three. it is washington your way. >> tonight a look get the u.s. and british differences. also, a discussion about politics and economics in south asia. after that, look at the legal and congressional challenges of the new rules that -- passed by the fcc on that neutrality. ♪ >> this week, a look at the american and british forms of government from our recent interviews in london. this program compares and contrasts the parliamentary form of government with our own. >> it is there any way to describe the differences between americans govern and the wave

the british people govern? >> it is a lot of different things and it is also something to do with the political culture. it may soon treacherous to our media colleagues over here. i think the discussion of the critical issues is somewhat more dominated by policy rather than treating the minutia of washington life. here, we are bound up with westminster stories. in terms of the politicians, the politicians in the uk do talk about the issues, probably more than the politicians in the u.s. i was struck by that. the politicians are caught by a superficial level issue of discourse because they're worried about the money-raising. it does not happen so much here in the u.k.

>> in january we will have a democratic senate and a democrat in the right house. >> here, and explain the difference. david cameron is the prime minister and he has proposed all these cuts. will you get all these cuts? in the united states, you're not sure until the congress passes it. >> pretty automatically. and the british people who follow british politics think that they're comparable. your president is like our prime minister. -- is not like our prime minister. you have two houses of your parliament and we have two of ours. no. our prime minister has much more power than your president. he has a complete power over the lower house of commons. and the house of lords has very limited power. it has no power over anything that costs money or raises money at all. it has no power in the revenue department. even the powers and the rest of legislation are only the power to delay. it can keep sending bills back that it does not like until a

year has passed and then the parliament act can be invoked and it'll go through. our house of lords is not democratically elected. it is appointed. they are plans to reform that, and whether it comes about, no one knows. it has no real democratic legitimacy. it has expertise. it has not been set up to be an opposition to the house of commons. it often looks to us, british, looking to you, that you have two arms of government set up to oppose each other and slow the possibilities of making any change fast. >> if our president selects the treasury secretary, he or she goes before congress and has to be approved. who decided that george osborne would be the exchequer? >> the prime minister. entirely his decision. >> how many jobs does the prime

minister fill? >> about 100 appointments. >> do they all come from members of the house of commons? >> yes. >> if a particular prime minister wants them, he puts them into the house of lords, which he can do quickly. >> what is the restraint on the number of people you can put in the house of lords? >> there is no real restraint. you would be very much criticized if you put too many in, as mr. brown and mr. blair are criticized today. but there are no legal constraints. if they have the nerve to do it, they can do it. >> how long is your assignment as a lord? >> for life. >> the two categories of the people in the house of lords in my time have been on a limited tenure, the church leaders.

the bishops have to give up when they cease to be bishops. the judges as well. our supreme court was a part of the house of lords up to two years ago. they have now moved out and they no longer sit as members of the house of lords. >> how is the supreme court justice appointed? >> we have an independent appointments board. they are appointed by an advisory committee of people, of which the senior judges have a pretty good say. >> is there any good with that the public can get rid of a judge by impeaching, like here in the united states? >> i have never heard of it. i cannot tell you. i am sure there must be a way. but it has never happened in my lifetime. i think the lord chancellor or the head of the judiciary, who schedules the appearances,

would make sure they do not get any work to do. >> what about the depositions -- the cabinet positions for the prime minister? what people do not like the cabinet officers? is there any way to get rid of them? >> only if the prime minister was to. the only way you can get rid of them is by having a vote of no- confidence in the prime minister. if the prime minister backs them, you cannot get rid of them. but the prime minister is quite sensitive to some political position. he would not support somebody who has clearly lost favor with a repaired >> based on what you -- lost favor with everybody. >> based on what you know, a few had even the opportunity, would you rather be prime minister of great britain or president of the united states when it comes to the power and the ability to get things done? >> i think the prime minister of this country has a great deal of power, more power than

