tv Road to the White House CSPAN January 23, 2012 12:30am-2:00am EST
he says in terms of west africa and make sure we learn any of able lessen. >> on the 26th of october i raised the case of my constituents and 14 year old was killed outside her home by a driver under the influence of drugs. prime minister kind metric them to talk about the case in changing the laws we can do with drunk driving. can my right honorable friend update the house on the progress of? >> i pay tribute to the work that my honorable friend is giving out on this issue but i think it is important that we take this issue of drug drive insisted as he knows we are committed to making the drug testing equipment of able we use in playstation as soon as possible. the case he is making which is you need an equivalent law to drink driving i do think it is one that has got a great strength. we are examine a close in government, including we need to look at whether we and opportunity in the second legislative session to take forth the measures i know he'll be campaigning for very hard. >> mr. speaker, does the prime
minister share my concern that yesterday's ruling by the european court of human rights cannot be deported? that if he does, will he agree to initiate all party discussions focused not on rhetoric about the human rights act but how in practice this court could operate more so the rights of respected of the safety of the public is always paramount to? >> i agree wholeheartedly with what the right honorable gentleman has said. i think this judgment is difficult to understand, frankly, because huge efforts have been going to by the british government, by this one and the one that he served in to have a deportation with assurance agreement with jordan to make sure people wouldn't be mistreated. in this case the european court of human rights has found that he wasn't going to be tortured but they were worried about the process of the court case in jordan. it is immensely frustrating that i do think a country like britain that has a long
tradition of human rights should be able to deport people who meet -- who mean us harm. that principle is either important or not is kind of strong rhetoric about it. i'm going to strasburg next week to make the argument that as we are chairing the council of europe this is a good time to actually make reforms to the european court of human rights and make sure it ask a more proportionate way. >> thank you, mr. speaker. [shouting] on the toy of march 2010, a two and half year old boy was kidnapped from his home and taken to thailand by his mother. six months later his father finally tracked him down in a remote village on his son couldn't speak had his teeth broken and bruises all over his body. he believes that they've not got him back then, he would have been killed each year in in the u.k. over 500 children are kidnapped in similar circumstances. will the prime is to meet with me and his father who has a charity called abducted angels and is in the gallery today to
discuss with the government can do to help parents of adopted children? [shouting] >> my right honorable friend is actually right to raise this case but it is something and apologies, and any parent can't help but be come a chill to the bone about what happened to this poor boy. i think it's vital we put in place the best possible arrangements. as he knows the child explication and on my protection system, that will be put into the national crime agency. i very much hope he will be up to legislate for the crime agen make sure it is properly resourced because as he said it's vitally important when these appalling acts happily get on top of them right away. the early time, it is vital in saving these children. >> dennis skinner and. >> when there's a prime minister dasher went as the prime mr. expected to cross examine by the letters of inquiry? doesn't he agree that the british people deserve an answer to why he appointed one of
murdoch's top lieutenants andy coulson, to the heart of the british government? [shouting] >> i will be delighted to appear at the leveson inquired whenever i am invited. and i'm sure other politician will have exactly the same view and i would answer all the questions when that happens but it's good to see the honorable gentleman on such good form. i often say to my children, no need to go to the national history museum to see a dinosaur. come to the house of commons. [laughter] >> order. in order. >> e. hewitt of deposit as your tete-a-tete questions pitcock au pair is live on c-span every weekend at -- watch any time at c-span.org.
you can find videos of other british public affairs programs. >> mr. speaker the president of the united states. [applause] >> tuesday night, president obama delivers his state of the union address. coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern including the president's speech, response by indiana governor mitch daniels and your phone calls. live on c-span and c-span radio. on c-span2 watched the speech along with tweets. more reaction from house members and senators. throughout the night go online for live video and to add your comments using facebook and twitter at c-span.org. >> i want to make this very clear. i am as open as i have said repeatedly to the best ideas of concerned members of both parties. i have no special grief or any
specific approach, even in our own bill, except this. if you send me legislation that does not guarantee every american private health insurance that can never be taken away, you will force me to take this pen, veto the legislation, and we will come right back here and start all over again. [applause] >> 5 state of the union address is going back to harry truman on line at the c-span video library. watch president obama deliver this year's address tuesday night live on c-span. it is washington, your way. >> prime minister cameron continue to focus on the economy on thursday when he outlined his conservative party's plan in this debate. this is about 30 minutes and it includes questions from the audience. [applause] >> thank you very much for that
introduction. it is great to be here. this is a brilliant innovation. you take unused space in central urban locations and make it available for entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs. st bernard's and starbucks. this is absolutely a key facility for people who have a great idea and want to build it into something but can staff and some believe was office. this is a great idea for the government to take up unused space that we have so that we can help build more osbourne oriole and social of memorial society that we all want to see. but these are difficult times. we have to deal with the legacy of the deficit and the debt. the eurozone has been deep and continuing trouble. and yesterday unemployment rose again. across europe economies of stalled. here in britain this is an active government sleeves
rolled up, doing everything we possibly can to get our economy moving. the biggest work programs as the 19,373,000,000 people, a massive drive, major initiatives on regional growth, infrastructure, enterprise many people are questioning not just palin when we will recover but the whole way in which our economy works. so when our economic challenge starts with stealing with the debt it must not end there. we must aim higher than just the storms that are affecting the international call of because i believe that i am just this current diversity. we must aim to build a better economy, one that is truly fair and worthwhile. my argument today is this. we will build a better economy by turning back on the free-market. we will do it by making sure
that market is fair as well as free. well of course, there is a role for government to regulation, intervention the real solution is more enterprise, more competition, more innovation. in this debate the kind of economy that we want to see position is very clear. i believe that open markets and free enterprise of the best imaginable force for improving human wealth and happiness. they are the engine of progress. they generate the enterprise and innovation that lifts people out of poverty and gives people an opportunity. and i would go further. where markets work open markets and free enterprise actually promote morality. why? because they create a direct link between contribution and reward between effort and the outcome. the fundamental basis of the market is the idea of something for something an idea that we
need to encourage, not condemned. so we should use this crisis of capitalism and to improve markets but not undermine them. i believe conservatives in particular are well-placed to do this. because we get the free-market. we know its failings as well as its strengths. no true conservative has a net you believe that all politics and politicians have to do is stand back and let capitalism representative. we know that every difference in the world between a market that works and one that does not come markets can fail. uncontrolled globalization can slide into monopolization sweeping aside this small personal local. ..
