the way people really are. forgive me for simplifying. >> cure that. >> maybe. hopefully. developing to some extent the argument that inflation is bad and, of course, i mean, everybody has heard about the developments in germany in the 1930's and the way inflation has come indeed, destroyed the fabric of society. but things don't always work that way. people dream. people do foolish things. i mean, go through the history of sovereign european countries and you will see a lot of dreams and constantly look at the years of economic history. it is a way to bring things in

order, bring them back without a default. so to some extent one could strongly developed the argument that in fact it is contrary to what your saying. the forces of society destroy the fabric of society. i mean, there has to be some mechanism by which you have -- you allow the dream and that you have an adjustment at some point in time. >> now, the gold standard is not going to change human nature. that is not going to change. and a utopian society only tries to change human nature by ending up crushing people, killing him. so it does not change human nature. you are always going to get, like in the early part of the last century everyone realizing that automobiles were a big thing. we had about the creation of two to 3,000 of manufacturers.

how many of them survived? you can count among offenders. some you're old enough to remember the 80's when we had the first pc boom. a shakeout there. apple. atari, commodore, texas instruments, others in the business went by the wayside. that is normal. the market always -- that is how you move ahead. you don't know what's going to work until you try it. and then 15 years ago -- these two kids challenge microsoft and beat them at it. this is constant. all gold does is make sure that money has stable value and does not prevent people from giving -- getting giddy or depressed. it just make sure what you do a transaction the money is fixed in value, just like when you order a gallon of gasoline

kabila assume it is a gallon, not two-thirds of a gallon. you know what your getting. and towers of the arrest of human nature with actors to because of the staples are you as you get more risk-taking, people investing in the future. most cannot make it, but that's what you find out what works and what does not. even failures. henry ford, too painful bankruptcy's and almost a third before he figured out how to make a car that could sell. ryland errors what you want. if you don't have that kind of stable money then things stay the same. a. >> to short questions. what was nixon faced with in 71 that he felt -- what is he trying to do that he felt he had to resort to getting out of the gold standard? number two, gold has had increasing industrial uses.

it has gone up geometrically we all know about the uses of it in space. it is a get electricity conductor, and more and more uses are being found. what will happen -- how will this affect things? not affect whether the gold standard of on that? >> first question, what happened in 1971 that forces up the gold standard supposedly? because we were not plan rules under the bretton woods system. $35 an ounce. nixon was worried about reelection. the economy was not responding quickly enough. the theory was up there that if you devalue the dollar that will boost exports which will help the economy. everyone will be happy. for a year, 1972 price controls devalued the dollar for a year it worked, and to get reelected and in the economy crashed.

it wasn't an intellectual theory that brought it about, not any real crisis. and many of the economic problems we had in the 50's and 60's, small compared to some of the crises we have in the past. there is no reason to do it. and in terms of industrial uses of gold, it is a small fraction of the amount out there. in fact of what we're probably using last. we don't use it anymore for fillings in our teeth. once upon a time we had a gold and silver and our chief. and so we don't use that most gold is for store of value and ornament. there is some industrial use, but nothing that would say, oh, my goodness, we need 6 billion answers for industrial uses.

it is too valuable to use. we have found a cheaper and better ways to fix our teeth any other questions? if not, thank you all very much. we will go to the signing. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> here is a great read to add to your summer reading list. a collection of stories from some of the nation's most influential people of the past 25 years. >> i've it was -- there is a risk. i decided to take it because whether it is an illusion are not come and i don't think it is, it helped my concentration. it stopped me being bored. it stopped other people being boring to some extent. it would keep me awake.

