if one doctor works just one hour over the maximum shift length, it can trigger a 66% pay rise for all doctors on that rotor. three-quarters of doctors will see a take-home pay rise, and no trainee working within contracted hours will have their pay cut. >> jeremy hunt also announced a review into ways to improve doctors' morale, but the opposition was scathing. >> this whole dispute could have been handled so differently. the house secretary's failure to listen to junior doctors has deeply, dubious misrepresentation about research about care at weekends and his desire to make these contract negotiations into a symbolic fight for delivery of seven-day services has led to a situation which has been unprecedented in my lifetime. >> she feared many doctors would head for countries like australia. >> a poll earlier this week found that nearly 90% of junior
11:43 am
doctors are prepared to leave the nhs if a contract is imposed. how does the health secretary propose to deliver seven-day services with one-tenth of the current junior doctor workforce? how can it possibly be right for us to be training junior doctors and the consultants of tomorrow only to be exporting them en masse to the southern hemisphere? >> the row about junior doctors spilled over into pmqs, where jeremy corbin turned his fire on the state of the nhs in david cameron's own area. >> indeed, in the prime minister's own local nhs trust, it's overspent on staffing costs by 11 million pounds this year, yet has managed to spend 30 million pounds on agency staff. will the chair of the oxford antiausterity campaign be writing another letter to himself asking his local -- asking on behalf of his constituents for the health
11:44 am
secretary to intervene and support his local nhs? >> david cameron stood up to answer, saying he was proud of the nhs and people who worked in it. someone shouted "ask your mum," a reference to the fact that mr. cameron's mother signed a petition objecting to cuts in the area. but the prime minister wasn't taking that lying down. >> ask my mother. well, i think i know what my mother would say. i think she would look across the dispatch box and say put on a proper suit, do up your tie and sing the national anthem! >> the cheering and jeering continued for some time before jeremy corbin could make himself heard. >> if we're talking of motherly advice, my late mother would have said, stand up for the principle of a health service free of the point of views of everybody! because that's what she dedicated her life to, as did many of her generation. >> and the mother theme continued as david cameron set
11:45 am
out what this government was doing for the nhs. >> and so, when you look at the nhs today, and my mother is equally proud of the nhs as i am, and i know she would be pleased to know 1.9 million more people going to a&e, 1.6 million more operations, 10,700 more doctors, 11,800 more nurses, and i have to say, i think if nye bevin was here today, he would want a seven-day nhs, because he knew the nhs was for patients up and down our country! >> nye brevin would be turning in his grave if he could hear the prime minister's attitude towards the nhs. he was a man with vision. he was a man with vision who wanted a health service for the good of all. >> jeremy corbin went on to quote one doctor he'd heard from. >> if a truly seven-day nhs is wanted, we need more nurses, more admin staff, more porters, radio yog fors, physios, all of
11:46 am
the other vital workers. will the prime minister now today commit to publishing the department of health's analysis of the real cost of introducing a seven-day nhs, and will he be prepared to pay for it rather than picking a fight with the junior doctors who want to deliver it? >> what i think is not clear is whether or not labor support a seven-day nhs or not. now, we do support a seven-day nhs, and that is why we are putting in the 10 billion pounds, that's why we're putting in 10,000 more doctors, putting in 11,000 more nurses, and crucially, yes, that is why we are looking at the contracts in the nhs to make sure it can work on a more seven-day basis. we don't just get ill on monday to friday. i want a world-class nhs. we are funding a world-class nhs. we've got world-class people working in our nhs. and together, we're going to build that seven-day nhs.
11:47 am
the sister of the british man thought to have appeared in a murder video produced by so-called islamic state, has been talking in parliament about her brother. in the video, a man with an english accent insults the prime minister before executing five men accused of spying against i.s. the man thought to be sadaf fadah fled britain in 2014 while on bail. he had been arrested on suspicion of encouraging terrorism but managed to leave the uk and travel to syria. his sister appeared before the home affairs committee. >> the last time i did see him was in september 2014, and he seemed to me to be okay. i mean, obviously, i was always aware that he was practicing muslim, but he kept his sort of political movements private. and i think that's -- >> so, he didn't discuss it with
11:48 am
you at all when -- >> no, no. to be honest, i wasn't even aware that he went by another name until he'd left, so my instant reaction was, who? i don't know that person. i just know my brother being the person i grew up with. >> so, i just want to try and explore how he's living his life as you still believe him to be a good man. >> yes. >> and if he's over supporting daesh, he's probably engaged in enslaving, in beheading -- >> i hope not. >> right, but this is what daesh does. and one of the women that was giving evidence, there's a big article in the "daily mail" about coming forward with new evidence, and one of them states, "the saddest thing that i remember was this little girl, 12 years old, and they raped r her." these are the activities that your brother's engaged in. do you still believe he's a good man? >> i think this is quite sort of
11:49 am
a sensitive topic to talk about. my opinion will always be biased because he's my brother. i still don't want to associate the two, sort of the activities that you have just described with my brother. and i know that may be hard for many people to believe, but that's because he's my brother, and as far as i'm concerned, i grew up with a different person. >> the threat of terrorism continues in europe. in mid-march, the chief suspect in the paris attacks, salah abdeslam, was wounded and arrested in a raid in brussels. he'd been on the run since the attacks in france in november, which left 130 people dead. and just days later, brussels was hit with the explosions at its airport and metro system. appearing before a committee of mps a few hours later, the home secretary gave her response. >> the prime minister earlier spoke to prime minister michel of belgium, and i've offered
11:50 am
support to my counterpart. and we stand together against the terrorists, and they will not win. we are taking a number of precautionary steps to ensure public safety and to provide public reassurance. border force is carrying out more intensive checks at the uk border, including greater searching of vehicles, the use of search dogs and greater numbers of border force officers on duty. we're doing everything that we can to help the belgian authorities to work with our international partners, and of course, to keep people in this country safe and secure. from their homes. pro-democracy protests march erupted in the south in 2011. the conflict between the rise of the jihadist group so-called islamic state. as international efforts to end the conflict continued,
11:51 am
russia sent in planes to sure up the president and then to the surprise of the diplomatic community announced in march this year it was pulling its forces outs. the foreign secretary said president putin's motive were unknowable. >> unfortunately russia is a state in which all power is concentrated in the hands of one man, who is not a pilot bureau anymore, decisions are made apparently arbitrary without any advance signaling and can be unmade just as quickly. this is not a recipe for enhancing stability and predictability on the international scene. it makes the world a more dangerous place, not a less dangerous place. >> tnumerous countries have closed their borders and in the spring, macedonia police fired tear gas at those trying to leave greece and travel north.