>> this is at the center of conservative thinking. we have a vision of social responsibility. recognizing that people are not just atomized individuals and that companies have obligations f social responsibility is not some new departure for my party. it was on public later the same spirit of responsibility helped to drive the campaign against the slave traders. under appeal, and led to the repeal of orders which have forced up the price of food. it led to the factory tax -- acts.
great campaigns for reform you strengths for many of their movements to. social reforms watching over business, a correcting market failure, recognizing the operation, that has been part of the conservative mission from the start. a large part of my mission has been about renewing that commitment and that long standing tradition. corporate social responsibility and environmental responsibility are being seems in the us -- policies i have developed. soon after i was elected leader, i said that we should not just end up -- stand up for business, but we should stand up to big business. i argue that the freest governments had turned a blind eye to corporate success, while we believe in responsible capitalism and in government making it happen. the second principle is just as
important as the first. social responsibility. we need to open the markets and get more people engaged in a genuinely popular capitalism, which is what you see when you walk through the states and new zealand. conservatives are willing to believe in an ambition of building a nation of shareholders and homeowners. we will champion this through home ownership. margaret thatcher did the same with the right to buy your own things. three years ago, i called for new popular capitalism. one that all recognize what is going to lower capitalism in allow three people to make something of themselves. to get a good job. to start a business. today, this mission of improving markets and ensuring they are fare as well as free, formed by the principles of social
responsibility and popular capitalism should have three things at its heart. first, we need to be careful about the specific mistakes of the last decade. second, we need to put the right rules and institutions in place to correct them. third, and this is better than anything else, we need to open up enterprise opportunity so that everybody has the chance to participate and benefit from a genuine market policy. we need to boost competition back enterprise, and encourage the venture spirits to challenge the status quo. that is how we will build a fairer more morogoro economy. first, what went wrong? what really happened was it allowed a debt boom to get out of control. it was a series of legal and balances in our economy between north and south financial services and manufacturing, the
people who got awards at the top and the welfare at the bottom. everyone else got left out. the truth is, the less government made something of an impact with the city. it encouraged a debt crazed economy because it needed to pay for spiraling welfare costs and a top down intervention state. it teller to markets -- tolerated markets because it did not think they could work. it was frightened of investing interests, believing that big businesses were all won in the same -- one in the same. we had a level of public spending we could not afford and growth that would not work. i understand why this has made many people totally disenchanted with markets. even angry. what we had was the biggest boom and bust, leaving everyone with a share of that debt. when things went well, only a
few seemed to get a share of the profits. too many people thought that they could not count on their savings growing and could not afford to buy a home. they could not pay their bills in old age. the city which should have been a powerhouse of competition and creativity, became a place for financial wizardry. it left you with all of the rewards. instead of popular capitalism, we end up with on popular capitalism. the next question is, what need to change? we need to change the way the free market works. we need to reconnect the principles of risk, hard work and success with reward. when people take risks with their own ideas, their own energy, their own money when they succeed in a competitive market where anyone can come along and knocked them off their perch at any time, we ought to
the worst that create wealth and -- we have on janoris that it rich in that way. we support business leaders to learn great rewards by building great businesses. there should be a proper functioning markets for talent at the top of business. that will inevitably mean that some people will earn great rewards. that is a world away from what we have seen in recent years where the famous culture, in the city has gotten out of control. there was a link between which -- risk and reward and it has been broken. the politics of envy -- excessive bonuses reduce lending that is available to small businesses. even less is left over for
customers and for shareholders. next week, the business secretary whirl set out our detailed proposals on executive pay including internet legislation. there is a need for new rules. we should be clear about what we need most to bring about true responsibility. we need to make the market work and we will do that by end -- empowering shareholders and using the powers of transparency as well. that is why i welcome this week's decision to add at fidelity worldwide's action to make markets worthwhile. regulation is part of it, but the less government by regulation the wrong way around. small companies were strangled in red tape while the banks were allowed to let loose. we need to turn the tables on this. we are acting to make banks work .