anybody realizes. while the president does have a great deal of power, the prime minister in this country skillfully operates and has a great deal of power and can get things done, and some of which the president of the united states would find it difficult. >> you have a coalition government for the first time since when? >> there was a coalition government in the 1930's of a kind. of course, during the second world war, we had a coalition government. during the 1970's, we had an informal working arrangement between the liberal party and the labor party. almost all of those previous coalitions have been weak-kneed things where a government that was in trouble was needing to be propped up by another party or to get it through an emergency, like the second world war. nobody alive in britain today has any real experience of a willing coalition between two

quite strong party is who, when joined together, are a fairly -- are in a fairly impregnable position and agree with each other on primary policy. this is a healthy coalition that has the seeds to carry on for five years, but perhaps to carry on the other side of a general election. that is new to us in britain. it is common on the content, but -- on the continent, but not here. >> i am a member of the conservative party. i stand for what? if i am a liberal, i stand for what? >> there is a spectrum from what you might call the left to the right. the conservative party tends to occupy the right hand third of that spectrum, although there are wild extremes on the right were not in the conservative --

who are not in the conservative party. the labor party tends to occupy the left hand third. but to say that the liberal party is in the middle third would be wrong. there are a lot of them who are to the right on the conservative and some who are to the left. liberal is in the old sense of the world, not the way you use it in the united states. you tend to mean that left-wing and in the united states. liberal means a belief in individual freedom, a belief in individual liberty. >> that would be like a libertarian? >> there are plenty of libertarians in the liberal party. there are high tax liberals, but there are also low tax liberals as well. it is the belief in freedom, individual liberty. >> us say you have the iraq war or the afghan war. if you are conservative, what is your position? >> if your conservative, your position ranges from being

against the war all along to be a really enthusiastically in favor of them to the feeling that these were rather difficult foreign policy ventures, military adventures, where we had a duty to support the united states, even if we had some doubts about the venture. liberal democratic party are almost all against the war. -- both wars. >> this was the first election that we had leaders, like you do in america, we have our prime ministerial candidates -- even though the public does not have any right to vote for them, they had three debates. i think they were generally thought to be a success. i think they will be a regular feature of future elections. but there was a great deal of

difficulty about it. mrs. thatcher would never have taken part in them, partly because she did not hold that sort of thing, so to speak, but she would up also been told by her advisers that you have everything to lose and nothing to gain. you are in the lead. but this election was very interesting. david cameron was very keen to have them. he was pretty certain he could out-debate gordon brown in the elections. he completely, in my view, underestimated the appeal of nick clayton of the liberals -- nick clegg of the liberals. he was able to say that youtube can argue about this but the reality is something else. wo can argue about

this but the reality is something else. for the first time, the liberal man was the outstanding winner of that debate. the polls went up. by the second one, they got a better way of handling him and they got it right. it was quite interesting how to place. >> one of the things about this country, the system we have, is that want to win an election, you have more power. you didn't have a balance of power here. we have an unwritten constitution, for one thing. the way it works, kind of, winner takes all. the prime minister provides the cabinet ministers. >> what does it cost you to run? >> the amount of money you can spend is set. it is calculated according to

your population. no political action committee or political party is out to run campaign ads. you cannot buy television time if you are a british parliamentary candidate. people cannot buy on your behalf. the third time i ran for parliament, a few years ago -- [inaudible] >> it would have been close to $8,000. >> yes. >> ghandi raise that? >> the party raises -- >> how do you raise that to? >> the party raises it through bake sales.

the campaigns are very much door to door. you don't have a huge budget. it is about using literature. you can have a campaign website. but we have districts that are smaller. so you can go door-to-door. the national policy is subject to much criticism. but for local members of parliament, we have tough campaign rules. they serve as well. >> how much do they pay you for your job? >> i think it is about 55,000 pounds. >> that would be somewhere close to $110,000. >> yes. >> is that enough to live on here? >> sure. >> comfortably? >> find with it. >> what does a it -- >> i am fine with it. >> what does a lord make in a year?