11:52 am
in an attempt to contempt to contain the problem, all migrants arriving in greece would be sent back to turkey. at the start of the year in westminster, there were calls for the uk to take more child refugees. >> the italian authorities say they estimate around 4,000 children were alone in italy simply disappeared last year. and i met 11 and 12-year-olds who were there alone just one british volunteer looking after them. that's a similar age to my children and they should not be there alone. >> no one doubts the humanity of the right honorable lady, but the duty of the government is to balance natural emotion with hard-headed realism. the net migration of this country has been far, far bigger than any other country, we are at the limit of what the public will accept. we're spending more than the whole rest of europe put together on helping people in syria and for every child refugee that we take from a camp
11:53 am
in dover and callie, you are going to have to take on many other people who will come as part of the family. i urge the government to stick to their present policy, the humane and correct policy of spending money in the region and helping money in the region and not listening to the leader of the opposition with these policy of taking people from dover and callie. >> it's been a tricky few months for the government on a number of fronts. it suffered a series of defeats and had to make significant policy concessions. in the comments, ministers were forced to abonn don proposals to relax rules on sunday trading. the chancellor, george osborne wanted to give local authorities the power to decide on sunday opening hours in their area. but across the comments weren't happy with that idea. >> isn't it simply the fact that the moment that one particular council adopts these poirs, every other neighboring council will be forced to follow snut. >> certainly my on constituents,
11:54 am
i accept mine -- there would be a demand particularly high tourist times that the local authorities should give permission but up to the local authority to be able to manage that. this is quite a good compromise given the great changes that have taken place in the last 30 years not least the internet in shopping patterns. >> now, to those who say that we need to keep sunday special, i respect that. but i ask, do you not shop on the internet on a sunday? do you not visit your local sender? car center is open on a sunday, many sectors and professions work on a sunday. you talk about rights, what about their rights? >> those who are on the internet between midnight and 3:00 a.m. in the morning, is that an argument for the shops being open at that time? >> at the end of the debate, they favored an opposition amendment. >> the aye to the right, 317. the noes to the left 286.
11:55 am
>> and if the government thought it had problems in the commons, things were worse down in the house of lords. normally restrained world of the upper house appears in deflikted defeat on a range of subjects. one of the bloodiest battles was once again over welfare. the government put forward proposals to reduce claims to working disabled claimants. >> we want to end a broken system that is failing those it should be helping and ensure that a good proportion of the savings are recycled into practical support and long-time practical support that will have an effect on people's lives. >> they rejected the measure twice. the changes were then ruled to be a financial measure, over which they have no power,
11:56 am
leaving them little choice but to reluctantly back down. >> i spent a great deal of time last week working through every possibility of tabling another amendment to try to send this dreadful and punitive part of the bill back to the other place. unfortunately because of parliamentary procedure it wasn't possible. having placed financial privilege on these amendments ultimately mean the other place have their way and they are entitled to do that, just as we were entitled and were absolutely right to ask them to think again. as the chamber pointed because of our expertise in areas such as this, we know and understand the impact that this bill will have, even if no formal impact assessment was carried out. i apologize to the people affected by this bill that at this point we couldn't do anymore. >> i find it really difficult with the niceties of parliamentary protocol trump the lives of disabled people. i hope and i pray that we don't
11:57 am
look back on this day as the moment we pushed some of the most severely disabled people in britain over the edge. >> this is a black day for disabled people. but the comments have spoken decisively and we must bow to their wishes, but we do so under protest. don't let anyone kid you that this is democracy in action. there's more to democracy than just being elected. >> i just want to pose one question to the noble lord minister. will he monitor the numbers of suicides in the year following the introduction of this cut? i am certain there will be people who cannot face the debts and the loss of their homes and will take their lives. >> lady meetcher on the day they reluctantly backed down on cuts to payments for some disabled people. but the lords weren't finished there. they defeated the government on other legislation, too, including the trade union bill. under the plans, each trade
11:58 am
union member would have to agree in writing every five years to opt in to paying what's called the political levy, as opposed to opting out. labor beliefs it stands to lose 6 million pounds in its income as a result of the bill. lord burns set out what he thought was wrong with the proposals. >> a short transition period of three months. doesn't allow opt-in by electronic means and requires opt-ins be to be renewed every five years. now, it seems to me by any measure this is a harsh regime which have an impact on the labor party funds. >> he proposed changing the bill that only new trade union members would have to opt in and creating a transitional period of 12 months. and he found backing from a conservative. >> that if our party's philosophy stand anything, they do stand for fairness and for
11:59 am
choice. and i do believe that one should -- do to others as they wish to be done by and i do not wish to be party to a move that would seriously disadvantage one of the great parties of this country, particularly at a time when it is going through its own special problems, which i hope will soon be over. >> this part of the bill was fundamentally flawed and without broader measures, indeed recognized by the committee, lit have a disproportionate and unnecessary negative impact on trade union political funds. >> the business minister maintained that the bill was about the relationship between unions and their members, not between unions and the labor party. >> the current approach has not operated with enough transparency. all members are not consistently informed about their rights. if it is deemed right that new members need to make an active
12:00 pm
option choice, i do not understand why the same principle does not apply to existing members. it's not acceptable in many areas of daily life to automatically deduct payment for a cause that has not been actively consented to. >> when it came to the vote, the government was defeated by peers voting for lord burns' amendment to lessen the impact of the change. >> my lords, they have voted contents, 320. not contents, 172 therefore the contents have it. >> a defeat there for the government by 148 votes. and there was trouble for ministers, too, on the immigration bill. peers voted to allow asylum seekers to work if their claims have not been processed within six months. they also voted to allow overseas domestic workers to change employers without risking immediate deportation. and just before easter, they backed an amendment from a labor
