tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN December 22, 2016 4:00pm-6:01pm EST
[applause] >> however, that experience is completely different from that of my friend in the south west. paying £650 to go to college, which is essential for your future, is an absolute disgrace, but can we really do anything nationally? personally my bus fare for , college is £190 a year, which is a significant difference, but this is a devolved issue. as we mentioned with the nhs earlier, every local area is different. nationally, with transport, it is not viable, feasible or achievable to do anything. instead, should we not have casual youth debates about a curriculum for life, politics, votes at 16 or anything else? i plead with you not to support this motion, but to support a curriculum for life. [applause] mr. speaker: is there a would be contributor from northern ireland? ben sharkey (northern ireland) i am from lagan valley. i support this motion 100%.
past even the financial asked that of helping young people and students, i believe it would help us all because it has great environmental benefits. more people using better public transport infrastructure would lead to a cut in emissions from private vehicles. that would benefit the entire world, which is why i believe everyone should support the motion. furthermore, we cannot just say for every issue, "can we do this in a year" we have to go into this optimistically. we owe that to our constituents. [applause] mr. speaker: who do we have from the east of england? megan day (east of england) i be representative of mid suffolk. today, i talk not just on behalf of young people, but on behalf of our home, our planet and our environment. i do not need to stand here and lecture you all on the dangers
of air pollution and global warming, i think you all know about that already. what i do want to bring to your attention is that 25% of britain's carbon emissions are caused by transport. did you know that one full bus can take up to 50 cars off the road and that one full train can take up to 600 cars off the road? mid suffolk, the area that i represent, is very rural and isolated. the public transport there is irregular and expensive. how can we expect to reduce our carbon footprint if there are no alternatives? something needs to be done, and something can be done that something can be done by us. [applause] mr. speaker: who do we have from the south east of england? you have been trying for a while. alaa fawaz (south east) thank you, mr. speaker. i am from slough. it is all well and good to get
young people off the streets and to provide positive activities, but it is no use if young people cannot afford to get to them. although transport for london has concessions for young people, that is not the case nationwide. if we had a national 25 youth -- if we had a national concession for young people, it would make transport cheaper and accessible for all, and more young people would use it. it would reduce the number of cars on the road and contribute to a greener society. of course, it would also stop the taxi service of mum and dad. recent legislation expects young people to stay in education until they are 18. why are we charging them adult fares when they are only 16 and making it unaffordable to attend colleges, internships, apprenticeships and volunteering opportunities? i urge you all to vote for this motion, because i get a taxi nearly every day after school and i do not feel safe.
i do not feel safe just getting from school back to home which , takes only five minutes. that should not be the way forward. thank you all. mr. speaker: who do we have fromthe east midlands? nishat tamanna (east midlands) i am an myp for leicestershire. i would like to say why is it , that when you become 18, you can drink, smoke or take out a mortgage you can do whatever you , want to do? it is because you are classed as an adult. however, when you are 16, you have so much responsibility. i go to work, i go to college and i am here today speaking as a representative. i do all of that, yet i am still treated like a child. i find that very discriminatory and unfair.
how can we treat someone like that? we can't. i have to get not one but two buses to get to the college that i chose to attend.when you go into education, you have to be there until the age of 18. you should have a choice as to where you would like to go in your constituency, or even outside your constituency. you should know that you will pay a lower fare, which you and your family can afford. why is it so unfair? why is this so expensive that people might choose not to go into education because they have to provide not just for themselves, but for their family? mr. speaker: what about the north east of england? mr. speaker: gosh, it's a toss up. thomas crawford (north east) thank you, mr. speaker. i have the pleasure of
representing the young people of sunderland. i have heard brilliant explanations of why we should completely back the motion, and i agree 100% with every single one of them, whether on the issues of age or the environment. i would like to make a few comments about the practicalities of the motion. people say it is ambitious, but is in ambitious to do everything that we do? it was ambitious to secure debates in this chamber and to sit on these green benches. we never thought that would pay off but, when it did, the pay off was even bigger. we have doubts about local campaigns, but the bigger the doubts, the bigger the pay off. i urge everyone to back the campaign. do not let the word "ambition" put us off, let it encourage us even further. thank you. [applause] mr. speaker: we have two front bench contributors in this debate from the north west. is there a back bencher who is thirsting to contribute? a woman in a burgundy top is waving at me.
lucia harrington (north west) i represent south cumbria. making transport accessible for all people is important, especially in regards to transport provision for post 16 learners. as there is no statutory concessionary travel scheme for students in full time education, many students have to pay a vast amount of money to attend their sixth form or college. train fares are particularly expensive, and very little support is put in place for people who cannot afford these services. this particularly affects young people in rural areas, because they usually have to travel further to get to school or college. for example, it will cost me around £1,000 to attend sixth form this year. luckily, i have a family who can pay for my travel costs, but some students do not. for example, a friend of mine has to work long hours after school just so that she can afford to get to sixth form. that is wrong. if the government want us to stay in education until we are 18, they should provide the means for us to get to the
schools we want, which we have worked very hard to get into. mr. speaker: does anybody else from london wish to contribute? what about the gentleman in the back row? >> hamza taouzzale (london) i am the member of the youth parliament for westminster. i feel really sorry formy counterparts in the chamber who have to pay such a ridiculous amount just to go to college and get an education to do things that essentially should be free. i am from probably the best zone to live in in london zone 1 so i only pay about £1.30 to go anywhere in london. i am privileged in that sense, and i am also privileged in that i can walk to school, because i only live about five minutes from my school. it is ridiculous to say that we
should not campaign for lowering transport costs. as we have heard, as soon as that doubt creeps into our minds, everything fails. doubt is the hell that we go through every day. people doubted that we would be able to make it here. people doubted that we would be successful in our lives, but here we are. i want to urge, "do not let doubt overtake you. we are stronger than that and we are better than that. we are the young people who will be successful. we will make our country greater than it has ever been. we are the future. when doubt hits you, tell it to go away tell it, "see you another day, not today," and get rid of it. at the end of the day, we are best people we can possibly be and we want the best for our country. mr. speaker: to conclude the final debate of the morning, i ask you warmly to welcome, from the north west of england, lucy boardman.
[applause] every single day, hundreds of thousands of young people up and down the country start their mornings using public transport. from the north to the south and everywhere in between. flash, the engines revved and we begin our journey to school, college, and work. people these young getting the benefit of high standard at an affordable price? if not, what can we as a youth parliament do about it? we can make a real impact locally. we can put pressure on transport companies to run services more often, lower prices and engage with young people to help shape these services. however, are the government really going to commit
nationally to greater public transport concessions, particularly in the current economic climate? could we really make a difference in the 12 months that we have? since young people are now legally required to remain in some form of full time education until they are 18, it seems. logical that young people's transport concessions should be extended accordingly. but money does not bear on trees, so which other services would need to be cut to fund this? yes, we have campaigned on this issue before, but there is still so much more to be done. in 2012, the youth select committee found that the cost of public transport fares was a key issue for young people, and clearly it remains so. when we asked almost 1million young peoplewhich topicwas the most important to them, more than 120,000 of them voted for transport. however, there are already pressure groups working solely on this issue.
the campaign for better transport is already well established and making progress, so perhaps we should invest both our time and resources into an alternative topic that might be more achievable and that would produce better results. for those with a disability, public transport is often a difficult and inaccessible mode of travel. for those in rural areas, buses can be infrequent or may not arrive at all. it is clear that something needs to change, but is the same change needed in every area? transport in durham is very different from that in derbyshire, which is again different from that in devon. can we tackle this issue on a national scale, or should we be making it a local priority instead? in the end it is up to you.we could turn our attention elsewhere, ready to accept a new challenge, and tackle a new issue. alternatively, we could spend another year campaigning for better,more affordable andmore accessible transport, building on the progress that we have already made to help to bring
about a positive change in the lives of every young person we represent. so, do you want to get off the train and change platforms, or keep the engine running and finish the journey? mr. speaker: lucy, thank you very much indeed for that excellent winding up speech. just before we conclude this morning's proceedings, i would like to acknowledge the very welcome presence of the clerk of
the house the most senior officer of the house david natzler. david, thank you for your interest and support. members of the youth parliament, that concludes the morning session of our sitting. theyouth parliament will now adjourn until 1.30 pm. i invite you all please to return to westminster hall for lunch. order, order. [applause] mr. speaker: colleagues, we come to the consideration of our fifth and final motion of the day, mainly a curriculum to prepare us for life.