more easy to go on longer, prolong the conversation to enhance prettify when asked what i do it again, the answer is probably yes. would have quit earlier possibly hoping to get away with the whole thing. easy for me to say of course. not very nice for my children to hear. it sounds irresponsible if i say i would do all of that again to you, but the truth is a would be hypocritical for me to say, no, i would never have touched the stuff if i had known as because i did know. >> the soviet union and the soviet system in eastern europe contains the seeds of its own destruction. many of the problems we saw at the end began at the very beginning. i spoke already about the attempt to control all institutions and control all parts of the economy and political and social life. one of the problems is that when you do that, when you try to control everything but you create a position and potential dissidents everywhere. if you tell all artists they

have to practice family and one says, don't want to. you have just made him into a political dissident. >> if you want to subsidize housing in this country and we want to talk about it in the populous agrees it is something we should then put it on the balance sheet and make it clear and evident in make everyone aware of how much it's costing. when you deliver it through these third party enterprises, fannie mae and freddie mac, when you deliver the subsidies through a public company with private shareholders and executives to can extract a lot of that subsidy for themselves it's not a very good way subsidizing home ownership. >> a few of the 41 engaging stories in c-span sundays at 8:00 now available at your favorite book seller. >> coming up on c-span2 book

tv, a look at the history and future of money. we will start with kwasi kwarteng and his book "war and gold." then michael lewis is down to talk about of wall street defaults. and later, steve forbes and elizabeth ames and their book "money". >> here are some of the highlights for this weekend. friday on c-span and prime-time important sites in the history of the civil rights movement. cetera been under car cards from this year's new unique idea is for. and on sunday, q&a with the york congressman charlie rangel at 8:00 p.m. eastern. freda nighter 8:00 in depth with writer and religious scholar. saturday on afterwards retired neurosurgeon and columnist ben carson. sunday night at 11:00 p.m. eastern lawyer michael stone on the competition between

the right brothers and bin curtis to be the predominant -- predominant name in manned flight. a look at hollywood's portrayal of slavery. saturday night at 8:00 the 200th anniversary of the burning of washington. sunday night former white house chiefs of staff discuss our presence make decisions. finder television schedule one week in advance and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. columns or e-mail us. join the conversation, like some facebook, for loss on twitter. >> now a conservative party member of the british parliament talks about his book "war and gold: a 500-year history of empires, adventures, and debt". kwasi kwarteng discusses the history of money, its relationship to work the land the affects capital has offering markets. he sat down with toby harnden of the sunday times

of london on book tv afterwards. >> host: welcome. i am toby harnden of the sunday times of london. with me today is kwasi kwarteng, a conservative born in london. he is here to discuss his superb new book "war and gold: a 500-year history of empires, adventures, and debt". it has received rave reviews already. enormously readable and an entertaining history. a narrative. now we are looking now, and the strict way as not a politicians put. designed to give you further . >> of always been interested in history. i think when we look at what

happened in 2008, the financial crisis, huge amounts of debate, lows of books, but they are looked very short-term perspective. there were looking at the banks, hedge funds, dba is incurred in derivatives. let's take a step back and actually try and understand something about the global financial system, something about the currency's that we have, the dollar, sterling, and the nature of gold as well. one of the features of this book is to remind people that we put 400 years, 150 years ago backed currency. >> host: one of the things i love about this, you have an eye for the dramatic moment. it is about this dry subject, money. from about that moment when the tv program.

in 1971, asunder. one of those moments when richard nixon appeared on national television halfway through bonanza, this great cowboy show, probably not really my time, but maybe the viewers will remember the show. he interrupted the show to say we're not going to allow the dollar to be converted in the gold. and this is one of the most significant things that has happened in the history of money. it was a decisive moment were essentially he shut the gold window where people could not simply common to fort knox and say, here is a hundred dollars. i want to get the gold value. that was a consequence of the problems of the federal government with its debt to,

trying to fight the vietnam war and paying for the great society, and it just did not work out. there was a deficit, a trade deficit. and people like the french and the birds were coming to change dollars into gold. richard nixon decided to stop that. interestingly enough. very skeptical about that. an old school balanced budget conservative guy. he was very wary of decoupling the dollar from gold in that way. >> in 1914. >> that's right. the great thing about british public finance a hundred years before the first world war was essentially they learned a balanced budget. is difficult to imagine the victorian era, these guys with top paths. a very stable interest rates