12:01 pm
peer forcing the government to take 3,000 unaccompanied refugee children. >> i should declare an interest as i arrived in this country in the summer of 1939 as an unaccompanied child refugee. in fact, this country at the time offered safety to some 10,000 children. and thanks to those who helped transports they got here at all and i certainly owe my life to him. >> he turned to the goth's arguments. >> if some of the children in europe were allowed into this country that would exert a poll factor and many more would arrive and that seems to be the nub of the governments' argument against this amendment. i don't think there's that much hard evidence to support this belief, but in any case, the consequence of doing nothing for these children who are now in europe must be much more possibility than an amendment of
12:02 pm
this would attack others to follow. i would like other children who are in desperate situation at the momentum to be offered safety in this country and be given the same welcome and opportunities that i had. >> i would have no objection at all to 3,000 in that number or more, but what i do object to is it being mandated because it deprives the government of any discretion. and there are two things that the house just needs to keep in mind, first thing, if you admit children who aren't accompanied you do expose the country to applications to those who are related to those unaccompanied children and you have deprived yourself of regulating that flow. >> of the people who arrive in europe seeking asylum, 90% have
12:03 pm
got there through a criminal gang. and these criminal gangs are vast money making machines exploiting human misery. i would like to have heard a great deal more anger at those criminal gangs at the way they're exploiting these children and encouraging them to put their lives at risk by embarking upon that journey. i would like to have heard a little bit more about that. >> he said that most of the unaccompanied children in europe were not young syrians. >> we know that the prime country from which they come is not syria. it is albania. followed by afghanistan and then followed by syria. >> peers voted by 306 votes to 204, a majority of 102 to amend the immigration bill in order to require the government to let the children currently in europe
12:04 pm
come to britain. why is the government having so much trouble with the upper house? well, with me once again is sean curran. the government really has had a tough time with the house of lords over trade unions, child mie migrants, welfare benefits. are they usually this rebellious? >> they're not usually this rebellious when there's a conservative government. the last time there was a conservative government there were lots of hereditary peers in the house of lords and we say they dominated the second chamber. since 1999, we've seen a new look house of lords developing with no more hereditaries for many years the liberal dems and the independent or cross bench peers held the balance of power and then we had the coalition when the conservatives could ban together with the liberal democrats. it's interesting, though, that the labor party, when it was in power from 1999 to 2010, they suffered 450 defeats.
12:05 pm
the coalition was defeated about 100 times during its five years in power. since the state opening, since this latest election, the government has been defeated more than 30 times. so what we've seen is with the expulsion, the house of lords has been keener to flex its muscles and more willing to defeat governments than perhaps in previous times. >> so sit possible to tell if the number of defeats is because of who is in the upper house now. the upper house is almost bigger than its ever been, 800 plus members or is it because of what the government is going to do? >> the size of the house of lords is definitely a factor. the house of lords has become bigger. it wants to do more. it's becoming more assertive, but it's also the fact that with some of these very high profile issues where the government has been defeated there have been conservatives in the house of lords who have been unhappy with the proposals. there's been a policy clash there perhaps the most contentious would have been the
12:06 pm
changes to welfare, conservat e conservative, unhappiness there and that gives more power to those critics in the upper house from the other parties. they can say, look, it's a cross-party concern that we're reflecting. >> thank ch you for coming in to see us. now, let's take a look at some of the other news from westminster in brief. the first female bishop to be introduced into the upper house made her maiden speech. the right reverend rachel true wick spoke in a debate on women's representation and empowerment. >> over the years i added my voice to the debate to enable the consecration of women to the emiss ka pert. my starting point was always the firm conviction that all people are created equal in the image of god and called to use their gifts to the glory of god and for the flourishing of all people. >> after a reprieve, the uk is to continue printing and storing its laws on velum, made from
12:07 pm
calf or goat skin. they decided to end the practice for cost reasons burks the cabinet office is to provide the money from its own budget for the 1,000 year old tradition to continue. it is long lasting, original copies of magna carta sealed more than 800 years ago still exist on velum. labor called for a leak investigation to find out who gave the sun newspaper details of the conversation that took place between the queen and four politicians in 2011. buckingham palace made a formal complaint to the press watchdog about a report on the papers' front page which said the queen supported the idea of the uk leaving the european union. tom watson called for an inquiry into whether or not the justice secretary michael grove leaked the comments. >> three members have categorically denied they are the source of the justice -- they are the source yet the
12:08 pm
justice secretary has only said i don't know how the sun got all its information. hardly cat goric, this is a poorly disguised example of the party play the man and not the ball. and will he further agree with me that the workings of the privy council are a matter for the privy council and are not the same rules to the ministers who answer to this house. >> it is worth saying, mr. speaker, that the conversation that is alleged to have taken place which the former lord president said did not take place actually did not take place at a privy council meeting. >> and staying with royal matters a new railway line to run under london is to be named after the queen. it will be known as the elizabeth line once it opens in december, 2018. the announcement was made as the
12:09 pm
queen visited the under construction bond street station. elizabeth line will feature across the railway. the elizabeth line will provide a lasting tribute to our longest serving monic. the new name was officially announced in the commons. >> our queen opened the victoria line service in 1969. the fleet line was renamed the jubilee line in honor of her first 25 years on the throne in 1979 and she is the first reigning monarch, mr. speaker to travel on the london underground. >> claire perry bringing us to the end of this edition of the program. we'll be back when parliament returns on monday the 11th of april. but for now from me, alicia mccarthy, good-bye.