move the motion, from the southwest of england, please mesbridge.zy elizabeth porter (baf (germany)): thank you, mr. speaker. i wish to speak in favor of the motion we believe that more efforts must be made to ensure that we work together to combat , teachinge odd reason students about how to vote and how to open a bank account, teaching students about the basic life skills is still. law. of can this be that 40%
teaching is not good enough, when nearly 500 times the amount of young people in this chamber say they want and need to learn life skills. we have a captive audience. aboutte in the comments making kids a ct required. let's not waste this opportunity. with this campaign, we can achieve more than any other. learning about different , tackling racism and religious prejudice. in a world where pornography is just a click away, every person should have their right to be ex anded about s relationships protected by law. our schoolsequire
include a curriculum for life when the subject is not acknowledged by the government. how can we argue that young and lifen't value this lessons are a irrelevant topic or nonexistent? there's no guarantee. andorked with other people hear suggestions and ideas and then we watch. for all the creativity, our solutions are not listened to. , of which must be heard. compulsory life education is in our reach. we will fight what we know is --
we will fight for what we know is deserved and fair. in the end, what we aim to achieve istanbul, we know the marvelous ability of life education. , soe seen the research let's make it a law that young people are prepared for life. [applause] speaker: thank you for a great start to our final debate. members of the youth parliament, to oppose the motion please welcome, from the south east of england, lucy page. [applause] lucy page (south east): i know we have all escaped from lessons today, but i would like to take you back into the classroom. most of us have had to listen to the awkward teaching of supposed
majorityls, which the of people consider to be of little value in its current form. some would say that i am lucky to have been taught pshe, but learning to check the sell by dates on contraception should only be the start of the story. consent, financials or political education? , surely those should not be ignored. the problem is not the curriculum, but the quality of its delivery. according to ofsted, 38% of teachers lack the required expertise to provide this information, with 20% being completely untrained. place yourself in their shoes the mounting pressures on core subjects, as well as the sheer size and sensitive nature of this topic, can explain why these vital areas are avoided. the diversity represented in this chamber today is extraordinary.
i can see young people from all different backgrounds here to achieve one thing change. i am not speaking about diversity in race, nor in gender or even religion, but in education. instead, education. the chances are that the person next to you today does not learn in the same type of school or college. this does not only determine the curriculum, but the very fundamentals of what we are taught. ask yourself, at a time when our educational system is more fractured than ever before, is it conceivable, let alone appropriate, to demand one universal curriculum for life? we should not underestimate the responsibility of parents or, more importantly, our ability to think for ourselves. we have campaigned on this issue once before we have a report to prove it.
however, that does not change the fact that it is simply not feasible to train every teacher. it is not achievable in one year alone to create a unified curriculum for life. myp's, each of you has the skills to successfully challenge your schools to incorporate higher quality pshe lessons. the devolution of this campaign does not go far enough. we need to approach individual schools to increase the achievability of this broad and complex issue and to ensure that individual priorities are not watered down by geographical differences. of course, it is our duty to take into account the priority issue, but all these issues are important. uk youth parliament, let us use our influence not to promote an issue where the system is not working against us but to bring
about the very thing for which we are here today change. [applause] mr. speaker: lucy, thank you very much indeed. do we have a would be contributor from scotland? we do. the gentleman there, let's hear from you, sir. osama aslam (scotland): thank you, mr. speaker. i represent mid scotland and fife. myp's, why is a curriculum for life important? why is it necessary? earlier this year, 152,701 young people obtained scottish higher passes. more than a quarter of young people obtained an a or a* in their a levels. last year, the number of young people going into further education was at a record high 532,300. as a nation, our education system is moving forward or is , it?
the sad and bitter truth is that when it comes to basic life skills, our generation is lacking. as a great man, albert einstein, once said "education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school." we study, we learn, and still we know very little. yes, of course school provides us with the opportunity to learn numerous skills and strengths, which can help us to develop and advance throughout our youth. however, the current education system is flawed as the skills that will prepare us for our future life are consistently overlooked. when people leave education in this day and age, the majority do not know much about sexual education, politics, first aid, self defence or different ethnic and religious cultures. we do not know how to cook, how to pay taxes how to survive , without certain technology, how to maintain a good credit history or how to apply for loans and mortgages.
and not only is this wrong, it is unjust. myp's, by supporting a curriculum for life for all young people throughout the uk, we can and will be able to help them get ready for the rest of their lives. thank you. [applause] mr. speaker: now, my friends, how about us having a speaker from wales? mr. speaker: good heavens! someone who leapt up who is holding a book in her hand you all leapt up, but you leapt up the highest or the quickest. thank you. ruth chohan (wales): thank you, mr. speaker. i am not sure where you all go to school, but in my school i was taught how to set up a bank account and about sex and relationships. i had the opportunity to travel and to learn about different cultures, and i had the opportunity to learn how to vote. the reason for that is i did not go to school. i was home schooled.
it is disappointing to watch as my peers do not get the same opportunities and are not regarded with the same care. [applause] mr. speaker: well, that was wonderfully the sink -- wonderfully succinct. if i could sometimes persuade my colleagues to express themselves with comparable brevity, we would make much speedier progress in the house, but it is not always easy, i can assure you. let us see if we can have a contributor from yorkshire and humberside. what about the chap waving at me with the brown trousers? thomas sayner (yorkshire and humber) curriculum for life is the swiss army knife themulti tool of campaigns. it can set the foundations for future campaigns. teaching on political awareness can go on to increase support for a votes at 16 campaign. also, different cultures can increase the support and
effectiveness of other campaigns. by supporting a curriculum for life campaign, we can increase the progress the youth parliament makes in future campaigns. thank you. [applause] mr. speaker: thank you very much indeed. how about the northwest of england? gosh! there is much waving. what about the young woman here? dana lee moon (north west): i am going to be real with everyone because we are real people, there are real lives and situations, and real decisions need to be made. one of those is about whether we need a curriculum for life. i say yes. i can openly say that i amvery -- i am very uneducated and i spent numerous years in primary school, five years in high school and am now in my second year of college, but i still do
not know many, many things about general life. how are we supposed to grow up and do all these big, grown up things and make all these decisions when we are not taught about them? we have to learn by ourselves. that is not really fair. i do not understand how people expect us to be these big things but are not going to help us get there. we need set topics and they need to be factual. things like tackling racism, if people are giving their opinions on it and not teaching it correctly, that is not going to get rid of it. from what i have found out, we need set topics such as pregnancy and contraception because people need to know about such things properly. that is linked to lgbtq plus, that is clearly not spoken about because there is still discrimination and hurtful things are happening to these people. that is unacceptable in my opinion, and i am pretty sure
that most maybe all of you will agree on that one. mental health nobody really , likes to talk about the issue of mental health, but we are getting there. people do not realise that they might have a mental health problem. if we are educated properly with this curriculum for life, people can get the help that they need, move forward and be happier with themselves, and we may have less suicides and less hurt going around. that is just a thought that i am going to put out there. finance is a big one. i started driving recently, and i have no idea about insurance. i pay monthly what is all that about? i pay national insurance. i was like, "why is money being taken out of my pay that i worked so hard for? that was never explained. things like that are a big thing. first aid, this does my head in. [laughter] >> it is one of the most annoying things in the world,
but it is so vital because we can save lives. imagine if something happened to someone in here and no one was educated in what to do. that person could lose their life, a voice lost. what are we doing? andeed these things learned -- taught properly. before i got into the role of myp, i had no idea about politics. i still do not really know a lot, but i am learning. i have not done that through school, school has taught me nothing about politics. youngn i, represent 97 people in the wigan borough? that is not really fair on me or them. so i am learning with you guys, and i want to thank you for helping me to learn. [applause] another thing i want to quickly point out is employability. how many people's teachers have said to them that they need to
do a cv because they need a job? if you tell me i need to do something to get something and i do not know why or how or what i am doing, i am not really going to want to do it. if you are not going to explain it to me, i am not going to know what i am doing so i am going to lose interest. that, again, is why we need this curriculum for life. if i do not know about something, i am not going to want to do it or want to know. that is the truth for me. another thing is that it is a bit unfair. people in london might learn something different from people in wigan or scotland. that is creating an unfair advantage for other people. some people are learning something and becoming more skilled in one thing and other people are missing out on those opportunities. this is why we need set topics and a set curriculum so that everyone has the same chances. that is what we need.