this means separating investment banking firm retail banking. we ensure banks are properly capitalized -- properly capitalized. we are completely overhauling financial-services regulation, abolishing a system and putting in place a system that will work and will protect the consumer. we are fundamentally reviewing the finance initiatives to strike a proper balance between risk and reward of the private sector. we are also busting open the gap between big business and big government that has locked small business out. none of this should mean more regulation. it means less, but better regulation. we need strong framework so people can understand what red tape -- that is what lies behind the anti-tax abuse role which makes it simpler, not more complex.
it was obvious. at the end of all of this, this government will have reduced regulation not increase it. the third part of the mission to improve our markets is about enterprise and opportunity. capitalism will never be genuinely popular unless our -- there are opportunities for everyone to participate in benefit. of course, this means a greater emphasis on equality of opportunity. you can never create a fair economy if people are automatically excluded from it through education. or if there are people who live their lives depending on state handouts. people need the capacity to succeed. that is why this government has made the education revolution its priority. with academies and free schools exams, and a tolerance of to -- intolerance of failure.
we are starting the funding system in education in favor of the premium that means disadvantaged peoples get more. every time a child walks into a school the school knows they will get more money for teaching that people and every time -- they will be able to help turn their lives around. in an age when we are having to cut public spending, we are investing more in early your child care. we are intervening comprehensively and early in families that are favored to help children who otherwise would get a poor life. the popular capitalism also means believing in what i call it the insurgent economy, where we support the new, the innovative, and the bold. we give a chance to thousands upon thousands in our country who are not in business but who want to be. whose ideas and energies need
that first spring board. intelligence ingenuity, energy reaching britain is brimming with business potential. you can see it from where i'm standing. we need to end the opportunity only for a few. i admire the bravery of those who turn their backs on the security of their regular wages to follow their dreams and start a company. if you take a risk, with durjava, create the next google or facebook and wind of a billionaire, more power to you. if you invest your money in a huge risk and made a fortune -- people who take risks and do not succeed the first time, you often find the business fails. you persevere. we have to recognize that that is a process leading to success. we should be open to that and
want to see it happen. that is why we are taking these steps. we are improving companies so they get to keep a bigger slice of the gains they make. it is why we have the entrepreneur be says so that the best and brightest are around the world can start their business right here in the u.k. it is why we are implementing tax incentives for early stage investment of any developed economy. next week, i will be launching a new campaign to help people take that brave step into business for themselves. it is a basic truth that if people have a stake in business, they will support growth and share in its success. the reality is, even if our country is growing richer, participation has shrunk. yes, we are boosting shareholding by giving to people who invest in new small businesses. for 2012, we will take another
step that has not been comment. we are expected -- we are abolishing the capital gains tax for people who are prepared to have a go and invest in a startup. to build a fair economy, we need more shareholders and the entrepreneurs. that is why we are reinvigorating the right to buy and we are transforming the housing market. we need to help encourage a different models of capitalism. one way employees have a stake in the success of their company. this is an issue that i have always cared about. back in 2007, i established the conservative cooperative movement, which now has over 400 members. in a government where we are providing new rights for public sector workers to create and own a stake in their success with employee led mutuals not delivering almost 1 billion pounds worth of health services
i think it is right to take further steps. we know that breaking -- encouraging to is, opening up new enterprise, is the best way of improving our public services. they're over 12 million members in the u.k. it is a vital branch of capitalism. there are too many barriers in the way to extending and improving that record. there are over one dozen pieces of legislation that had cost and complexity to the process. i announced they will all be brought together in simplified in a new bill that we will be putting before parliament. in these difficult economic times, i want to achieve more than just paying down the deficit and encouraging growth. i want these times to lead to a more social responsibility and popular capitalism.
we want to encourage the market. we improve the market by making it fair, as well as free and in which many more people get a stake in the economy and a share in the rewards of success. that is the vision of a better economy that we are building. people work hard and they get rewards that are fair in the conservative sense of the world. people feel in control of their destiny because they have started their own business or they are racial or other in the company they work for our part of a cooperative. -- they are a shareholder in the company they work for or are part of a cooperative. we spread wealth and freedom and opportunity. thank you very much for listening. [applause] >> thank you very much. we have time for questions.