12:10 pm
coming up live today on c-span 2, a discussion on expanding opportunities in the digital economy. it's co-hosted by the american enterprise institute, the center for american progress and the merkel foundation. that's at 1:30 p.m. eastern. and the senate returns today following a two-week break. they'll gavel in at 3:00 p.m. and later turn to work on a bill to combat the theft of corporate trade secrets, a final passage vote on that measure is expected at 5:30 p.m. watch the senate live on c-span 2. and on the road to the white house tonight, senator ted cruz holds a campaign rally in waukesha, wisconsin. he'll be joined by mike lee and carly fiorina tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. campaign 2016 continues on tuesday, april 5th, with the
12:11 pm
wisconsin primary. live coverage begins tuesday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern. tune in for complete election results, candidate speeches and viewer reaction. taking you on the road to the white house on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. this week on c-span -- the supreme court kaps cases that shaped our history come to live with landmark cases. our 12-part series explores real life stories and constitutional dra mas behind some of the most significant decisions in american history. >> this is a story and a case about presidential power in its limits during times of war. it puts before the course central themes about the conditions under which presidents during times of emergency can do things that may not be expressly stated in the constitution and the limits that congress and the courts can place on it. >> chief justice reaffirmed miranda, he said the case has
12:12 pm
come to be accepted by the culture. how many cases can we say about that? >> it was a sweeping decision. it isolated the u.s. as one of only four nations of 195 across the globe that allow abortion for any reason after feal viability. >> tonight we'll look at youngstown sheet&tube co versus sawyer. the move was not authorized by congress. watch landmark cases tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org. the wilson center recently held a discussion on independent russian media. speakers addressed the editorial mission of medusa, challenges of
12:13 pm
covering russian affairs and the state of journalism in the country. thank you for coming. we're thrilled about this event. this is part of our distinguished speaker series. we have with us today -- we have with us today ilya krasilshchik, a co-founder and publisher at meduza. after dropping out of university at the age of 21, ilya became the editor of the most influential moscow entertainment and city life magazine official, probably the youngest in russia at time to occupy this position. during his five-year tenure, ilya published more than 100 issues including the oral history of the russian media and oral history of the russian internet. ilya stepped down in 2013 to become the product director at publishing company, launching three separate web based and
12:14 pm
media streaming service in one year. in october 2014, ilya left and together with two partners launched meduza, a groundbreaking russian outlet in riga, latvia. by december 2015, the monthly readership exceeded 3 1/2 million visitors per month with 320,000 app down loads, more than 500,000 followers on social media. today meduza boasts 4 million unique visitors per month. krongauz is editor-in-chief of popular online media outlet, the big city. she is formerly columnist. she start herd career in journalism in the mid-1990s for a correspondent for the capital magazine. she's the author of "i am a bad mother and 43 other questions that ruin parents life" which is on the category of parenting advice.
12:15 pm
and i also want to say that she recently launched a start-up, a ground-breaking babysitting and training service in moscow under the tag line, free for an hour. so, this is a very -- also related to one another. so, this is a very creative couple, indeed. so, before we proceed, creative and innovative. before we proceed, can i see a show of hands of who here reads meduza on a regular basis? okay. quite a few people. i have to say that for me -- well, for me, thinking about it yesterday, you know, it's hard for me to imagine that just a year and a half ago meduza didn't exist. for me personally, such an integral part of my life. meduza is actually basically the first thing i reach for when i wake up in the morning because i need to know what happened in russia while i was sleeping because that's going to determine the course of my day. and, so i wanted to tell ilya that not only has he succeeded
12:16 pm
in creating an information product with news that i can use, i trust that meduza will deliver the news i need. he also altered my routine. i used to do yoga first thing in the morning. so, i really want to hear how you managed to do it. so, please, go ahead. >> i try, okay. so, i go there. >> please. >> thanks, izabella. thanks a lot. it's an honor to be here. it's really an honor to see you. i'll try to explain something about meduza and why we did it and what happens with us. it's really quite an experience to make media. i think right now it's -- it's much more interesting than it was before because we have -- we have a situation when it isn't possible to make any media, but we make it. but it's really fun. and so i'll try to -- i'll try to tell you some story. and actually our history begins like this, this is really the beginning of meduza.