we are all quite big on everything being equal and seeing everyone is equal. i am going to love you and leave you with one question does anybody else think that we are being denied equality in the education system, because i downright do? mr. speaker: thank you very much indeed. now, how about a contributor from the east of england? what about the young fellow in the gray shirt? harry dignum: as a young person, i am rather worried. many people are leaving school not knowing about some of the core things in life, such as paying taxes, understanding different people's cultures and beliefs, being able to do a successful job interview, and much more. to be honest, i do not know about many of those things. unemployment is a growing problem in the uk, and not being taught life skills and lessons
must be a core reason. so please make sure that this is the subject we tackle as the youth parliament. thank you. mr. speaker: thank you for that excellent and very succinct speech. we need to hear your name. we need to have your name on the record, so we hope it is to uslly making its way as we speak. we have not yet heard from london. we must hear from london. what about this gentleman in the striped tie, who is in a state of unadulterated excitement, and from whom we will now hear. dilan dattani: thank you so much, mr. speaker. my name is dilan dattani and i represent the constituency of brent, in the best region in the uk youth parliament london. learning about sex and
relationships is equivalent to a gcse. with the education system being reformed each year, it is imperative that we support this motion today. young people across my area are worried. they are worried that they are coming out with the relevant skills to equip them for the outside world. it is becoming increasingly difficult to get a job and to get a cv written, and interview skills are overlooked as children are becoming statistics. every single one of you is just a number on a league table. we are not looked at as individuals. we have thoughts and opinions, and we must not be deprived of what we have to say. when i look upon the education system, i see different people with different abilities being put down. they are being put down on their strengths, being told, "you're
not good enough." that is not what i want to see. we are the next generation, and we need to stand up and be counted. thank you. mr. speaker: thank you very much indeed. now, who have we got from the northeast of england? who have we got from the northeast? . jessica halliday: my name is jess halliday and i am from darlington. having been in catholic education since the age of 4, it is prominent that the sex education i received was rather lacking. to be honest, i did not even know condoms had sell buy dates until i watched "bridget jones." frankly, this is a safety issue. that is why a national curriculum for life is vital in making sure that everyone has the understanding they need, whether in sex education, finance or politics. so many issues that we, as a youth parliament, have come across, such as first aid training and body image, have highlighted the need for a national curriculum for life. by choosing this as our main issue, we will be allowing ourselves to make a difference.
thank you. mr. speaker: who have we got from northern ireland? what about the chap there in the middle? james savage: i represent strangford. i have to correct my good friend from london who has just spoken, because i represent the best region in the youth parliament. education is the silver bullet. it is a means by which we can accomplish so many goals within the youth parliament. on tackling votes at 16, how could we ask to get the vote at 16 without first properly ensuring that people are educated enough to vote and understand what policies they are looking at? when it comes to tackling religious and racial discrimination and promoting cultural awareness and community cohesion, this is a particularly
important topic, especially in northern ireland. we have a divided community. we are in a post-conflict society. we would be the first generation of young people to reach the voting age since the good friday agreement. we now have the opportunity to work together across the community divide, and across religious and racial divides, to come together to improve the education system. there are people all over this country who have a lot of hatred and bitterness. there are people who do horrible things, such as attacking war memorials and religious structures, but those people were not born wanting to do those things. nobody is born with hatred. they are not educated enough, and they do not have the cultural awareness and understanding of different religions or communities, to be
able to work together and get along with them. we can work together to put forward a curriculum for life that will educate young people and leave them in a better position to work together with their peers and get along with one another. thank you. mr. speaker: i am seeking a contributor from the east midlands. who are we going to have? wow. the woman waving a scarf i am not sure what it denotes precisely, but we will hear from you. abi lovering: thank you, mr. speaker. i am from rutland. it is hard to believe that a curriculum to prepare us for life is still not compulsory. look at how much support it has received from two royal societies, five select committee chairs, five teaching unions, the equality and human rights commission, public health england, the children's
commissioner, the chief medical officer, the national police lead for preventing child sexual exploitation, the association of police and crime commissioners, the nspcc, barnardo's, stonewall, and the end violence against women coalition. even the media are in favor of a curriculum for life, which sends a very powerful message, and that is not to mention the number of cabinet ministers, especially female ones, who were furious when david cameron completely refused such a motion. one of those cabinet ministers is now our prime minister. however, he has a massive list of priorities that are currently ahead of this issue, so we as the uk youth parliament need to show how urgent this issue is not just to theresa may, but to everyone how urgent the subject is. thank you.
mr. speaker: in the name of gender balance, i am looking to call a young man from the southeast. good heavens, that was a sort of squawking effect. let us hear from you. sibil sabu: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i am the member of the youth parliament for chichester and west arun. i ask fellow myp's to vote for the curriculum for life motion because it will let the government and the people of britain know that we young people value our education. and the reason i tell you this because there is a divide in britain. west sussex currently gets 10% less than the national average in funding per student, so it
gets £200 million less than pupils in london. how is that fair? if you vote for this motion, we, as members of the youth parliament, who are supposed to channel the people who do not have the power to speak out, will be able to do so against this great injustice in west sussex. those people will have their voices heard and we will be able to tell the government and the people of britain that education should be fair and that everyone should be funded equally. and just because you live in a certain area, that does not mean that your education means more than someone's in another area. after we campaigned last year, the government pledged £930,000 from april 2016 to march 2017. you might think that was a good thing, but it comes out at less than £10 per child.
this puts the value of a child's education in west sussex as less than two return tickets from chichester to barnham, so means we are worth less than two railway tickets, and that is unfair. i say again, we need to vote for a curriculum for life because education will trump hate. thank you very much. mr. speaker: thank you. the southwest. who do we have from the southwest? alysha bodman: i represent gloucestershire. i am sure most of us agree that the sex and relationships education that we received was inadequate. i believe in the importance of a curriculum for life to focus on respect and consent, which are the basis of relationships. i would also like a more inclusive curriculum for life, as i believe that the pshe that we are receiving at the moment
is very heteronormative. moreover, how can the stigma around feminism and gender equality be tackled without education on those issues? curriculum for life would include this. furthermore, the number of young people who do not understand how taxes and personal finance work simply because they were not informed of it is shocking. the list goes on. as these reasons all demonstrate, if we fail to act on this issue, young people will be entering adulthood unprepared. this campaign is achievable for the youth parliament, so i urge you all to vote for it. thank you. mr. speaker: the west midlands. maybe we got from the west midlands? rosie narrowmore: i represent dudley. i truly think that we should listen not only to the people in this room today, but to the people at home. the reason why this issue is
being debated is because the people who are not here today voted for it. they want lessons that develop their political knowledge, financial skills, and much more. if people from across the uk believe that we can help to offer them a broader curriculum, we need to listen. in the west midlands, 8,828 people voted for a curriculum for life. this was the top issue in my local area. all i can say is that i urge you i plead with you to make this issue our campaign for 2017. thank you. mr. speaker: thank you for that. this almost goes without saying, but let me just underline the point i am sorry that, every year, there is untapped demand, if i can put it that way there are people who wish to
contribute, and the time is not available for me to call them to do so. the chair tries to be fair. this happens as well in the chamber of the house of commons every day, for that matter so i am sorry if you were not called to speak, but thank you for coming, thank you for showing your support, and thank you for all you do in the course of the year as a member of the youth parliament. this debate there is a succession of speeches in the next debate to follow, as you will know is, however, to be concluded by a speaker from london, to whom i hope you will give an enthusiastic welcome, namely victor sarpong. [cheers] victor sarpong: thank you, mr. speaker, thank you, london. an educated man once said, "a child educated only in school is an uneducated child." why is this?
it is simply because our schools do not teach us the life skills we all need and use every day in life. which is unfortunate, but it is fortunate that we, as a youth parliament, have recognised this issue. it is in our manifesto, and it was on the make your mark ballot . it was the top issue this year, with nearly 1 million people voting. we have just debated the idea of having a curriculum for life as our national campaign. in short, learning about things that actually matter, not just for an exam. we know that finance and taxes matter, that knowing how to actually get a job matters, that knowing sexual education matters, knowing culture in this country matters, and knowing what happens in here at this very box matters. the idea is to deal with this and challenge the fact that these things are not being taught in the schools that
everyone goes to, but, as in all things, we have to ask questions to see whether this would be a successful campaign for us. see, we want to be taught these things in school about life, but i have found that life is such a good educator such a good teacher. it is our experiences that nurture us and shape us as the people that we are today, but should it be up to us to learn these things or should it be up to the state, that expects us to to know these things, to teach us them? we have to ask, who is teaching these life skills? if this is going to work, we need teachers to be educated in how to educate us with these skills. but would extra training be a burden for the teacher? would this be a burden for us, given that we already have so much to deal with due to exams and other things? we also have to consider the time we have. i have noticed a theme today a lot of people do not think that we can do things in a year.