but start with you from bbc. >> prime minister. will you act to prevent the losses of poorly performing state owned banks receiving million-pound bonuses? >> yes. first of all, the story in the financial times this morning is not accurate. there has been a meeting of the committee at the royal bank of scotland and so no decisions have been made. as majors shareholders in this business, i can say that we will be recruiting and restricting bonuses in state-owned banks. restricting the cash element to two dozen pounds. -- 2,000 pounds. there are people working hard in that business. employees are meeting their targets and doing their best trying to restore fortunes of their bank and i think it is
right that there should be a small cash bonus available for those people. that will apply to anyone at the top of that organization as well as anywhere else. in terms of the broader question of the chief executive and the rest of it, there has been a meeting of the premiere asian committee. -- remediation committee. the process should be followed in their proper way. >> thank you. is it time that sir fred goodwin should be stripped of his knighthood? >> there is a proper process to be followed for something of this order. there is a committee in terms of honors that exist and that will now examine this issue. it is right and there is a
proper process. it will not take into account the financial services authority report, which i think is material and important. because of what it says about the failures of rbs and he was responsible and all of the rest. there is a committee and they should do the work rather than the prime minister. >> thank you. anyone watching this speech today might ask, if you cannot act on a company of which you own 83%, are your words and not worthy? i have acted. there'll be a 2,000 pound cash limit on any bonus for anyone at rs whether they are at the top or at the bottom. as for the rest of the process
discussions need to be held decisions need to be made. the british government is a major shareholder. >> thank you, a prime minister. you are right to comment on the good tradition of corporate responsibility. sometimes, we can experience that as patronizing. i think we could argue we could tell them a bit more about how to motivate to run a sustainable and ethical business. how about encouraging companies to take social charity leaders on to their boards? let the bankers take their bonuses, and tell them to give that to a charity or invest it
in social enterprises? >> some great ideas. the principle behind what you are saying, you are entirely right. corporate responsibility was seen as something that businesses should attack on to a profit-making model. -- tack on to a profit-making model. that is completely the wrong model. what business it does should incorporate social responsibility, the way it treats its customers, the white it engages in the world. -- the way it engages in the world. s a bit far, i could actually go sit in the classroom with young children and see what their aspirations are for the sort of businesses that want to work for consume products by
coming to you within all the rest of it. he will soon find out the corporate social responsibility is not some businesses should do as an add-on. it should be absolutely core to the way they do business. from that flows consequences and one of which you think your first idea is saying to businesses as you look at who you want to have on your board actually the awful word mainstreaming, but will save would help if you have someone who really understood the social enterprise what social responsibility is all about. the second suggestion i bonuses is also a good one. the point the governor of england made with importance, which is links to sites pay out more in bonuses or pay out more in dividends, they are going to effectively be reducing the capital base on which they commit their decisions. i think we all know one of the problems in our country today is actually difficulty of getting hold of bank lending.
that is why the government has taken an intervention, his strong start to the murdoch agreement, which was my initiative is fitting that the banks of a book you want some predictable rules on tax and what is going to happen in terms of banking. you are only going to get that if in return you actually set //ñ out to the sort of funding are doing to businesses large and/ñw/ñw small. /ñw i think it is important that we have done that and actually those targets are on course to be met. maybe one or two more from the press. the bst can defend themselves in wakulla today. >> thank you, prime minister. their announcement today of a cooperative bill is very very welcome. it's an historic decision that would clean up a fragment dated classic process that will be good for cooperative business. over 12 million members of metrical within individual shareholders in deed in the u.k.
this year has been declared to the united nations vis-à-vis the international year of cooperatives in the united nations asks government to review their framework. i think the u.k. is the first country in the world to get that commitment under way. i wonder whether you have a message for the 12 million numbers of cooperatives large and small up and down the country this year. >> first of all thank you for telling the ended in an international obligation of which i wasn't entirely aware. i'm very grateful for that. it is important to clear up a lot and make it easier and encourage creation of new co-ops large and small, clearly trying to cut the paperwork is a sensible thing to do. i think my message just keep on doing what you're doing. i think we want to see a spread of different business models, not just in the private sector but the public site.
is doing a lot of work to encourage public services is more appropriate in some rather than others. i think trying to give people a greater sense of ownership in what they are doing is hugely important. if you ask people about what it is that makes them satisfied in work and happy at all the rest of it, it is obviously partly collect good to your job security, but it's also whether you feel you have a real stake in what you're doing. i have often had my leg pulled pork talking about happiness and the rest of it they think it is important. i think there's a growing understanding that it is about the control you have come to influence you have come as setting your work as well as vital themes of pay and conditions.