12:17 pm
yes, this is ikea and this is in poland. we're not working there. we didn't work there. but this is where it begins because we make this media from the beginning. actually, when you start media, what do you need to do? you need to buy furniture. this is poland. i am here for, i think, four or five days. when i go to some company and -- to tell something about us, so i say, yeah, we're in baltics. then i ask, do you know where is it? i see a guy who says, hmm. i can show google map and show where are we. i think for everybody in the world, the place where i work looks like this. and, yes, we're here. we're not here, but we're there.
12:18 pm
where some in the world making some media, and usually latvia doesn't exist in the minds of -- minds of people in the world. so, we're just -- and actually, yeah, we bought this furniture and actually it was a long trip because we have no ikea in latvia. we needed to go to poland. and who go there? it was me, a publisher of meduza and my friend and co-founder and he is now the editor in chief of meduza. so nobody else can buy furniture. we go there. i can say this is quite an experience. when you drove 600 kilometers and you see an ikea sign and this is your trip, yeah. yes, it's quite an experience. yeah, we needed to build this furniture.
12:19 pm
this is our editor. we didn't have enough money to buy all the furniture we needed, so we work like this. and then i go to this ikea for a second sometime alone and need to buy a little more furniture. so, this is really the history of meduza and how we make media. how it happened, six months before, in march 2014, it was media, i think you know it, it was the largest media outlet in russia. it was fifth largest in land use unit in europe. and it reached 2 million unique visitors per day. it was crimean crisis, in the middle of this crisis, and editor-in-chief was just fired from this news outlet. and everybody from the editorial -- from the media, the technological department,
12:20 pm
editorial, marketing, everybody just left the media. it was 80 people and they just left. and i actually didn't work there, as izabella said. i was an editor in chief of -- i was product director of official company but was on the same floor. and i in a month, editor-in-chief and one was deputy editor came to me and said, let's make something. let's make something. it was very interesting. we started to think what we want to make. and we got some ideas. so, we want to make something different. we didn't want to make a second lenta. it was launched in 1995, 15 years ago and this is a new era. we need to make something else. and actually it's not just -- it's -- it's not interesting to make the same thing for a second time. we need to make something
12:21 pm
bullet-proof, and by bulletproof i mean we needed to make some media which is hard to bloke because the bloking problem was huge already and we understood that we needed something which is hard to block. that means we can make only website. and we understand that we have not so much time because we have some people from editorial, they need to work. and we understand that right now everybody are talking about lenta.ru and we need to launch something fast because in the year that everybody just forget about us. and we need to use this situation. so, we need to move quickly, make something new and make something very strong. so we got some ideas. we understands we want to make
12:22 pm
less content, not more content. lenta.ru produced more than 100 pieces of content every day. maybe a little more than 200 pieces of content. and to understand that there was too much information around us and all of us have facebook, all of us have twitter and we have some other social networks and profiles. we understand there is too much content. and the main part of our job is to make this huge information noise just a little bit less noisier. so we need to pick really important things and show it to audience. and if -- actually, we were at war with ukraine. it was active moment of this war. and there was too much fakes around us. and we understood our job is not to produce new content.
12:23 pm
maybe it's more about to check around us. then we like facts, not opinions. that means when something happens, there is actually -- nobody understands what happened around. and somebody tried to predict what happens next. the problem is with all this analysis, that everybody are wrong on the long distance. we don't like this opinions because it doesn't help. we don't have information to make this analysis. we just want to produce facts and to check it and to be as much objective as we can. we understand we're making news but actually, to be frank, nobody understand news. and when media publish some news
12:24 pm
content, they think, okay, we already talked about it, so that's okay. we covered this problem. but the problem is people don't understand what happens actually. we can give them a context in the news but they don't understand. and when the news editors work and they think that people are in this context and they -- they know what happens before and they know all the history, but people don't know it. actually, it's not a problem with the people. it's a probable of the media. it's our job to make everything clear. and we need to explain everything what happens around us. we need to be everywhere. and it's about bulletproof problem because we need to be everywhere our readers are so we need to be on the map, we need to be in the apps. if they're using the watch, we need to be in the watch. if they use e-mail, we need to use this, too.
12:25 pm
and so it's endless, endless list of platforms but we need to be everywhere. this helps us in blocking problem. because if they blocked some part of our media, so we have another one. and we are not in russia. this means that we just -- i have many questions. how are you media in exile? i think we're not media in exile. in the beginning we just thought we need a country with good laws for the media and where it's better to work. and this is -- i think it's not about exile. it's just about a global world. we can be anywhere. we can make media from any country. when it's better to make it. so, the thought that russia is not the best country to make media in this situation. we just understood we need to choose another country. how we did it.
12:26 pm
so, we had -- actually, we went to the lawyers and we -- they made a long list. it was a little longer, no place on the screen. sorry. so let's imagine this is our country, this is our country. it should be not so far away from moscow because we are a news media and we -- we are working on moscow time. and so i think portugal is a nice country. and there is room and not so expansive but we can start our work at 5:00 in the morning. so, it's nice to make media, but not in such terms. so, portugal, bye-bye. living costs. we have -- we had 20 editors. we needed to move them to another country.