but i believe that whether we achieve a goal or make the smallest impact, we still achieve something no matter what we pick, that will apply. and i believe that things can be done in a year. people revise for their a level exams in a year. the political climate in the uk and the usa has changed a tremendous amount in less than a year, so i believe that change is possible in a year. it is whether we believe we can achieve things in a year and whether we take the opportunity of the campaign. because all the things we are talking about today, such as the nhs and voting at 16, are important. it is whether we should focus on one of those issues or on our education. it is up to us, it is up to you
guys, but i know that we can all agree on this something is definitely wrong with our education system. the scrutinising system puts things in us, but the word "education" comes from the word "educe," which means to bring out. education is supposed to bring things out of us and show us our worth. i am more than the two train tickets, and i am more than the d or the a that i got on exam day, but our education does not show us this, and that is what we should challenge. we have to put this as a campaign if we want to do these things. we have to have this as a campaign if we in the youth parliament want to make change. can we do that? should we recognise that all lives matter in this situation and that all life skills should be taught to people? in one year, can we take meaningful steps on creating a curriculum that will prepare all young people for life? thanks you. >> to join us at 8:00 for the career of vice president-elect
mike pence. then a profile of charles schumer. at 10:00, interviews with new congress, the 115th beginning at 8:00 eastern on c-span. president-elect donald trump announced his white house communications team today. john spicer will be press secretary in the next administration. to spicer recently talked to reporters about the presidential transition process. this is about an hour. >> welcome. thank you so much for being here tonight.
>> good evening, everybody. welcome to playbook cocktail. we would like to thank you all thoseining us here, and tuning in on c-span and our livestream. this is our last playbook event of the year. here we are. we are thrilled to host sean spicer, the chief strategist and communications director for the rnc. you can applaud. [applause] >> we are excited, too. >> he has had a fascinating career in washington. he has a lot of thoughts. he is in the middle of all of the big decisions being made by donald trump. before we get started with the program, i would like to extend a special thank-you to bank of america for their tremendous support for the playbook series.
ms. palmer: bank of america has been a true partner in the series. tonight, we want to thank them for their ongoing support. without further delay, please welcome to the playbook stage, sean spicer. [applause] ms. palmer: and bearing gifts, apparently. thank you so much for doing this. would you like to start? mr. spicer: tonight is two important events. it is seven days until festivus so we can air some grievances. and it is your birthday. i wanted to give you something politico could use. it is a republican bag.
to get started. every day, you are reminded of who is in charge. i wanted you and anna to have something to have your drink in. ms. palmer: good, very nice. mr. spicer: we have a couple of stickers for you. something for your car. and this is a very nice tie you can wear. mr. sherman: another republican tie. i don't really want to wear one, right now. mr. spicer: this last gift you can wear and it is something
very special. i wish i had brought an extra. i hope you really enjoy this. you must wear it. mr. sherman: it says "make politico great again." for the record, i believe that politico is great because sean is here. ms. palmer: before we get started -- ms. sherman: if you have not noticed from the guests -- ms. palmer: as a reminder to our audience in the room and online, we would like this to be an interactive conversation. jake has the ipad. if you would like to ask a question or have a comment about how we are doing in these next 45 minutes, please tweet us and we will track them here on stage. we will get started.
mr. sherman: a tough act to follow. ms. palmer: i think the elephant is in the room and it is the worst kept secret in town. that you have had some modest disagreements with politico to say the least so we wanted to clear the air at the beginning of the conversation. we have a new administration and a new year. can we all just get along? mr. spicer: i am there. mr. sherman: sean spicer is there. mr. spicer: in all seriousness, and i think i speak on behalf of the president-elect when i say that we understand and respect the role that the press plays in a democracy. it is healthy and important but it is a two-way street. not everyone in the media is bad and not every reporter is bad, but i think in the case -- and i welcome carrie's elevation here at politico. i believe she is honestly trying
to right a lot of wrongs and i give her credit for that. but i do have a problem with how politico has engaged in covering politics, especially our side. i think it is tweet happy, click bait, and devoid of many facts. look for example -- mr. sherman: the props are not done. mr. spicer: this is every story politico has done on the rnc the gop this year. today, this is the tweet -- politico. 37 electors could flip. and deny donald trump the vote. that is like saying - this building could float away and go to mars. that is not journalism. that is not a serious thought about what is going on in the election. and i think yesterday you had another person tweet out something unbelievably vulgar which i will not repeat on stage. and there was no story in
politico about their own employee writing and saying stuff about the president-elect of the united states. it was disgusting, reprehensible, unacceptable. ms. palmer: this person was reprimanded and no longer works at politico. mr. spicer: but there was no coverage in politico of this. if a republican jaywalks, it is a front-page story. if little tommy at thomas jefferson middle school says something inappropriate, the rnc gets a phone call asking, how they will respond to it. should he step down? [laughter] if you are going to engage in that, there is a similar level of responsibility you have to hold your own people accountable and put out a story saying politico fired this person because his behavior was unacceptable.
you had a media reporter. use them. i think i am willing, in my current capacity, to engage with reporters that want to engage in serious discussion about the news. sometimes, we are on the wrong side or we are wrong, and when we are, we need to be called out on it. but there is not one story in this package that says something positive about the rnc, not a single headline. if you look at the fact that the rnc spent $175 million in data and put together the best ground operation in political history and everything becomes a story about how we have come up short or we could have done it better, i think at some point you have to give us credit here or there or cover it in a more responsible way. mr. sherman: fair enough. and similarly, i think that, as you said republicans make mistakes, reporters and news outlets make mistakes, and not
only politico. across the spectrum. you can see that probably quicker -- mr. spicer: maybe, "the new york times." ms. palmer: airing the grievances. mr. sherman: it is the responsibility of a news organization to take responsibility and correct it. mr. spicer: one of the things that is important to me is that you cannot put the genie back in the bottle. when you tweet out a headline, and you say that you are going to go talk about it -- mr. sherman: could i get some credit for drinking out of this? mr. spicer: we will see. we are not done yet. but i think that the problem is is that it is tweet first, fix later, and that is not acceptable. i think there are times when news is breaking and i get that. and i have lived in this world long enough to know you're
competing against others. i get it. but when you get it wrong, you cannot go back and take away what people have seen. on friday, excuse me -- two days ago, there was a story that a reporter in politico put out saying that sean spicer disinvited twitter from the tech meeting. and i was never asked by politico about that. and now i cannot put that back into the bottle. once it is out there, it is out there. that is what is unfortunate. the attempt to quickly put up headlines and be provocative is not good journalism. mr. sherman: understood. can we move on to some other topics?
mr. spicer: i could keep going. mr. sherman: but we have 35 minutes left. we have a lot of things we want to talk about and you as well. let us talk about some things in the news recently. a couple of hours ago, president obama gave his pre-i am going to hawaii press conference. and he said that the cia and the fbi and the director of national intelligence are now in unison believing that russia interfered in the election. do you think that is true? mr. spicer: i and not an intel person and i am not read in on this but there are two different things. i have changed my gmail six times in the last six months. do i think there are hackers out there trying to do things? sure.
do i think russia and others try to probe u.s. sites, government and others? absolutely. we do it. they do it. but the problem i have with the story in the narrative out there about russia is a few things. number one, this would not have happened had hillary clinton not had a secret server. she did not follow protocol. ms. palmer: the hacking would not have happened? mr. spicer: the stuff they wrote was inappropriate. they are saying -- and i am not excusing hacking. but there are multiple pieces to this story. they wrote what they wrote and they are saying that it is russia's fault that someone found out i said some very bad things about clinton.
that being said, and the third is "the wall street journal" had it right yesterday. the dnc security measures were not up to snuff. they tried by all accounts to probe us. if people are mad in the democratic world, they should be mad at the dnc i.t. department. mr. sherman: what do you know -- you guys pushed back against the fact that the rnc was hacked. could you explain the situation? mr. spicer: we got a call last friday night from "the washington post" and "the new york times." mr. sherman: your favorites. mr. spicer: you are up there. they said that we have sources in the intel world and they are saying that because both institutions were hacked and they only allowed information to go out on the dnc that clearly russia intended to influence the outcome of the election.