question doesn't get a penny in salary. -- >> he does not get a penny in salary. he does get expenses. a member of the house of lords could turn and come including all his expenses and things, maybe $50,000 a year. >> in the united states, as you know, a member of the senate or a member of the house, by and large, cannot do any outside work. what is the rule here? >> you can do outside work, unless you're a member of the government. but if you're a back-bencher, as i am, you can do outside work. the house of lords is designed to encourage you to do so because we believe that the house of lords should be filled with a large number of people who have expertise in all sorts of different areas, like surgeons, professors, lawyers,

and people who are most of the time practicing their trade, soared to speak, but it did so to speak, but attend the house of lords to be a part of the debate. >> can remember the house of commons do outside work? >> thank -- they can do some, but i think it is fairly limited now and every penny of it has to be declared. gradually, they are not. that is a pity, too. i think we're better governed with people who have 1 foot in the real world, as long as we know where they are. i would not offend anyone for a -- defended anyone for a minute advocating functioning in parliament and not disclosing when they are coming from. -- this was and where they're coming from. -- disclosing where they are coming from.

you have to say where your interests are. >> is there any way to compare david cameron to any politician in the u.s.? >> that is an interesting question. i do not think you get a similar kind of character. he is very much -- he is quite an establishment figure in terms of his background. he comes from what we would say is a posh background. he is a traditional tory prime minister. i do not know who that would be in the united states. but he has become known as a compassionate conservative. in that case, he would be compared to george bush. although i do not know that he would appreciate a comparison. -- embrace the comparison.

although george bush, he does not have the traditional u.s. background. but david cameron has at least given the impression of wanting to change the conservative party, make it more modern in a sense to do to what tony blair did to the labor party, recognizing the people have changed and people are more tolerant than they once were, and also have a more open- minded approach to running government. but on things about the budget, they are pretty hard traditional in the sense of wanting to cut spending pretty sharply. that is something that we see here from conservative governments that we have not always seen from u.s. republican governments. they talk about cutting taxes, but they do not cut spending very much. the use least increase it. >> -- they usually increase it. >> you refer to cutbacks here as just plain cuts. can you explain how severe the

economic cutbacks are here? >> they have not yet written, -- they tend -- they had not yet bitten, but they will bite. people are increasingly able to see where they will bite. to explain how severe the cuts will need to be, one needs to give an impression first of the lotus and profligacy of the british government over the past 10 years -- the bloatedness and profligacy of the british government over the past 10 years. we have almost doubled our expenditure on a national health services. it has not gotten twice as good. we have gone up from 4% of our gross domestic product to 8%. i think that you americans are close to 10%, and that is with private health care. everywhere you go, school buildings, welfare, claims for benefits, which is to say the

way the state helps you when you are unemployed, they have soared in capacity benefit worried you -- which is where you say that you are unable to work to do to back it or whatever it may be. it may be serious or it may not. but the rolling green claims have grown. -- but the malingering claims have grown. expenditures have increased by 60%. the proportion of our wealth of that is now being spent by the state has climbed from around the 40's to the 50%'s. we cannot continue like this. these things have got to be cut. >> what percentage of debt here compared to the u.s.? >> we are in the same ballpark. america, with its unique position and having the reserve currency at least for the moment of the world, it gets special treatment, i guess.

they can get away with more borrowing than we can. the deficit is similar to the u.s. here, it was 11% of national income, which is roughly what i think it will be in the states. that was considered to be an outrage by the incoming conservative government. it is much higher than when the international monetary fund famously had to come in bailout the u.k. in the late 1970's. people were very focused on that. with this new government, they can but to with this new government making such strides -- with this new government making such strides to bring it down, i would say that our borrowing is going on a downward path. our debt is at an average level, while it has risen a lot, it is still a half to some developing countries. the u.s. still looks like it is going up as far as the eye can see.