the fiscal policy. and what happened. this is one of the key moments of the book. of i just went to pieces. in order to defeat the kaiser, germany, the british parliament essentially had to vote through massive spending. he stands up and says, this is an extraordinary thing that we have gone. generally hundreds of millions. hope that they brought a huge amount. the national debt went up ten times, more than ten times from about 700 million sterling. and the house of commons just nodded it through because they would do whatever it took to defeat germany. that was the attitude. >> this affects. you contemplate calling the book order and chaos.

>> that's right. order, i think, is represented by the gold standard or a commodity standard where you can see, this is how much mind dollar a pound is worth went to some kind of external value of one of the arguments i put forward in the book, karen's is when you don't have any kind of morning to commodities. you have what is coffee on monday. essentially your just at the mercy of the printing press. this in the opinion in this country. and it's associated with people like ron paul. i am not trying to write a really good narrative to explain how we got to where we are, but there is some force in the argument that we need something more structured than the ability of government to print money >> the quotation from ron paul and his co-worker, but

mitt ten year experiment has failed that is an argument. in some sense he is probably going to run in 2016. he's think he should? >> it's a different factor. we can all talk about that. anywhere we can get back is for the chinese essentially to decide unilaterally. hickory institute the gold standard tomorrow is ghandi "x amount of gold. i have enough reserves to back that. the only problem is they've were an export model. the complete reversal of the export where they want to keep the value low so that their exports of cheap. that would be a complete reversal. actually introducing a gold

standard, they can do it because they have the reserves. one of the lines i make is if you look at the 19th century, it was a guaranteed it. britain was the manufacture of the world, the british gives were flooding essentially global markets. america, south america, and the reserves of britain acquired through its export trade. the british themselves or never really imposition of that much gold, with everyone relied on the stability in the export strength. the united states ran some unbelievable things. relief from 1970 s and 1970 s. it was building up reserves. the gold and

foreign-currency reserves the united states guaranteed a gold standard. and of course, the settlement was based on his charismatic value of the dollar and $305 an ounce. that was the relationship. and that lasted from 1974. >> the down and to submit them doing this. >> i mean, given where they come from the deliberately forced their currencies to be lower, and an outline that in the book. in 1980, one-and-a-half. the average 20 years since lowered. with the end to the wrigley had a very cheap money or rather low value for their currency. they can drive exports.

you're right to suggest that if they went to golden would be a complete reversal of what the have been doing call. >> a you argue that it would be a possibility corrections think it's impractical, who were times during his the current system is vulnerable and in no way explains what happened in 2008. i talk about that cordially. many economists predicted that this would happen when the emphasis to where you just have a fiat currency printing money. you're going to get a vulnerable and unstable system. this something we have to consider. >> obviously seven years earlier. hear argument is it was not just about all were spending but something much bigger. >> it was not all that complicated. are was on the trading floor

i was with j.p. morgan. the restaurant. a kind of swearword. i was a banker. the first thing that happened was obviously the index went up 10%. the dow jones went down an appreciable amount. and the response from the central bank was to lower interest rates. coming down of three vats year. and this is cheap money. if you followed what happened as a consequence of what happened there was a search. ten year money at 2 percent and some bankers in the midwest continue thinking and need to get more than 2 percent correction pushes you to the margins. >> that's absolutely right. 2 percent at ten year money

buying treasury. i've got to get some interest rate, some yield. that is a phrase that was used commonly. and that drove a lot of the sub prime lending, of a poor credit decisions in terms of getting people huge loans which they could never afford to pay. that was what caused the current instability and is where the long view is interesting. i found exactly the same thing happened in england. it was south american. so when napoleonic or and the defeat of napoleon. after that it goes back to go. as a consequence of that curve when spending went down. it was this search for you. before buying government and

ruling going to get small interest-rate spiritless look for something that would give us more. there was a search for yield . pangs' 7% on crazy, aspect of its of argentinian stocks . ♪ -- christopher can't go back to gold now how do we mold the currency, stabilizer? >> i think the main thing that is missing from this plan this is what people in the markets feel and i think people generally. fish should be more leaders, international coordination. if you look at bretton woods, that lasted three weeks. there's two years of preparation before that. essentially you have a delicate saugh decided with the introduction to cover international architecture would be.