and i said -- we did not get hacked. if we didn't get hacked, the premise is wrong and the conclusion must be faulty. and so we worked with "the washington post" and we explained some stuff and they said, ok, but "the new york times" went ahead with it. now, we are seeing comments that our system was probed. mr. sherman: what do you mean by probed? mr. spicer: people throw around two terms that are important to know. one is hacking is actually penetrating the system and getting in and being able to extract data. probing is when you are doing phishing exercises. and when you open those probing emails, that is a successful phishing attempt and that is how they get in which we learned from the dnc was a way they were
able to hack into their system. probing is them bouncing on a system, knocking on a door and seeing which one is open or which window is open. in the case of the dnc, they found an open window and went in. that is a different thing. our point is twofold. one, we were told that the conclusion was based on those facts. so if the facts are not true, then the conclusion must be faulty. the other thing that is interesting is that on november 17, the director of national intelligence, clapper, went to the house intelligence committee and made it clear in open testimony that the connection to russia, and i have the testimony here to get the exact quote, it was politico's story on it. but that fact, he said in open
testimony that it is inconclusive that russia was behind the wikileaks. so that fact has been devoid of this conversation. and all i am saying is that you had the dni in open testimony stating it, and yet we are called, saying, why can you not accept this as fact? mr. sherman: he says they have concluded that russia did mettle. mr. spicer: there is the difference between probing and them affecting the outcome. and there is zero evidence that they affected the outcome. the rnc was called, and they said to us before the election -- they said we want to be clear -- there is no way you can hack voting machines and have an effect on the outcome. our voting systems are so disparate. there is no way you can hack or change the outcome of the election. they were asking for our
assistance to make sure to reassure the american public that we believed in the integrity of the voting system. but right after the election, you have john podesta and others trying to get electors to change their votes and calling into question the outcome of the election. it is ironic that it is them doing what they accused us of doing and we are on the defensive with the media. [applause] mr. spicer: that is my staff. ms. palmer: let us move on. let us be more forward-looking. this morning, you went into detail about the press operations and what they will look like under donald trump. you said, i think we have to look at everything. i don't think the briefings need to be daily. i do not know what that means to be on camera. you have worked in the bush system. what model are you looking at when you make comments like that?
mr. spicer: that comment was something mike mccurry has said he thought that was a mistake and needs to be examined. it is not a question of saying this will happen or not. but in washington, too often we say this is how it has been done, so let us keep it going. i think there is a healthy dialogue that can happen saying what would make these more informative? what is a better tool to have these be at more of an adult level? maybe we do things that allow members of the public to ask the white house press office something. but for too long, we have had a very stale operation which is all the mainstream media folks get front-row seats. here are the broadcast networks, "washington post," "new york times."
but what about some of the conservative media having some of the prized seats in there? what about some of the conservative media getting prized seats in there, i think that's a conversation worth having. i think there's a need to at least have the conversation and discuss it. as long as you guys talk about transparency let's have the discussion. mr. sherman: who would be in your front row? mr. spicer: i haven't thought this through, it's not my front row. mr. sherman: in donald trump's front row. mr. spicer: again, maybe it's a rotating pool. maybe the first come, first serve. [laughter] mr. spicer: but it is. look, all i'm saying is, there should be a conversation. it shouldn't just be like, hey, here's the status quo, let's keep going. frankly, that's the problem with a lot of what goes on in this town. this is how it's always happened. i think that what donald trump represents is someone who comes and says, let's get it done, let's question the status quo, let's end business as usual, and make real change. ms. palmer: speaking of that -- mr. spicer: you guys can clap.
mr. sherman: they should be clapping every time you say something. ms. palmer: in terms of that, though -- you talk about business as usual. we were at the white house for president obama's christmas party. mr. spicer: i was not. ms. palmer: do you think -- donald trump will keep those long-held traditions, the grid iron dinner, the white house correspondents dinner? mr. spicer: if you think that's what we're focused on right now? look, i do think if you look at the people and the pace at which he's put together a cabinet, that's where the focus is. you look what he did with boeing, the tech titan meeting the other day. this is a guy who's focused on getting things done, not worry being whether or not we change the color of the drapes or what parties we're going to put on. he wants to put on a party for america and offer real change. you can say what you want. our focus is not whether or not we're attending the gridiron dinner.
mr. sherman: the role of the white house communication shop is going to be decidedly different, right, because donald trump has the ability and has been remarkably successful at communicating -- i mean, he sends stocks all over the place. so what do you think, as you kind of, you know, envision the next four years or even the next six months, what do you envision, how do you envision the press shop changes? is there a changing role now that he's able to and has been successful with tweeting -- mr. spicer: absolutely. he has millions of people on twitter and facebook and instagram. he has the ability like no one, not just no politician, but i would argue probably no one else to really communicate in the most effective, direct way, that anybody's ever seen. i think that's a very, very powerful tool that will be used in the presidency to communicate directly with the american people. mr. sherman: where does that leave someone like you? mr. spicer: i don't think it's a one-stop shop. you just don't tweet your way for four years.
it's a powerful tool. i think he's going to use that as part of a whole arsenal of communications tools. you saw that with -- there are new and evolving technologies that he's utilized, whether it's facebook live or twitter, instagram pictures. there's a way that, again, this isn't about bypassing the press, it's about saying that there can be -- it's not a single avenue to communicate with the american people. ms. palmer: what do you think was his most effective tweet? mr. spicer: today? that's a great question. i have not analyzed them. i think the stuff he did around carrier was very effective. if you just look at it objectively and say, at the end of the day, he goes out there, talks about a company staying and, you know, the holiday season, there are a thousand people and their families who from thanksgiving to christmas, now can actually breathe a sigh
of relief that he did it. i think that -- the pressure he put on them to understand how important this was was great. he means what he says and i think at the end of four years, people and a lot of people -- i notice this in the tech meeting the other day, aside from the people who are on his payroll, i don't think anybody in that room voted for him. but i tell that you when they walked out of that room, they were unbelievably impressed with his desire to get things done and get it moving real quick and not take bureaucracy for an answer. mr. sherman: so who do you think covers trump fairly? mr. spicer: i think -- ms. palmer: not politico. mr. spicer: there's a couple reporters here and there. there are some folks at bloomberg who have done a good job. there's -- ms. palmer: dot, dot, dot. mr. spicer: i think there are people who have written good stories from time to time.
i've seen stuff out of "the wall street journal." there's a lot of folks in conservative media, that despite being conservative media, i think have done a good job of being objective and writing straight-up stories. so -- but i've seen good packages here and there from different outlets, but i think objectively there's a lot of them that -- i know a lot of times conservatives talk about bias, it's fairness and having facts right. ms. palmer: one of the questions our colleagues, we kind of crowdsourced our questions tonight, one of the things that the white house reporters were really interested in was about access to the building. right now reporters can wander around, they can walk into the press shop, go talk to josh ernest if they want to. there's been talk, i think, during the bushs administration, of closing that off for a little bit. is that something that you guys are even think being yet? mr. spicer: i think it would be extremely premature to talk about that kind of aspect because i don't have the authority to have that discussion.