12:27 pm
we need to pay them salaries. and if we move them, for example, to israel, it's warm too, but -- yeah, likes israel. me, too. but it's really expensive country, so we understood that we can't afford it, so our budget is too big and we can't afford this country. so, bye-bye, israel. >> i think you underestimate the warm thing. >> i agree. i agree. >> we underestimated many things, actually. then immigration law. because if you have, as i said, 20 editors and i need to build a company in another country and hire too much foreign -- foreign employees, there is not so much countries in the world who like this process. so ukraine, lithuania, latvia,
12:28 pm
bye bye. netherlands, so these are our choices. we saw we're an objective media. we are for russian audience. we thought it's not cool to make media in a country which is actually at war with russia. bye-bye, ukraine. so, we had these two countries. now we just thought, no, no lithuania. and this is latvia. yeah, it was our choice. we're in latvia, in riga, it's a place, i said, nobody knows in the world, but it's -- it's good. it's a very small city. it's 600,000 people. and we are like in a spaceship because there is nothing to do except to work in riga. and, actually, it's good because you can work any time. lenta.ru had 18 employees. meduza to start had 20
12:29 pm
employees. it's small media, but after we launched, we said, this is cool. you have 20 guys. you move them to another country. they understood that they make something big and they change everything in their lives, so they think they are on some pirate ship or spaceship, they fly somewhere and they are all together. this is designers. this is editorials, this is editors, this is developers, so everybody work together. and for the media, it was quite good because everybody understood this is one thing, one product. this is where important thing for every media in the world because that's why everybody is working together. by everybody, i mean content, design and development. and that helps us to make everything together and we can
12:30 pm
make much more stuff, which it's impossible to make in their traditional media. we make not just articles or reports, we make some new content and ilya will tell you about it a little later. what is most important thing for us? of course, it's news. this is our main form -- if i may say so. and i think every media need to have skeleton frame. and this is why people will visit you day by day. why this is main scenario for your readers, why they will visit you. >> izabella won't do any yoga in the morning now. >> this is your yoga. >> it's now my yoga. it's a new yoga. >> yeah.
12:31 pm
actually our news for the most time say something about bed so i think it's a bed yoga actually. this is our frame. our main readers come to meduza to see what happened in the world. i read in "new york times" research, they called it something else. they call it, i need to check if the world's still alive. so, it doesn't drop yet. so they go to meduza and check. there is no nuclear war, okay. they're alive. it's great. this is main scenario, actually. they just visit to check that the world is still okay. and if you have this frame, the skeleton, then you can make anything around it. you can make an experiment. you can make more content, you can make anything. for example, you can make long-form journalism. this is very important stuff for
12:32 pm
us. we have four special correspondents and this is -- we're proud of them, most of all. for example, yaza got a journalistic award for covering ukrainian crisis and the same award for covering syrian crisis, so i think these are the two main themes for everybody in the world over the last two years. and we're really proud they got these awards. actually, it's the main award for russian journalists. we have some strange awards, sorry. we have nothing else to show you. this is explanatory journalism. i think if you read meduza or if you didn't read meduza, you saw it on many u.s. media right now. this is very important because this helps us to explain anything that happens in the
12:33 pm
world. news don't -- can't do it but explain journalism can. we can explain anything from what happens when you are in a jail, what you need to do when you're in jail, and russia makes some new law, how we can live with it or nonpolitical so we have how to make a perfect omelet. it's useful, too, actually. so, you can make omelet and next day you can be in jail. it's all of our life, yeah. this is a really clear format but we make right now much more difficult format to produce. for example, this format called chat. for example, this chat is about economy. and this is a format which can be short and can be long. and the reader decide, do he need this short or long. so, we have a story about economy and we say some things
12:34 pm
and then reader decide, do he want -- does he want something more about this, or he want to just keep the sentence and read next? this is explanatory. we don't know how much time the reader has for us, but he can decide to -- he can read it in one minute and he can read it in 15 minutes. it's his choice. we make news games, and actually it's katia's main job. we have some news and we make games about it. i think we made something like 50 games last year, something like that. and you can make such things only if your development department works together with editorial. where you need to think about it together. you need to make it together.
12:35 pm
for example this is a game we call dictator -- >> actually, we called it house of cards, as you remember. and we launched it a week ago, a week and a half, when the last -- >> on march 4th. >> on march 4th. >> as all of you need to know. so i can explain what is it. >> okay. sorry. yeah, you didn't show my presentation slides, so you don't know what happens next. >> okay. usually. >> you have cards. for example, you play with computer. and computer put a card. oh, this is putin. he chose it. not us. and this is putin. and i have three cards. it's president of georgia, president of kyrgyzstan or president of usa. so, i need to choose which card should i play. so, i play with barack -- no,
12:36 pm
no i don't play with barak. no, i play with georgia president. i lose because power of card is the person which is president get on the last elections. so putin get a little more, so he's stronger. so, it's one for computer. now it's computer's turn because it won the last turn. lucky i have bashar al assad. of course i won. i won with bashar al assad. it's 1-1. i play with barack again because >> it's even stronger than barak
12:37 pm
obama. so once again, it's 2-1. then i play with duda and i have alexander. so it's one card. so it's 2-2 and it's a tough -- it's a tough play. and i have bad cards. i have rusof and margvelashvili and i'll play with giorgi because i like georgia. and the computer ask me if i'm going to leave. of course i'm going to leave, he's much, much, much stronger. so computer wins. and i have these which i can just share to special network and it makes this game much more viral so i can show what happens with me and can show it to my friends. so, we make such games. for example, i have one more game. so, katia can explain what is it. >> oh, you know, our president vladimir putin is always late