that lasted from 44 to 71. in this current crisis we have not really been able to reach still level of international cooperation, the lack. people are feeling less confident and there's less of an idea what can be done. and as her lead, about an ominous for five years. one of the things in a way it came minute time when the u.s. was doing was sure of itself. running huge deficits which we can talk about later. the u.s. has been sadly burned primary extension in foreign commitments. the capacity of the u.s. to provide the is much lower no van was the case in 44.

>> in not abash the bankers. >> not little. the very robust defender of the free enterprise system. if you look at my hometown, london, it has been the center of international finance for 300 years. obviously today is still the leading international sensor . the idea of a british politicians should-printers is insane. i think it's borne out by historical record. >> in terms of debt to deficit, a fascinating chapter on thatcher and reagan. an understanding. what went out the window was

the balanced budget. and not your word, i must an end in themselves. i think too much to extend reagan talks the talk about fiscal responsibility but in the hands -- >> he was a great figure. unparalleled gives of communication. he could borrow things down simply. his idea, government spending, he related it to our rawlinson. his father had been an alcoholic elected is peaches. we have been on this massive binge, the terrible hangover that was the metaphor he used. when you look at his record iraq this deficit was a time when certain people on the conservative side of the

argument here in america or focused on tax cuts regardless of expenditure. my argument is right through the 60's the u.s. conservatives were budget people. what they did he look at the korean war, truman, the democratic president's, they were not reluctant to raise expenditures, surreys and come, to cover expenditures. so in the korean war the president went to congress, raises taxes and pay for that. he was very much in all school conservative approach above stuck to that. it was only in the 60's to be in no way my argument is the conservative movement want to endless tax comes.

they didn't really focus on the expenditure side. if you're going to reduce taxes you have to try and reduce expenditures. end of this argument, the supply-side arguments pitfall coast on tax cuts previn order to balance the budget year after address expenditure. in no, and an ideal world i would reduce taxes and expenditures. >> and george w. bush, you describe him in conflict. >> he is an external president and away. he attacks from the right and left because of his fiscal and competence. so i think if you look if that time in 2001 the u.s. started running deficits, are aggressively, and to

were compounded by the foreign affairs and foreign wars. and a think people on the left and right say what does happen to this? here is to be the balanced budget, cox of public expenditure. do want to reduce the federal government and its impact in spending. but the spending is getting under control, and it was not me. it was the guys from the sphinx tanks, the heritage foundation, the sort of thing. even at the time before 2008 they were criticizing bush for spending too much money. >> and i was one of the things that led to the tea party movement the legitimate protest and this endless cycle of deficit expenditure. so it was going through the roof. you forgive a man in america

and in my country and others when they were saying the the bond would be abolished because the government was borrowing any more money. in 15 years we've gone through a complete reversal of the opposition. in my book argued the bush and administration have a part to play. >> how you feel the clinton era? >> now. 2016. x certainly dislike of the numbers, where the bunch of horses. his was court a responsible time in a sense of public expenditure rose a little bit but not as fast as it was subsequently. the economy was increasing and the budget calls largely balanced bill read a lot of his opponents will say that

a lot of the problems are deep-seated that he did not address in terms of entitlements, social security, that sort of thing but the budget was balanced. i quote greenspan cut and he came to congress in 2001. if you read what he was saying, it is extraordinary. >> us right. but that was the environment this is a free september 11th. we have discovered perpetual motion. >> that was based on very optimistic estimates which were not shared by every way of the time. >> the fact of chairman of the federal reserve could come to congress and speak of a glide path to zero dead is extraordinary given where we are now.