i'm not trying to punt the question because -- it would be highly inappropriate for me to answer that. ms. palmer: do you think access is important that they have in that role? mr. spicer: sure. the question is, how do you define access. i think the question is, is it being able to walk into the press secretary's office all the time? is it access to a workspace where there's key staff? i know the obama administration has been the subject of some criticism from the white house press corps. i think what is -- i mean, i'm not trying to be coy about, it as long as we get our phone calls returned, because if you talk about access, i've talked to folks who have dealt with this in the last several years and there are correspondents who only show up during key things. so is there maybe even a better way to have open dialogue with folks? one of the things is important is not just the media. maybe it is inviting more people from the public to be involved and doing things, you know, reddit, ama's, facebook town hall, twitter town halls, where
you're involving the public in the discussion and not just limiting it and saying, the only people who can ask members of the white house are members of the press corps. ms. palmer: do you think press conferences are important? it sounds like you're moving in different directions here. mr. spicer: interaction with the press is a healthy part of a good democracy. mr. sherman: you've been around d.c. for a while. you've seen a lot of press secretaries in the white house. in the bush white house, in which you worked, in the obama white house, and there's different styles. ari fleischer was an aggressive press secretary. that's how he's seen. he was seen as a pretty combative, aggressive, sharp guy. someone like jay carney was seen as a little bit more laid back. your boss rendered his opinion on josh earnest last night. unexpected twist of a speech. talk us through what you think is an effective strategy for somebody in that role. mr. spicer: one of the things
that -- you guys know this, is that there's this west wing in the show version what have a press secretary does, which is, like, stand up in a podium for 12 hours and answer questions and then go on tv at night. i think that as you guys know, a lot of this, not a lot of it, 95% of it is off camera, helping to facilitate the press, get the answers to what they need. i think that the best thing that a press -- not just a press secretary, but a press shop can do is to make sure that they are aggressively getting the facts and figures out. and shaping stories. working with reporters to get it right. it's a two-way street. i recognize that. if we don't get the facts out there, then it's bad on us. i think it is incumbent upon any press shop to make sure that they are educating and informing reporters. one of the things, when i speak to groups of up and coming press secretaries, is i say, don't put the secretary in press secretary. by that i mean, too many times i'll see someone and they'll say, my boss got a call from politico, so i had him call jake back or anna back. that's what a secretary does. they give a message and say,
call this person back. the question that i have a lot of times is, did you educate the reporter? sit down and say, hey, did you read this study, blah, blah, blah, here's why we think that this is an important decision or here's why i think sometimes the narrative isn't correct on this, have you done your job to work with the reporter to inform them to the best of your ability? if you've done that, and i think that's the healthiest thing that a press shop can do, to make sure that we are getting the facts, figures and story out to the best of our ability. ms. palmer: how do you see your role? you've had combat of exchanges with people on the campaign trail. myself included sometimes. is that the role, kind of the posture of dennis mcdonagh, fighting back, is that how you -- mr. spicer: it depends. if there's a conversation and it's a true conversation with a reporter, i'd like to do a story on that, tell me what you think about this, what do you have, are there good folks in your shop that can walk me through this? if that's the case, and at the
end of the day we come out and don't like the story, that's one thing. i think too often the phone call i get is, can you give me a quote, we're writing a story that says the following. that's not journalism. i'm not going to just hand over quotes to legitimatize a story that attacks us. and that's where i think too often i have the problem and i'll go aggressively at a reporter, which is, that's not reporting. that's just collecting and cutting and pasting. i think that's the problem too often. i need a quote, my deadline is in 10 minutes. well, all we're doing is adding legitimacy to a cut-and-paste exercise. [applause] mr. sherman: that's your staff also, i think. mr. spicer: there's a couple politico reporters. mr. sherman: let's talk about your role now. you've been at the rnc since 2011, is that right? mr. spicer: yes. ms. palmer: long time. mr. spicer: it's a long time. mr. sherman: tell us about --
you've now been up in new york, 111 nights at marriott this year. describe your -- tell us about your interactions with trump. how does he consume media? what's he like behind the scenes? mr. spicer: i've always believed that the more people that can get to know him the better. he is unbelievably caring and gracious. you laugh. but you look at the people that have been around him at trump tower and trump organization. 10, 15, 20, 30 years. not just at trump tower, but his properties. he takes a very personal interest in people's lives. and -- i don't want to get into, but i'll say that he has done that with me as well. where he will call and check on you, he will show concern and i know the exterior sometimes is a tough guy, businessman that gets it done. he's got a true concern about not just the people around him, but when you're in meetings with
him, potential cabinet secretaries, business leaders, his constant question is, how do i get that done? he's so motivated to make things better and -- for this country, it is something that frankly escapes the narrative that's out there and it is something that i wish more people could see on a one-on-one basis. mr. sherman: you bring up an interesting question. why don't people see that? mr. spicer: that's something that town halls with the families that have existed, i think there are consistently more opportunities that we're looking for to do that. it's a side of him that i think, as president, a lot of times he doesn't want -- he doesn't -- as much as he is in the camera a lot of times, there's a lot of moments that he wants in private, where we wants to have a discussion with a family that's going through tough times or someone who's experienced a loss. as much as he appreciates the
spotlight, he has a very private side to him that is very, very underknown, if will you. ms. palmer: tell us a little bit about your story. you're in front of the cameras a lot. a lot of people know your public persona. you're from rhode island. you went to connecticut college and got a master's at the naval war college. what's your washington story? mr. spicer: i was a japanese language -- going to be a major in japanese language. mr. sherman: do you speak japanese? mr. spicer: no. that's where the story ends. [laughter] mr. sherman: you were a japanese language -- mr. spicer: i went to college and thought, in the early 1990's, i went to college in the late 1980's, japan was coming on the scene as an economic powerhouse and thought to myself, i grew up in a very, very working-class family. my parents struggled to help get me through college. i thought i could make money if i learned japanese.
i had an interest in the economy. i was the kind of kid that was the constantly selling something, greeting cards, all that stuff at the back of the magazine. get rich quick. everybody in my neighborhood was like, what are you selling now? but i thought, and so i went for the first couple of years, you know, an hour and a half every morning, you go to the language lab at night. i didn't enjoy it. i took a government class. i'd done a little of this in high school. i really felt challenged. i enjoyed the discussion about the role of government and politics and i felt energized by it and i started volunteering on campaigns. in 1992 i volunteered on connecticut's second district campaign. we lost by 2,300 votes in a where i think we spent $50,000. then in 1994 he hired me back to run one of the field operations, we had two field operations, 54 towns and cities throughout eastern connecticut. we lost by two votes on election night.
so i came down here, interned for the house ways and means committee. we had just taken over congress. worked at night at the senate committee doing research. we used to do this thing called coding. we'd go through the congressional record and type it in to a dos database and get, i think, it was 75 cents per article. i worked from 4:00 p.m. until midnight at the senatorial committee in a basement that's now a gym and did everything i could to get a job in the press. finally, everyone kept saying, you'd be really good at that but you have no experience. mr. sherman: the irony. mr. spicer: it was. it was a catch 22. hope that wasn't my cup. ms. palmer: the back. mr. sherman: it didn't break. mr. spicer: of course it won't. you can knock us over, but we're not breaking. mr. sherman: i knew that was coming. mr. spicer: bottom line is, there was finally a pollster i'd
been affiliated with who called me and said, hey, there's a race in western pennsylvania. he said, the guy's in a primary, he's probably going to lose the primary. do you want to do it? i'm like, yep. so i moved to washington, pennsylvania, to work for a guy out there. larry welsh. he dropped out of the primary right before. but at the time, this is important, then i was -- for whatever it was, three months then, a campaign manager and a press secretary. ms. palmer: got the title. mr. spicer: another pollster who had dropped -- been affiliated with the media consultant said, hey, lobiondo is running for re-election in new jersey 2. he's looking for a campaign manager. i said, i'm a campaign manager. just happened to be free. that kicked off. so then i think i worked now for 11 different members of congress. we enjoy the hunt. i love the press piece of this.
i think one of the things that i like is that at the end of the day, you either got the story, you know, killed or got it to come out the way you wanted it. or you got crushed. but you know every single day where you stand. did that package come out the way you wanted it? did you shape the story, did you lose? so you can have good days and bad days. every day you're fighting out there. i think -- and that's -- it is -- you can be a legislative assistant and sometimes work for a decade to have an amendment passed in an omnibus. but i think -- and for a lot of people that's their passion. they want that to happen. i just can't wait that long. mr. sherman: you talk about press access. one of the things that the trump campaign gained notoriety for and was criticized for was banning reporters, banning outlets. politico was one. they you said, i think, that you're not -- that's not going to happen. mr. spicer: there's a big difference between a campaign, where it is a private venue
using private funds and a government entity. i think we have a respect for the press when it comes to the government. that is something that you can't ban an entity from. conservative, liberal or otherwise. that's what makes a democracy a democracy versus a dictatorship. i think there's a vastly different model when it comes to government and what should be accepted. that's on both sides. ms. palmer: talk about that interaction. the press corps and the trump campaign has had kind of contentious relationship. as far as the press pool, started to work a little bit more collaboratively? mr. spicer: yeah. you're seeing that. i think it is, you know, we've got a press pool that travels with him now. mr. sherman: alongside him, not with him. mr. spicer: right. ms. palmer: which is unprecedented. mr. spicer: i don't know where
you'd sit on the plane. the back compartment is secret service. he's in the middle. to the extent that we have brought the press along, i think part of it too is that there's a balance. i think all you hear from the press is, we want, we want, we want. i think there's a balance between you're there, you're available to see certain things, but i get it, you want to see everything and you want to be in every meeting. i'd like to be in some of your meetings. it's a two-way -- as you know, you go, ok, that's not -- so, i think when it comes to government access, that's one thing versus what happens in a private entity. mr. sherman: how voracious of a media consumer is trump? mr. spicer: i think very. you see it in terms of how he reacts. he watches a lot. he reads a lot. obviously he's on twitter quite a bit. but i think, look, i do think that on its whole, you look at the coverage that he gets and honestly, a lot of times it's hit first and ask later.