12:38 pm
for all important meeting he has. >> except barak obama. >> except, yeah. he's always late. and in summer he met with pope, with the pope. and he was late. >> for two hours. >> for two hours. and the thing is, sometimes there is news, you can't do anything with it. it's funny but it's not useful. so, we decide to make a game. it's a lot of code for games. >> actually, this game was made 30 years before, yeah. >> yeah, it's mario, yeah? >> mario. >> so, you have a lot of -- open source codes for a lot of games, like tetris, mario, pacman, something like this. so, we took the mario thing and
12:39 pm
we just change mario and the wife. >> yeah, which -- not wife. so we change mario for putin and the wife is in the game. >> right, right. >> so, which we change the bride with the pope and mario with the putin and it took, i think, a day to rewrite the code, to redraw the characters. and then it was, just please help putin to get to pope in time. >> yeah. so -- >> so, we do -- okay. so, we do such thing with the news you don't know what to do with. it's funny. it's some kind of important because it's strange that putin is always late. it means something. so, we try -- we ask you to help him stop doing such a thing. >> yeah, there are some things when you can't be serious, so we
12:40 pm
can just put a column about, so, oh, my god, putin is late this time, too. oh, my god, it's horrible. but doesn't work. so he's in power for 15 years and he's always late, so we can't talk about this every time he's late for somebody important. so, we -- we can make only jokes about it, so it's -- it's -- we can use a little bit irony about it. >> i can tell two more examples, if it's okay. >> sure. >> yeah. so, there was a parking attendant in moscow. three years ago you could park anywhere. there was no problem. but now -- >> even on the sidewalks. >> yeah. anywhere. and two years it changed. so, now you couldn't park -- you can find any park slot and you
12:41 pm
always can be evacuated. and every day there is a new rules and new -- new no parking things. so, we did mine sweeper. do you know mine sweeper? yeah. when you should find a park slot available for you or you'll be evacuated. and one more example is about crazy exchange. as you know, the ruble is -- >> a little bit weak right now. >> a little weak and a little crazy. you know never what happens today with the oil price or ruble price or dollar price or euro price. so, there was crazy stuff going on every day. and that's why some prices in moscow is really low, like you can buy a car --
12:42 pm
>> for you, not for us. >> yeah. you can buy a car 30% cheaper than in euro, even it's a europe car. and you can, you know, buy xbox even cheaper, that's in america. so, we did a crazy exchange game. you have 3,000 rubles and you should decide -- >> not. >> it's something. >> it's nothing. >> it's nothing for you. so you need to decide fast, would you exchange it to $50. like, would you, $50? tick, tick, tick, yes, no? >> i can't -- >> yes or no quickly. you need to decide. yes or no? >> no. >> no. it's bad because $50 is better than 3,000 rubles.
12:43 pm
would you change it to a barrel of oil, yes or no? >> yes. >> oh, it's bad. like $30 an hour or something. >> $41. >> it's bad anyway. would you change it to, you know, coffin? would you? >> yes. >> good because that's like 17,000 rubels. and then you like -- you need to decide fast. even don't know xbox 1, 1,000 yens. >> i think you get the picture, yeah. >> very tough. >> funny game. why you always don't let me do this. >> i'll go to the next slide. sorry. this strategy works. this strategy means we're trying to make experiment -- it's very interesting because every week you make something
12:44 pm
new and you see how it works and what doesn't work. and what work. and we can check it every week. we had a strategy that we need everywhere we need to be, bulletproof, like that. we have delays and we're making it but our media strategy is to make experiment. media, they construct future actually. they construct a new language. they construct how we talk with each other. they construct how to talk about the reality about us. and there is many ways to make these talks. nobody knows what will be the next thing. and you need to just prove your theories. and if you experiment with one thing and you experiment with tens of things, if you fail with
12:45 pm
some experiment, it's a cheap fail, cheap mistake. if you make only big strategy and if you make things only -- sometimes you make something and you make it for half a year and then it fails and you have -- it can fail. it's a really expensive mistake. we can't afford it actually with small company. and i think this theory works because one and a half year after launch and we have 4 unique million visitors a month on the website. and we have 300,000 and 400,000 push subscribers. they subscribe for our push on the left and if something important happens, we just send this push to their browsers. and this is what's great because if you have some important and you want to tell it to the readers, you can do it even if they are not on your website,
12:46 pm
they will see it. it's huge. i can't say it's -- but it's a great school instrument. you have half a million followers on twitter and 45,000 daily newsletter subscribers and we're making most of the ne newsletters are made by robots. there's nothing from people. but we'll make this -- when we started this newsletter a year ago, we thought that e-mail, your inbox, it's part of your privacy. and when you get an e-mail, you want to get an e-mail for only human. and this e-mail will be for you. so we understand if you start this daily newsletter. it needs to be wran written by
12:47 pm
people. so this is a product, too. we're at it every day. if it is a sad day it will be a sad newsletter. if it will be some crazy day, there will be many jokes. you can't find this on our website in our app. it's only in the mail. it's a small product which you can only read the newsletter. people either love it because they don't need to read news everyday. they can just use this e-mail and this is funny or this is sad but this has some -- they have some emotions when they read this newsletter. and this is our core audience, this is 300,000 people. they visit us more than three times a week. so this is our most audience. this audience which loves us and i think loves us because that we're not boring and because we make some things they didn't see
12:48 pm
anywhere else and because we speak with them. they get this newsletter, we answer their mails and they just like that we're really humans. and if i make some mistake, they think, okay, they're humans and this is good. they're loyal. and all of this is 100% organic. we have no money from any marketing. we can buy traffic. we can -- we can make an app. we can't do it because we have no money for it. these people just came to us, i hope, because of our work. yeah. so it's one and a half year of experience and we understand something about us. maybe in one and a half year we'll think that we're all wrong and this is not our principles, but i doubt it actually. so first of all, you can't always be serious. we're in real serious situation and we need to be like a part of the situation. we need to be over it.