fifteen years ago people actually credibly thought that there would have abolished the national debt by 2013. >> what is your view of alan greenspan? >> the most of the board of thing about him to five farmers story in. and look in hospital to be one of the interesting things fix az left jazz music. he was a jazz player in the 40's. and any bones suggested he took a jazz players approach to the economy. it was an prize. he said there was no plan. he was very savvy. he responded quickly. the most supportive thing in

terms of his curious as early on. he essentially safe. it was a big loss street crash. >> of problem to a certain degree of confidence. >> us right. very cheap money, lowered interest rates, pumps huge amounts of liquidity into the system had averted a 29-style disaster in 87. o.c. to that early on the to intention is to keep repeating it which is essentially what he did. by 2010, the very cheap- policy follow interest rate, the search for yield and people investing in high-risk products to get that yield which creates the

instability in. >> and a think it comes across as obsessive interventionist. >> i was the style. he said paul greuel. one thing you have to remember is the fear of sex with 1929 here leave law lessened the finland, where service with your idea and 29 the federal reserve did to enough. the contract of the money supply of the wrong time. so within this equity is very much response from what they have learned. >> i think to do it willy-nilly as they did was slightly risky. i think that they learned samara the wrong lessons.

what people pointed out was made it worse by shrinking the money supply. they did in the two. he decided in this bailouts, huge amounts of money that people can't even comprehend i think created its own instability and alienated the last section of middle america. the tea party revolt was very much initiated are given fuel ivies and his parents. that's what people really got cross about. and we're still seeing the ramifications of that now. >> a talked about the household budget and putting things in a simple man.

>> perhaps announced budget. but now we have this system we have a currency that's unprecedented, and jazz approach. he's huge. then began to comprehend. >> the average american combine hundley give that to some sort of sanity in something that the look and understand. >> would argue, from all sides of the political spectrum it going to have to balance the budget and some point. in my kutcher the argument is about whether but how quickly. endless deficits. and i think there's more of a consensus that people might realize. how you balance the budget and over what time friend is a political discussions.

entitlement reform, all of the. and i think certainly forgotten to get back to stability a balanced budget approaches something that people are beginning to focus on even though the rapture in might suggest otherwise. this debate in congress about the budget and of the rest of the, the most extreme and democrat a suggestion that we run deficit from nylon tow and come. it. >> this should be -- higher-margin a book with someone like paul ryan. >> this should. is getting rave reviews. her think it's an important book. is going to bring back this idea of the balanced budget. and china to show the balanced budget as a very, very powerful country which they held a preponderance of

power and global affairs. it's timely and important. of smoke and no one there to be well about this. attend to the more hawkish on public spending and some of my other colleagues. this is definitely something which is being talked about. >> brothers speaking, growth verses austerity. is a very useful way? >> is slightly crazy way. the argument about growth which was a very new argument. only in the 60's, and it was lyndon johnson, j. f. k. to the end of his brief, tragic tenure, the service saying, mission now worry about balancing the budget. confronted deficit we would get more growth. it's kind of circular of me

run a deficit more so looking dude more growth. a pair of the dead. it's a circular argument. he did not really hearing until the early 60's which is one i make in the book. it is associated with the name of cannes. but he himself realized that debt spending was an exceptional thing. when there's a sloppy and spend more money. but he did not -- he never dreamt of people running deficits year in and out. that only really came in the 60's with an adopted a circular argument. one need to run a deficit. it is a slightly crazy argument. he hears a lot. people on the left are enamored, but it is not a keynesian argument. he himself grew up in the victorian era.