it is not on balance fair. there are hits that he takes that are just -- it is constantly -- there's almost no end to what he could do to satisfy the press corps in terms of knowledge and information. there's a point at which nothing is good enough. mr. sherman: one of the things that -- let's talk about some of those hits. why not? the drain the swamp message. he talked about draining the swamp. his cabinet is made up, and these are people who have objectively impressive careers, but he ran his final ad about a the drain the swamp message. global financial conspiracy, and then has filled his cabinet with several people from wall street. again, that's not passing commentary on wall street, but if you match what he said in the campaign and you match what he's doing now, do you think those -- mr. spicer: but just because you work somewhere doesn't mean, like, for example, you take a
guy like rex tillerson. the guy grew up and started working at age 8. he lived in a house that had one bedroom. he slept on the couch until he went to college. he's now head of exxon. you want to talk about a guy who knows success, who knows what it's like to be dirt poor, who now knows what it's like to be successful and work hard every day, and you look at the countries, the work that they're doing. he's unbelievably qualified. he brings a perspective that is so outside the box. but yet the focus is on his net worth. it's not a question of -- it's not like all these people -- mr. sherman: i didn't ask about his network. mr. spicer: i think the problem i have is it always becomes a question of how much are they worth, not what are they equal in andified and in and will and -- qualified to do. mr. sherman: i'm asking specifically about the disconnect between what he campaigned on -- mr. spicer: that's what i'm getting at. these people are committed to
his agenda. they're not coming in, saying, thanks for the job, i'm going to go off and do what i want to do. you understand in a trump administration that you are there to advance his agenda and to get things done. believe me when i tell you, if you don't get things done, he's going to replace you. mr. sherman: how long does someone have to get things done? mr. spicer: it depends. he wants to hit the ground running. i don't think it, i know it. he wants to bring real change right away, day one. and that means getting things done, focusing on the economy, mr. spicer: it depends. he wants to hit the ground running. i don't think it, i know it. he wants to bring real change right away, day one. and that means getting things done, focusing on the economy, getting job creation, reducing regulation. those things are going to happen day one. mr. sherman: how long will it take to replace obamacare? mr. spicer: part of that depends on what can be done by executive order and what has to be done legislative and statutory-wise. ms. palmer: we are almost out of time. we do want to ask you about your role, obviously you've been here at the rnc for a long time there's a lot of speculation , that you will be the next press secretary. we'll have the pleasure of dealing with you more in that role. is that something you're looking forward to? you are hoping to do? [laughter]
mr. spicer: i appreciate the speculation. i mean this, until the president-elect makes a decision on any position, and you've seen this with some of the cabinet, you never get ahead of him. he makes the decisions and he's not made his decision. ms. palmer: you have met with him about it, though? mr. spicer: no. mr. sherman: when you say that, that's actually interesting, anna and i, always in writing playbook with daniel and think being when we see speculation about cabinet secretaries that come out that are wrong, does that mean that he made a decision and that his decision changed? mr. spicer: no. it means a lot of -- i think what happens in this process is that there are people who come in and make the case, either the potential candidate or members of the staff, and believe he's going in a certain direction. i've never once seen him change his mind. it's that people believed he had made a decision based on some reading of the tea leaves. but until he says hit send on that, it's not final.
mr. sherman: you think it's just speculation, people saying -- mr. spicer: i know it is. mr. sherman: he reacted positively about something and they took something away from that? mr. spicer: yes. mr. sherman: that's people on your staff. mr. spicer: or the potential job candidate who's come in and believes that because of some sort of facial tick or, hey, that means this. [laughter] mr. spicer: but, no. until he makes a decision, it's not final. mr. sherman: we have two questions. one, i'll ask. one, anna will ask. you are known at the rnc you are , in the navy reserves. you are known for wearing your uniform. mr. spicer: that's not true. mr. sherman: you don't wear your uniform? mr. spicer: no. when i have returned from the pentagon, i have come in and taken it off. there is a clear delineation between anything i've ever done for the navy and any type of political work. mr. sherman: ok. mr. spicer: have i walked into the office coming out of a garage? absolutely. have i changed immediately?
yes. mr. sherman: ok. fake news number one. this is real news. ms. palmer: this is the most pressing question -- your friends -- mr. sherman: we didn't know this until today. ms. palmer: i got several emails about this. there's one question that everyone has been asking us to ask you. mr. sherman: -- mr. spicer: ok. ms. palmer: will you reprise your role as the easter bunny at the white house as you did when you worked under the bush administration, and -- mr. sherman: let him explain this. mr. spicer: no decision has been made on the easter bunny. [laughter] tell us about the easter bunny. how did it get started? mr. sherman: give us the back story here. mr. spicer: that's one i'll definitely press him for. [laughter] mr. spicer: i've been at ustr. my wife, who is in the audience,
was at the white house at the same time. i said, you know, how does one become the easter bunny? she said, sara armstrong is the head of the visitor's office and she decides. really? i emailed her and said, can i do the easter bunny? are you serious? i said, yeah. how cool would that be? she's like, yes. i will to all you though that the same costume that you see has been around i think since kennedy. mr. sherman: you're kidding me. mr. spicer: let's just say it need as little dry cleaning. you're going to want to get in early when you're the white house chief. the early morning shift is where it's at. because i will tell you, once the sun comes out, it is not the place to be. mr. sherman: i'll man. man. we'll leave it on that, i think. ms. palmer: yes. thank you so much. mr. spicer: happy birthday. ms. palmer: for coming here. [applause] ms. palmer: coming to play. we appreciate your candor. and we want to thank all of you here in the audience and in live stream for joining us and thank you again to bank of america for their continued partnership of the playbook series. this is our last one of the year, so stay tuned for 2017.
somebody from the landing teams maybe -- [indiscernible] >> i will make sure i touch base. good to meet you. >> i really enjoyed that. >> thank you. >> i'm with the bbc. state department correspondent. hello. with "the daily caller." cia.now agrees with the what did the cia actually [indiscernible] >> question is right. of here's what they say. i have not seen any --
>> people are using this to judge the -- [indiscernible] the primary goal is to elect trump. >> this is what sources say and this is what we are hearing. at some point, there is an obligation to be very clear. >> have you heard from anyone who actually knows -- thank you. edie watson, also with "the daily caller." would you hope the administration will do in the coming years? >> it is not just being butnsparent, letting more people be involved or too often, we have focused just on the he mainstream media types -- the key mainstream
media types. there are a lot more ways to involve the public to participate in this democracy. >> thank you. i'm a freelance writer. major think that communities are going to try to portray mr. trump in the most negative way? mr. spicer: there are some who won't give him a break. it depends on the individual reporter. i don't want to equally paint everyone with the same broad brush, but some reporters are more fair than others. >> thank you so much. >> [indiscernible] you are amazing. you're doing a good job. mr. spicer: thank you. [laughter]
as president-elect donald trump selects his cabinet and the republicans and democrats prepare for the next congress, we will take you to key events as they happen without interruption. watch on c-span. watch on-demand at the.org -- at www.c-span.org, or our free c-span radio app. c-span, we feature political profiles. at 8:00 eastern, a look at the career of vice president-elect mike pence and his new role. then c-span profile the next democratic leader chuck schumer with video from the archives and reporter commentary. that is at 9:20. here is a preview. my grandfather emigrated to this country from ireland. my dad build a gas station business in a small town in indiana. while i started in politics as a democrat, when i heard the voice of the 40th president of the
united date, it all changed for me. of becoming aeam congressman from that small town and now, i serve as governor. of the great state of indiana. [applause] vp-elect pence: i served 12 years in congress. if i only had 12 years left to live, i would like to live it as a member of congress because that was the longest 12 years of my life. [laughter] that me just say, our talent has really just begun. has rejectedpublic the policies of george bush and they are waiting to see what we can do. and we are going to show them that we will never lose sight of them. in terms of making their lives better and creating a better person for the average and for all americans. >> more from vice
president-elect mike pence and chuck schumer, starting at 8:00. at 10: 20 p.m., interviews with freshmen members of the 115th congress. house speaker paul ryan talked about his parties plan to expandpoverty and to economic opportunities for low and middle income americans. this is part of a daylong conference hosted by the american enterprise institute. it is 40 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. in addition to a thanks to all the sponsors, a special thanks to those who work so hard to put
this event together. it is my privilege to introduce house speaker paul ryan. i cannot think of anyone better positioned to kick off an event on economic mobility than speaker paul ryan. ever since his days working with the late jack kemp added power america, paul ryan has been sounding the alarm on our failing anti-poverty system and offering bold ideas to empower americans to overcome the economic challenges they face. he spoke passionately about solving poverty while on the republican ticket in 2012. two two years later, he unveiled an innovative plan at the american enterprise institute to turn federal anti-poverty spending over to the states. earlier this year, he did it again, releasing a proposal from a house task force to assemble armed poverty opportunity and upward mobility.