12:49 pm
and people -- so our main audience, 70% of our audience is in russia. so they live with this situation day by day. they can just visit a new site and read something that happens again, something that happens again. something that happens again. if you read it for one time, you wonder. if you read it second time, you wonder. if you read it for third time, you just ignore it. and as i said, you need to have a scenario for your readers. why they come to you every morning, every evening to make something. and this is the best scenario, when you're in a good mood and the scenario is, okay, i'm in a good mood. i need to make my mood a little bit worse. i need to read the news. so it's a good scenario for media. you need some other scenarios.
12:50 pm
so that's why you when you go to meduza, you read the news. so you read not always the news. news is always bad. 90% bad. but you need to joke sometimes, to laugh sometimes, to have an irony. and we need to do it. media is like a guy. and when you talk with a guy, you don't want -- he will talk only about politics and he can be always serious. and media is like a man, like a guy. you can't be always serious. you can just be an interesting man. that's why we need to make different stuff, not only be serious. peoserious. people will not read it. people don't understand news and we need to explain everything and if people don't understand anything it's really our problem and we need to explain step by step, every piece of the global
12:51 pm
politics or local politics. for example, we understood it was two months ago, and there was a conflict for five years, i think, and we write about syria every day. something happens there and something happens there. our correspondent came there and many things. news reports, everything, but we just understood that we write it and we write it for a year and other media write it for five years and most of our audience don't understand about syria nothing and if they read this, all of this content, they -- they -- so they -- it wasn't interesting in syria three years ago or four years ago when everybody already said everything and can explain everything about syria. they just are interesting right
12:52 pm
now when terror came to europe, when refugees came to europe. it wasn't interesting before and right now they have no, no options to understand what happens in syria. every media already explained it five years ago, and this is our problem. this is not a problem with the reader. so we need to stop, make five steps away and we need to explain it and this helps everybody because, yeah, right n now, right now it helps. if we don't make it. you don't need to leave the country or make some other media in other country, yeah, you can make it, but why? why's the reason? we make this media for a future audience and if you believe the country we need to make it for a huge audience and the people in
12:53 pm
our country will love us and will read us and will think about the world as us. so these are only the options to fight against this point of view which is disgusting for us. it's really important, it's important for me because i am publisher and manufacturing is a part of my job, but it is very important that the media should earn the money on its own. media is something which can deal with the audience and this is the main part of the media jokes. we can know it and that's why we can make advertising for it, too. this is a part of our job and we cannot only forget about it or this will be other guys who make it. it's not an editorial part, of course, because it's danger for
12:54 pm
the editorial and it is a part of the media as a product and we think about media as a product at large. and -- this is i think the most important thing and this is hard for me to pronounce this word, it's isolationism. we are against it and this is our main threat. it is a main threat for russia, and it is a main threat for countries and we're thinking about russia because the main topic in russia is that we are like an island and we're great and there is no other world and something everybody else are just problems or they just hate us and people don't understand that it is just one country of the world and people of the world are not so interested in russia with russian things and then this is, yeah, sometimes it's a great country and sometimes it's not such a great
12:55 pm
country and it's a horrible country and it's a part of the world. and we talk about media in exile. we just see no borders. we make it from anywhere. it's a global war and it is much more easier for us to manage the media from russia right now and maybe change sometimes, but this is about, and the global war and russia is a part of it somebody asked what the new political statement. i think this is a politic that's made for it and this is very important and this is -- there are no borders and we're the proof so thank you. [ applause ] now i think we have some questions. >> thank you for your comments. i want to ask you if there is
12:56 pm
anything that you as a journalist specifically the writer and editor, if there was something that you would like to comment on based on what ellia talked about because he's talking about the publisher. [ indiscernible ] >> what's been your spears expe of this process? >> no, i support his political statement, but i think i can comment a little on what he s d said, and i find interesting that we have a development stuff with us and we can talk with them and we can do things faster than always being -- i don't know how it is in america, but in russia in media if you need to change something on your website like a, you know, something it would take months
12:57 pm
and there is people who think you're stun ied and you think they're boring and they were not -- we were not connected with people and now we are. now we can do and we are quick, so we tried to do these kind of changes in our editorial creative thinking the same. so we always come with the new ideas and new formats like eia talked about the question about syria and there is a lot of themes we're talking about, but nobody understands. so we have a new format and we call it shameful questions and they usually ask me to write them because i'm not very good at serious stuff.
12:58 pm
>> new information. i'm joking. >> no, i am joking. you are talking serious and never mess with that, please. and the question about syria. where was it? i really don't know and why america can just -- pow! and kill all of the isis people because i'm afraid of them and we did the same thing with the mass shooting in america because from our point of view, we can't understand the thing why all of the politics don't make the thing, the main -- so we asked why is it okay to have a gun? why is it always a mass shooting? is there about races and about young children in school or transgender. it's a lot of thing you talk
12:59 pm
about and you don't understand and you have a lot of shameful questions and it's not okay to ask them serious, but we do this special for them or we have a test. we have a lot of tests like there were news in school in the something like jobs here and the girl talked about poem, and she pretend that it's mendelsohn, it's a very serious play in russia, but there were a rapper oxymoron and the school teacher didn't recognize it, and he thought it was really mendelsohn. it was a huge thing because in russia school teachers sometimes -- >> she got 10.
1:00 pm
>> yeah. so we did a test if you really could see where's the russian -- >> grade point or some kind of a song. and it was interesting. it was a lot of tests like this about feminism and how sexist are you because it's a great issue in russia. so the thing is -- when there is a small company and where the developments guy with us and it's all -- we're all in the same small flat. we can do a lot more than you think than you can do with the 20 people. so i think that's some slight comments. thank you so much. i think what's really important from what i'm hearing you guys say is you manage

19 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on