>> , no, the fact. >> prime minister, just go back to is you just described the out-of-control bonus culture. what about the nonstate owned banks, which as you'll note the vast majority of the city. you have no control over them. he's got a few opportunities today to exert any moral suggestion they should be paying their bonuses to charity. you are totally powerless over goldman sachs. >> i don't accept that. what the government is doing is recognizing, but we can't legislate for the pay level in every business in every company in the country. where you can do is make this market for top pay work properly. it's quite clear it's not working properlyí today. -- india saw 49% increase in the value of pay and the ftse top
management, but she only saw a 4% increase in the proceed. as i said in my speech, rewarding success has become big. >> was a date and morality onto mass., are you prepared to use a state to limit the power and influence of big capital? >> the answer to that is a straight yes. if you have an example where despite ascii participants in the market to exercise responsibility they don't clearly you have to intervene with the law. no conservative believes that america without law. there's all sorts of practices you have to ban. for instance, insider trading or what have you. obviously a conservative hopes that she'll have a max on extent of responsibility allowing you to have a minimal extent of law whereas i would say they tend to believe you need a maximum extent of law because we can't
ever trust anyone to behave responsibly in any way. let me encourage responsibility when possible a much as they were necessary. the good example to prove i am somebody consistent was yesterday when i was asked about on line and television gambling advertising. i basically believe that kinsley is an industry that should be licensed. it should be legal but he must behave responsibly. if you want, the government has to think again. i'll be having meetings last week about the issue of how to advertise to children and issues around commercialization and sexualization of childhood. again, there should be a strong repeal for behaviors from business of the things are handled properly in the marketplace. if they can't be, you have to go to rules and regulations. that is solid now. thank you thank you indeed for comingcuqú on. thank you i can to the house for having us. thank you very
>> french president nicolas sarkozy talks about economic conditions in france and europe in its annual new year's address. the german foreign minister outlines what european countries should do to deal with the euro zone financial situation. after that, janet napolitano takes part in discussion on cyber threats and national security issues. florida congressman alan west posted a discussion on conservatism and the african- american community. live tomorrow at 10:00 eastern on c-span. >> i want to make this very clear. i am open to the best ideas of
concerned members of both parties. i have no special approach, even in our own bill, except this. if you send me legislation that does not guarantee every american -- private health insurance that can never be taken away, you will force me to take this pen, veto the legislation, and will come right back here and start over again. >> find a state of the union address is going back to harry truman online at the c-span it video library. watch president obama deliver this year's address on tuesday. >> in his new year's message to the nation thursday, nicolas sarkozy talked about the future of france's economy.
of industrial and trade tradition in france. i wanted to wish a happy new year to business people in the second economic region in france. the unprecedented crisis distracting of france, europe, and the world forces us to look for new ideas. i would like to convince you ladies and gentlemen, fellow citizens that this new world which, with its new century's being born in front of our very eyes, weannot refute. the rld is here.
it is the way it is. the chinese indians, the brazilians want to exceed onomic and social progress. o could blame them? we are 7 billion people on this planet, never again will the world be the way it is to be with four or five countries that were in the first tier, the united states, france, great britain. everything was managed by these countries. the world has changed, and deeply so. and, perhaps, the idea that is the most complicated to understand is that in order to keep the france that we love, in
order to preserve the social model that we love, we must change. that is the paradox. that is the problem. some are saying we have to refuse globalization. they are lying. imagine the solitary refusal of 65 million french people. imagine that this refusal will impress 7 billion people on the planet. it is as if we would tell our children you are doing badly at school, refuse the system, work less, he will be better off. you can imagine the chinese, the indians, the brazilians, very
impressed by our solitary and arrogant refusal. who will pay for this? those of us who are the least educated who of the weakest and most vulnerable. others are saying, we have to refuse europe. they are lying too, and deeply so. fellow citizens, we belong to a continent that for centuries and even to the last century was the theater of barbaric war. murderess wars. ur own parents lived do that. your grandparents pay dearly for the war. it was not in asia, it was in europe. in europe, we kill each other. in europe, we exterminated
peop. st in the last century. europe is the most beautiful human conclusion and construction at ever imagined in the service of ace. europe is a treasure. europe has not done everything right, but he were guaranteed to you, to us, peace. if we let europe unravel it would mean our continent would be back in a situation that the parents and grandparents --hat your parents and grandparents lived through. think about this. france, alone, isolated, the think it would count for anything in the world? france separated from its european partners, the think anyone would listen to us?
it would mean the disappearance of a large part of our industry. others are saying, we have the solution, all we have to do is close our borders. they are lying. a few minutes ago i was in a factory in that area. three-quarters of its production is sold abroad. the think if we clos our borders, we could keep on sellin -- do you think if we close our borders, we could keep on selling to other countries? that is not the solution. the solution strategy, there is
only one, effort. innovation training. to be better than the others in order to keep our place in the world. there is no other way. the easy way is close to us. the only possible way is that one. because of that we have had to take decisions that have been determined by nature, if a decision is notifficult, it is not a decision. if a degree does not give you any jobs, it is not a degree. if a decision is not difficult it is not a decision. if a choice is not complicated it is no choice. i wanted to tell you fellow
citizens that in this difcult period of the last three years for our country europe, the world, french pple showed enormous courage. before i was president, i was told, do not even imagines universities could be autonomous. we will never make it. of course we would never make it. we ner made it before. the minister had to step down. if in your corner is only the rivers, you will ner make it. unless you try to drive around the globe perhaps. [applause] one woman alled that reform. today -- one wom led that reform. today, your children will go to