mr. donohue: speaker ryan understands that our anti-poverty programs often do more to trap people and property n lift them out of it. these are complex problems that require thoughtful solutions. that means there is no easy route, no shortcut. while many in washington run from these problems, speaker ryan has run towards them. you can always count on him to be the guy who will think deeply and pay more attention to the difficult details. his anti-poverty proposals has broken new ground and helped reinvigorate a bipartisan conversation about economic mobility. now, speaker ryan is in an historic position to turn ideas into reality. and i know all of us are here today and stand ready to help. the u.s. chamber is committed to
advancing because of greater opportunity and economic mobility. we will do it because it is the right thing to do, and we will do it because it is critical to our nation's overall economic health. business cannot succeed and our economy and our citizens cannot prosper if our people cannot reach their potential. fortunately, speaker ryan has proven that he has the courage and intellect to tackle our nation's biggest challenges. in addition to championing efforts to help people out of poverty, he has been fighting for fiscal responsibility, tax reform, regulatory reform, and so many other policies for his entire career. we're going to need him to keep it up and keep this fight going like never before.
there are few people in our country with more on their shoulders today than speaker ryan, but he is well-equipped to confront the challenges and seize the opportunities that lie ahead. after his remarks today, the speaker will sit down with veteran wall street journal , reporter, and columnist, gerald seib for further discussion. please doing me in welcoming and encouraging, speaker paul ryan. [applause] rep. ryan: thankderator: you so much. i will try to keep my remarks fairly recent. first of all, it is really nice to be here. where's jimmy? is jimmy in the room somewhere?
give him a hard time for that. i want to thank everybody on this placard for being involved. this is exciting. what is this? we are coming to a consensus on how to fight poverty and restore upward mobility in america. number one, we agree this needs to be fought. people arer too many slipping to the crocs in this country. we agree that opportunity is lacking. we agree that this beautiful notion, the american idea, the condition of your birth is not determine the outcome of your life is an idea that a lot of people do not believe in anymore. if there are some who do not believe in it, then it is really not true universally at all, so it is our job to restore this. this is what conservatives have been working on for years and this is what is exciting. it is the center-right movement. we have been spending so much time trying to figure out how we can better solve these problems, how we can take our principles, plight into problems to offer
-- apply them to problems to offer really good innovative solutions that are effective. i would just say a few things on that, other than to say you have in front of you a very willing and a very engaged congress ready to tackle this idea. we have spent years on this, in particular the last year we spent putting together a very specific and coherent blueprint on providing upward mobility and fighting poverty. number one, work works. we have got to do more to make it easier for people to join the workforce. we have to make it easier for people to transition to the workforce. we have to remove what is preventing people from getting in the workforce. we have innovative solutions to to do that. number two, displacing
local poverty fighters. we cannot keep thinking that washington knows best. we have to stop the commodification of the poor. we have to stop fighting this idea of poverty as if it is some sterile concept we do not like them crates and program in washington, then parachute into communities and push them aside and say we know what is best. we we have got to stop doing that. if you had to describe the war on poverty, as noble as it was, this war is a stalemate. what we learn what we go into communities is there are people who are doing tremendous work , who are fighting poverty eye to eye, soul to soul, person to person, who we all need to work learn from. instead of displacing that work , we need to support it. we need to back it up. the government has a very important role to play. it is manning the supply lines but not dictating the front lines. that, to me, is one of the really important acknowledgments that we have to express. stop displacing civil society. stop pushing aside local, homegrown, proven poverty
fighters. get their stories told to their -- so that their success can be replicated. cross pollinate across the country. get everything and everyone working hand in hand on the same page, in the same direction. civil society, faith-based charities, secular charities, government, employers in the private sector, and everybody in between. right now, everyone is fighting at all to with each other. right now, what we as conservatives want to do is major everybody is working on the same page with the right incentives. number three, test results. this is not partisan. patty murray and i wrote a bill, passed into law a year ago, creating a policy commission. some of the numbers are probably here in this room. so that we can better measure the success of our efforts, better measure the success of we test results and we judge success in the war a program to create
an upper mobility not based on , effort, not on how many programs they are creating or dollars sending, but based on results. are we getting people out of poverty? are we creating upper mobility? does it work? let us focus on the results. if we do those fundamental things, make sure that we smooth it have to work, make sure it always pays, remove barriers, stop taxing people $.80 only on the dollar from taking a step into the workforce. make sure we do not display civil society, that we work with civil society and local poverty fighters. with respect to providing upper mobility on all levels of the scale of the income scale, we have got to close the skill gap and get economic growth. that is a big, full agenda. it involves things like tax reform, making america more competitive. making our industrial base more
vibrant. it involves closing the skills gap. people need to get the skills they need and getting employers involved in the pursuit of doing this. it involves getting government to respect its limits in removing the barriers and then putting policies in place that it is the growth we need to give us the jobs and opportunities. closing the school gaps and going after, fighting the really hard, persistent problems with persistent poverty. that is why we think this conversation is right. want to take this conversation, moving in the right direction and then start putting results out there. . getting bills passed. this is what we're serious about doing. it is a moment that i think should not be a partisan moment. this is one where we see the evidence in front of us and go with what works. all i want to do is say thank you for doing this. i see a lot of familiar faces sheer. we are very excited about this. we're very excited about having the opportunity to tackle one of the more persistent and stubborn problems that we have enjoyed with as a country and we are excited about learning from the
people on the ground let me to -- who have made a difference in making sure we can see more of that in removing these barriers and getting everyone on the same page. thank you very much for being here and look for to the ward to the conversation with gerald. think so much. i appreciate it. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. thank you for having me. thank you for bringing some of weather is morning. mr. donohue: -- rep. ryan: 10 inches of snow. this is not called. i appreciate the chance to have the conversation. you know, it is hard for me to start a conversation at this without talking about jack hemp. up there, as you noticed.
if he were here today, still happy,ng the optimistic, tend of conservatism he would be talking about, what would he be displeased about in terms of where we are right now? >> i remember we would have conservative meetings about fighting poverty and you can sit everybody around his table. it was six people. so, this is exciting just to see this effort, so i think you'd be really excited. if jack were here or his son on time -- [laughter] rep. ryan: sorry. mr. seib: we will remind him he said that. [laughter] rep. ryan: he would be excited that the battle of ideas has really matured to the point where we have so many more people engaged in this fight. my mentor, in addition to jack hemp is bob.
i spent a lot of time over the years traveling the country and they asked for a tutor to teach me. i want to learn. i have these principles and a good opinion on what they look like and how they work. i learned them from jack kemp. let us see how works in reality. what i am excited about is more and more and more people, i have been getting house republicans to do this, getting out in communities, doing justice. what i think jack would be excited about is the engagement and the participation of so many people in the center right on this issue. i think what he would be upset about is the polarization of our politics. it is just, he is a happy warrior. we think of ourselves as happy warriors. the glass of life is half full, half empty. you have rigorous debate on ideas but it is done in an
inclusive way that is polarizing. he would be upset about the polarization of politics today. mr. seib: i want to talk more about the poverty agenda. there is a related agenda that emerged in this election and with the election of donald trump, which is the concerns of the working class. let me ask you this philosophical question. a free-market conservative, somebody who believes in the and the free markets privacy of free markets, howdy you address the concerns of people in this working-class core segment was issued a primal scream in this election that globalization that markets do not work with them. how do you work with that concern? rep. ryan: you are pretending we have been operating with free-market economic policies, and we have not. so, what we have our policies that have produced slower economic growth and more disparity of income and less opportunity. i think a lot of our own policies and government doic