he was 31 when the first world war broke out. he was conditioned by this balanced budget framework. an exceptional times you can borrow money. he was not envisaging that all the time. the victorian approach. you can't watch television and her. his view as you can watch two hours when any two. and now we've gone to the wind words on all the time. seoul to invoke cannes for these deficits is wrong. you have to understand him in his historical context. this book "evolve into the u.k. government balancing

the budget. that is what the key function of government was which was actually agreed by both sides, the liberals and conservatives. >> china earlier. where is china and of this? zero always interested in this section the talks about their rhetoric of republican politicians, mitt romney talking about shaming china economic nationalism. >> that's right. economic nationalism has always been a theme. people like a parody, and who talk about this on the fringes of the debate in many ways. america was a great protectionist country. that's a historical fact. we can argue over whether it was radar room, but the fact is someone described to me

the american industrial base was behind things. it is just what happened. the argument on the right is very much about or shaded into the economic nationalism. and actually had is not just about economic nationalism. some mcconnell of the plainfield. if on exporting cars and to china and apparently of a 15% tariff. a former chinese exporters needed a 15 per cent subsidy . the trader yemen is part equalizing the plainfield. >> are we did some. >> of its right. again, these things are always more complicated. reagan is portrayed -- he saved harley-davidson. in the early 80's people remember all these japanese motorbikes.

things while they were going bust. and he just slap the tariff and save the domestic industry. >> china have been named and shame in that way, when that have just been basically popular as an? >> the problem is there's still a massive demand for these chinese kid the naming and shaming. you cannot mean this is the greenspan argued. we impose tariffs on china, malaysia and the southeast's industrial base when hard goods anyway. it would not help the u.s. manufacturers. but if you look ridge a starter from command mentioned this earlier, in 1918 when an her off to the dollar. over about 20 years the rate

went up to about eight and a half. this was not something that just happen because it happened. was an act of deliberate policy. the strength of the chinese compared to ourselves and the west and britain and america was the have a long-term view. american politicians are accusing the chinese of currency manipulation in the early 90's of manipulating the currency. charging the currency down to fly down market. of course their is a new president to run new cycle. cruxes american election cycle. >> a hermosa flow and was easy to forget it. as lenders -- for 86 china was running a trade deficit

them were importing more than they were exporting. ahead with trade deficit. you could argue may hempen devalued. if a trade deficit became a trade surplus which has remained. >> unusual. you have a sophisticated knowledge and experience in that space historically. he also spent a year of harvard. >> an excellent year in boston, cambridge, massachusetts. her live your lawn of the hon. he was an interesting time. plus months, people who were my age were going straight to wall street's and the salaries. a lot of them went into the boom. finish creates.

consumption of a you know, are living, of funds. there was a time that all came to a grinding halt suddenly. and there was a very short and sharp pair market. people will forget that that was a difficult time for the market. >> what strikes you as the big differences? >> in america people and much more conscious of this public spending idea. i was a murray's spirited and newspapers in britain. >> so what amazes me of of these congressional the planks of one time they were

arguing about 300 million which sounds like a lot of money. the budget was something like one and half trillion. a very passionate to pay. high level of scrutiny does not require visas and britain have highs in europe ahead. the whole language and culture, port earmarks whoever is in terms of a used in europe crisp with you think because learn some of it carson think we can have -- you could argue that the debate was irrelevant. the continue spending money. you could argue of that intense scrutiny didn't really amount to much. with eric conscious approach to tax dollars, never heard

the phrase tax uranus. if people half a more fundamental idea. in the air is more cash haul acceptance. they don't really make the connection. >> is a real sense that this is our money. >> absolutely right. the people on one side can the government expecting money from the legal through taxation believe that is part of a kind of tea party few. in europe i think europeans and british people have a benign view of government. and said that means the world who government, there is not the essence of this is my money. the pressure.