universities that are completely autonomous. this is not a queion of ideology, it is a question of thinking is there one university that is worth its salt that is not autonomous? none. all we had to do was to hold on resist and to end it is ugly practice in our country where government after government would yield not yield to people who had the right claim but to those who wheel and the loudest. that practice -- who were yelling the loudest. that practice is over. you can demonstrate. you can protest. that is democracy. those who were blocked were more heard than the ones who suffered. recently, here, in this region,
in this very city, i said that the government will no longer accept that a holiday of french citizens would be hijacked by a minority. french citizens have understood that. we had to face theetirement regime reform a very sensitive subject. i was told, it is difficult. it is not popular. they are always very good advisers to tell you not to take any risk. they do not understand that the worth of all the risks in a moving world is to take no risk
at all. [applause] out or retirement regime was about to be bankrupt. 15 million people are retired in france. for 1.5 million, we had to borrow their retirement money from banks. every four years of life expectancy is one year longer. if we do not work longer, who is going to pay for this retirement regime? we made this choice at the beginning of 2010. h nine national demonstrations with a large number of people. we did not yield. we did not backtrack. what was at sta was the essential. french people understood, french
people have accepted. i bet you that in the next years, nobody is going to repeal this reform because it was a must. it was indispensable. this was not from the left, the right, the minority, the government it was a sensible reform. i prefer to have to face the fact that the french people are not have the red again to see them angry when they see that after a long -- that the french people are not happy rather than to see them angry when they see that after a long life of work, there no retirement. is there one person among you who would like for france to be like grease that's what you like
for france- to be like greece? would you like for france to be in the same situation as spain portugal, italy? what happened in these countries? they did not make it difficult choices that they would have made it when they should. when you have a difficult decision, you take it later, it is too late. people suffer more. in portugal, they are thinking of cutti by 25% wages in public service. retirement went down in spain italy, greece. did you know that? these countries are facing huge difficulties with the violence, because when difficult decisions had toe taken, they were not taken. on monday, i was in spain.
unemployment crippled. it is now 23%. france thanks to the retirement reform, made a choice that preserves the future. i observed that people who say they are going to repeal the reform are more discreet nowadays. there is progress. even if it is not sufficient yet. [applause] a few days ago people panicked. i am talking about the political world and the media world. all of a sudden, standard and
poor's, a ratings agency, became the absolute preference for people who until now did not even think existed or criticized it. but, now because that agency started bad mouth in france, it had to be the truth. it was pretty indecent. men and women who look like they were happy about it, they were happy about what that agency had decided. that was on friday. on monday, another agency, twice as big, said exactly the opposite. all of a sudden, it was positive for france. what the agency said on monday
coted less than a negative assessment of the agency on friday. the only solution is to keep cool, keep your distance, show courage, to make decisions. what counts is not with the agencies are saying, the agency's are not deciding on the policies of our government. what counts is how it is too high. we spend too much. we have to cut the deficit. whatever the agency will say. whatever the friday agency thinks, we have to cut our spending. let's not be dramatic. let's not minimize the the the situation. that is the reason why -- minimize either the situation. that is the reason why we have
decided not to replacene at of two retirees in the civil service. for the first time, a government reduced the number of its civil servants, 160,000 over five years. we have to do even better. france needs its civil servants. who can tell. we are going to hire more of the. -- you. they are lying. lies and more lies. if the government reduces the number of its civil servants but local governments if they hire half a million public servants it willot work. the taxpayer is the same at the local level, at the regional
level, and at the central level. it is the same taxpayer. [applause] there is no different. whoever we are whatever our responsibility we have to be accountable about the deficit of the country. the government the health system, local government, that is the reason why we are going to receive local officials, to work with them we are going to see how everyone can take part in reducing the deficit. is it impossible? why would it be impossible? in spain, a few weeks ago a man
was the heaof the government, he was a socialist. he taught to the one who was going to follow him, right wing, to tell him that together we have to focus on the golden rule. they showed the example of politicians who could put the interest of spain above the interest of the parties. they voted together. the golden rule is neither on the right or the left. what is the golden rule? it means that over one of the legislature, we have to have a balanced budget. is it impossible? in germany the former chancellor, a socialist talk to the daed to madame merkel before she
became chancellor. he proposed a reform. they adopted the golden rule. it is a sensible rule. don't you think there are enough reasonable people around, and the reasonable woman -- enough reasonable women to understand we are going to go through our responsibilities? our jobs are not for ever. our national interest should always be above the partisan interest. what is possible in germany spain, should we give up in france? why? what would be that logic? i know people of high quality in all the parties of france who could all put aside their party.
this is hurting us when that national interest is at stake. yesterday was the minister -- with the minister and prime minister we talk to the labor union -- talkedo the labor union. i want to pay homage to the unions and the employers' associations. europe is in a crisis. france is in a crisis. it is very normal that people who have union responsibility and the government talk to see what needs to be done in order to fight against this cancer which is unemployment. everyone gave their opinion. of coue we do not agree on everything. how could that be? we have talked freely. we agreedn emergency measures.
within 10 days, with the prime minister and the government, we are going to take decisions that are even more imptant. i would like to explain the context. first, to those who said, let's not do anhing because the presidential election is coming. i knew it was coming up. i can count up to five, you know? i am not talking about what comes after that. i had been elected for five years. if we could only take decisions when there is no election, we would take decisions. we have elections every year. let's not touch retirement because we have regional elections. let's not talk about regional
reforms because we have municipal elections. let's not talk about universities, we have county elections. let's not talk about the economy, we have presidential elections. should we start again? we have one every year. it comes back every four, five, and six years. this is not a relevant argument. i will add, ladies and gelatin -- gentlemen imagine our fellow citizens unemployed. they did nothing wrong. the factory, the company they sell half of what they used to sell. this man, this woman which, all of a sudden is unemployed. do you think it is normal to tell them, wait four or five months presidential elections are coming?
four or five more months to be unemployed, it is a tgedy. it means to which, it means suffering. after, we tell them, we have to get ready now. then there is the congress election. then a summer holiday. then back to school. do you think this is reasonable? to tell to the 120,000 new unemployed people, we do not have time to decide. he is suffering. let us do our business. let us keep dealing with the elections, primaries, election. but be assured, we will make decision when we have time to read this is not acceptable. i have been present -- when we have time. this is not acceptable. i have been president for five years. i am asking the government to
take the decision. what decision? what of the problems let me tell you one thing. we have not tried everything against unemployment, yet. when people say they have tried everhing, it is because they say there is nothing else to do. when there is nothing to do, you encourage all the irresponsible people who want to thrive on fear anxiety suffering not accurate, but use it. -- cure it but use it. we are all democrats. if we think everything has been tried, let's il to the populists. -- yield to the populists. if we were to renounce any
decision what can we tell the people who were suffering? why would they not turn to the people who were yelling the loudest because they are angry? that is how we have to make decisions. i will tell you. -- i will tell you, i am not a fatalist. if, during my life i head except it fate, i would never have run for president. -- i had accepted eight, i would never have run for president. you do not vote for a president so he gives up, so he tls there is nothing to be done. i will never be that man. there were people who were suffering. if they see that the decide it tells them, i cannot do anything, what suffering, what
this bear? -- despair. all i have to do is open the newspaper, i would understand how much more we have to do. fate, renouncing that is not possible. you, what are your problems? we tried to solve a lot of problems the professional tax the labor tax tax holidays for research compare it to the polls,-- comparitivity polls. what can we do for you? there are four sectors where decisions must be taken. i will explain.
the crisis created at suffering. the crisis also allows the to excel it necessary changes. the crisis -- toallows you to accelerate necessary changes. the crisis allows you to think outside of the box. that is where we are now. there are some extremely difficult subjects that are going to create debate. let me tell you we will not be immobile. the first topic is a word, which is usually not known by the elite, but which is in the brain of all workers outsourcing this word, offshore oring is
not felt by all our citizens the same way. when you are high on valletta, it means new markets. it means you can open new sectors. when you are on the bottom, it means the closing of the factory, the ls of your job, the impossibility to live. the problem is not the chinese the indians, or the brazilians, the chinese is over the last 15 years, france has lost market share in the eurozone. we must like in the cost of labor so that france remains -- leighton -- lighten the cost of labor so that france remains a land of production. [applause] i want to tell you how absurd it would be to bet on services and
not bet on industry. the industry is the fofront. if your indtry disappears, the services are going to follow suit. france must remain a land of production. how can france remained a land of production if the cost of labor is higher in france then it is next door in germany? of course, the question is not to bring our social model dn, it is the others who will increase their social model. our entire social model, our entire production system, is based on taxing labor. if we do not produce that, the
cost of labor will make us run a huge risk, outsourcing will go on. in 15 years, france has lost half a million industrial jobs. fellow citizens, this is a reality. we must think about that. if we keep that way we will not have a single factory. the day we have no more factories, we will have no service either. the priority is to reduce the cost of labor. we cannot create deficit we have to find alternative income iss. you can have whatever idea, but you also have to understand one thing, the question is not to know whether you want this tax or the other one the vat
the only question is, you want to stop faye -- do you want to stop offshoring? this is the only question. if you leave a company you want to create compaes concord newmarket. that is normal. what is not normal - conquer new markets. that is normal. what is not normal is france is losing all of its factories. just imagine france is the last importers of automobiles. this can go on. we have to take strong decisions. second also difficult complex, within our companies,
can we talk? can we negotiate? can we talk about the work week? can we exchange flebility for more work? one word, should france have the same competitive ithe agreements that germany chose over 10 years ago? that is a question. it is not a question of imitating what the others are doing, but my duty is to see what are the solutions that work in other countries. the solutions that did not work, very often, we adopted them here. they did not work here. can we have a free dialogue within the company? agreements between workers and
bosses in a company, is it stronger than the log? -- law? can we imagine a france that would be like germany where workers could talk freely within the company and discussed? can you imagine what a change that would mean? these are the topics we ntioned. third remark, why are there more young unemployed people in fran than anywhere else, especially in germany? in france, there is a lot less training. the is a lot less mix of studies and work. all that we need to do is classical education, vocational
training, it is not good enough. it is not high enough. if you choose vocational training, you have three times as many chances to get a job as when you have a general education. i looked at the figures. i am not talking about small companies, i am talking about companies that have over 250 employees. 1 out of 2 has less than 1% trainees whereas the losses they have to have four%. -- 4%. that situation has to stop. and their causes prefer to pay the fine rather than hire a trainee -- companies prefer to pay the fine rather than hire a trainee. i will not accept it.