>> this sort of joke. come from the government's the hidden here to help. >> deep-seated reasons for that. if you look of the birth of the united states, it was a revolt against the government. there is very much more deep-seated in the american consciousness that it is in europe's. >> you mentioned the tea party of the time. the big political story and written with the moment is the rise of the u.k. and abundance murphy. are we now and have three or four party system? >> it is interesting but he raised a perfume. we and just have european elections last week and was this fourth party possible. that is the first time since 1986 when mary the conservative or labor have

one and nationwide election. we don't actually know where this will end up. ostensibly a man reasons to try and give britain a way from europe. they want us to leave. it's a much greater cultural referral to. out of touch, elitist, does not? to ordinary people, and its own bubble. a chart from the same type of person. different parties marie are pretty much the same. >> and is very much in anti-establishment peasant revolt the tiber situation which in america people who approve your with. >> he sees some parallels. >> clearly we're in washington. and westminster, much smaller than washington, but it has the same sort of residents. people who go to fancy

restaurants, speak a language we don't understand , completely cut off their constituents and regardless of who is in power the spending goes up. his responsibility, accountability, and these are guys in what you call main street singing we have had enough of popular and surgeon aspects to it. the smoking, drinking. absolutely. he can get photographed with up-and beer and a way that no politician would dream where did it do. very much of you that these people aren't off touch. it is time for direct action he calls his army the people's army, his troops, his party. he calls it the people's army. his very much the sort of

peasant with pitch fork over the hill. >> to you think your party could learn? is is going to be about trying to bring them into the tent? >> this is the $604,000 question. i expect that the center-right in britain needs to have some sort of accommodation at some point. it is difficult to see how low a conservative party can get an overall majority without a lot of the voters coming back and voted conservative, legitimately the conservative position. people argue about this, but he look at their counselors, a lot of them have come from the conservative party. what we're seeing is a moment in the u.s. 2014 primary, they are losing,

but ideas have been brought over the establishment of the tea party. in no way vr fusion candid it's. >> cents right. the difficulty we have is that they are not part of the conservative party. the tea party generally as far as i can see it is within the republican party that's right. they are fighting primaries within the republican party. where is you call it the feeling of a candidacy, a separate party area very lonely in the korea development. it could end up being a party challenging. if the more the case the republican party would have serious a problem. instead of contesting primaries he would have the democrats, the republicans, and the kind of tea party representative.

and you have had with ross perot, very much a similar situation where the third party killed push in 92 which is the danger. and i talked about the political class. >> i have done other things. kahan. >> i think it's quite an unhealthy thing you have professional politicians. i think you need to have politicians with a wider perspective which is always agree strength believe it withdrew. he heard of workers, the mid-20s century, people like winston churchill, an eccentric characters, people from different walks of life, the professions.

and then added to the diversity and variety. he did not hear the same. a huge cultural being a special advisor. the american carries working on the hill. that as bread its own momentum. >> the three party leaders on lost a sense of the special politicians. >> if you look at them this is a fact and were born within three years of each other. they were exactly the same age. the winter either oxford or cambridge. their first job out of university was in politics. and that's a fact. and the head comes along, he went to a private school, but he did not give the university. so he can say, : none like these guys.

i've actually worked as a commodities trader that may be false. he's been a politician as long as i can remember. they're not looking for a forensic truth's, they just want to story. his is quite convincing. >> home all lines have this obsession in no way with britain or maybe it's crass and schooling. you yourself webster eaton, a public meeting private boarding school. >> as did david cameron. >> are fairly unusual background. part of the old perdition fire.

so i have an unusual relationship and so far as my parents were immigrants, can to britain in the 60's wind through these in the institutions of. some are turned off, both sides. very much from the old colonial empire. a common name in now. and so i could see both sides, if you like. there was a problem in that people from more marginal backgrounds to struggle to get a voice. think it's important that as a political class we open ourselves up to people who are active in politics, not just in britain but an american navy can mean an,

be presented themselves. the nature of the media, modern communication, life is the have to be card specialized and decide to do that and relatively young age courses and three books? cards and armco written a couple of others. >> and don't have kids. even so, how'd he managed to write something as thoughtful and wide-ranging. i think the best of vice, but two things about writing a book, the smartest thing that anyone sitting writing a book was winston churchill it's like building a house. after work out how many floors, with the external structures to work out how many rooms and bedrooms and while you worry