in different industries at the situation is different. in manufacturing there are more trainees. if you look at our neighbors in germany, there are as many training in banking and insurance as there are in manufacturing. our reality has been changed. i will no longer accept it. how to finance the economy? we are in a situation that is extremely difficult. i will summarize it in one word. when things of going well, we are granting loans to everybody especially people who do not need loans. when you want to finance the real estate bubble or the internet bubble, what is the
word? credit crunch. credit was abundant. all you have to do is look at a piece of land. you would find people to loan you money. then the crisis arise. we are in a situation where the central bank loans at 1% and, in the evening, the banks bring the money back. you barrault 41% -- borrow for 1%. this will not go on for ever. at the same time, you have company owners who said, i need a new machine. i have a project. how can i increase my equity? i need equity. we have decided that what we did
for all and medium enterprises, we are going to create indtry banks in order to loan funds to people who want to invest in growth, employment and the development of the country. [applause] it is going to be participative loans. this will allow us to give quasequity. we are also going to regionalize the isf. it works well. it is not as an enough in the regions. everyone has to go to paris to ask for funds. the isf has not been created to be an equity fund like any other. the tax on financial transactns, which will be implemented, for which we had
long discussions people a telling me, let's wait for the rest of europe before we do that before we implement that tax. i do not understand. they impose the 35-hour week. [applause] the mayor is smiling. that shows me he is honest. i knew he was. [applause] when the 35-hour week was decided, you could be for or against. nobody waited for the other countries to be the same. i want you to understand this it is financed the regulations
that brought us to that crisis. it was not an economic crisis it was a financial crisis that created a trust crisis which created an economy crisis. financed the regulations do you not think it is noble economically and politically fair, morally indispensable that people who bought as in the situation we are in participate in the solution in the reduction of the deficit? who could be against that? when you want to feed your country come you pay a tax. when you buy apartments, a house, that is a transaction you pay tax.
a financial transaction would be the only transaction that wld escape any tax, any contribution to the financing of our social model. of course, the question is not to know whether we should do it alone. of coue we need to do it with the others. we need to bring more funds. this is going to prevent offshore and -- offshoring. what hypocrisy. those with telling me do not do it before the others, they know that the others will never do it. therefore, we will not do it even. that is the truth. let's face it. france will show the example. we are going to implement the tax. we are going to leave behind us the rest of europe. if i came here and i told you,
we are going to impose a tax the day the british half decided to join us, i know -- the british have decided to join us. we will have a tax the day the americans do. that would mean we would never do it. ladies and gentlemen you understood i had a speech here. i did not read it. [applause] i decided to speak freely and frankly to you. [applause] i will conclude with this, i will tell you one thing, it in the end, for you, the situation is complex.
for politicians, whether they are, the situation -- whoever they are, the situation is difficult. why is it difficult? congress people, mayors, governors, president ministers all, we are facing a situation that none of our predecessors ever knew. we have to manage suffering the crisis, we have to reassure, and at the same time we have to invent everything from scratch. i would like to convince you of that. the ideologies of the 20th- century no longer work. we have to be pragmatic. we have to be open to me we have to understand what is going on. we have to -- we have to be op. we have to understand what is going on. this is t change in our political lives this is what
has changed the most in the last 10 years. it is the speed with which we have to decide. markets are deciding in a thousandth of a second. the democratic process as for consultation, of voting, -- asks for consultation, voting, the tw houses, the courts. we have to take decisions faster. the decisions that are much more important. we cannot consult a big book where everything is written. what we are going through, very people went through before us. this is my conclusion. i think elected officials should be held up to the higher
standard. this world, we can no longer live. we have to tell the truth. in this world, we cannot let the rich. whatever happens, -- cannot lack courage. whatever happens, the situation is so difficult, we cannot wait. and i think we should all work together. nobody holds the truth. it is so complex we have to look for a majority beyon our partisanship. it is respectable and important. ladies and gentlemen thank all of you for having, in such large numbers. let me tell you at i am convinced that france can resist the crisis.
france has all the assets it needs. more than ever in 2012, work, effort, innovation, will be our strategy. let me wish you a happy new year personally,o all of you personally and professionally. two people in the mority, a professional as well as persal. and for the minority, i will tell you personal wishes. [laughter] [applause] from the bottom ofy heart. for the rest, i will not say anything else. i will tell them i am glad that i came. happy new year, everybody. [applause]
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satelle corp. 2012] [applause] >> gabrielle giffords has announced she will resign from congress this week. to concentrate on recovering from wounds she suffered in an assassination attempt a little over a year ago. she made the announcement on her website. here are her remarks. ♪ ♪ >> arizona is my home, always will be. a lot has happened over this past year.
we cannot change that. i know, on the issues we fought for, we can change things for the better. jobs, border security, veterans we can do so much more by working together. i do not remember much from that horrible day. but, i will never forget the trust you placed in me. to be your voice. thank you for your prayers and for giving me time to recover. i have more work to do on my recovery. what is best for arizona?