the stock of debt relative to the economy will be the same ballpark, i suspect, in the u.s. case being higher. it will depend on how you treat the state to get. we are in the same ballpark. when i this is different is that the u.k. has now put forward what most people would say is a credible plan for putting the debt on a downward path. you're not only borrow less, but you're not allowing the stock of debt to rise in the next year. that is not what is happening in the u.s. >> us not, my guest said that, if you're over 65 or 70, you get free bus rides. >> 60. absolute insanity. gordon brown introduced -- there are quite a few freebies that were introduced by him that now cost a lot of money.

free tv licenses for all the people. that is option 0 for 70. -- over 75. you get a free ride to watch the bbc. if you buy a tv, you have to buy a tv license, which cost a little under two hundred dollars. and that goes free to people over 75. even if they're well-off. it is even more extreme with the case of the bus traveling. if you are over 60, everybody in britain can get a card to give them free bus travel. it that is a point of contention. david cameron was pestered in the campaign and election to say that he would keep it. but the treasury would like to get rid of it. they think it is crazy to be giving this free travel to a lot of rich pensioners and rich elderly people.

>> in this advice session, what people are coming to that are direct results of because. >> is very frightening. there are very big cuts in jobs in the public sector. some government departments will lose 20% to 30%. in my district, those who work work for the government, hospitals, schools, government departments. that is the big thing. >> what special payments are in this country for either children or older people -- old people? >> in this country, we have benefit payments for unemployed people. obviously, we pay a pension to the elderly. again, there is the fact that people are worried about how they will manage and how rough the situation will get.

>> how much does an older person who is retired get in a pension? how is it determined? >> you get a standard amount of money. i think it is about 70 pounds per week. >> so you're talking about $110 per week. >> but they also get other payments. they get a payment for fuel in the winter. but the basic payments are about 70 pounds per week. other payments they could get, whether they are payments for medical conditions or help with other things, those are being cut back and people are worried about it. >> what are some of the complaints you get all the time in your office from your constituents? >> they are just worried about how they will manage without a job. people are very concerned that the government has tripled the fees that people have to pay. people are worried about the

future. in my district, we have a high turnout. the highest turnout i've had for 20 years. i doubled my majority with the increased electorate. they came not in order to support me and my party because they knew that this government was coming in and was not good for poor people. >> we have 2 million people who work for the federal government. when we watched the cuts being announced every year, 500,000 people in the public service, is that like cutting a fourth of our civil service? is it the same thing? how you cut 500,000 civil servants in a country of 6 million people? >> they are not all civil servants. it will also be policemen, the bureaucrats who are dealing with the different departments, and a lot of local authority, local government officials.

the the thing to remember is that come in that figure, it is all the people working for local government. a good chunk of that -- >> what control does the prime minister have over the local government? >> he is doing a classic trick of saying that we will cut a much money we will give to the local government, but we will give you much more control over how to spend it. they hated the fact that they were forced to spend on certain things. it is a similar debate in the u.s.. the state's hate having the federal government tell them how to spend the money. kamen said, you have less money, but we will stop -- cameron said, you have less money, but you will have more control on how to spend it. most constituents will be planning their local governments. -- blaming their local

governments. >> in the u.s., the president said we will cut the money to the states. he may never be able to do that because congress would not go along with it. what about here? what is the chancellor of the exchequer says that we will cut the money to the states -- doesn't mean it will be cut to? >> it means it will be cut. what they say in parliament happens. that is the key difference. when parliament does not get its way, it is pretty celebrated and you will hear about it even in the states. that would be a major loss for the government. and a sense, things are a bit different in a coalition government. you have a lot of debate between the two parties, the liberal democrats and the conservatives, that have to happen behind closed doors within the treasury before these things get announced. in a sense, there is a new check a balance in the conservatives power that would not have normally been there. unless something cataclysmic happens, it will go through. that is the parliamentary

system. it is a very different system. >> if you work for the chancellor of the exchequer, george was born, versus the treasury secretary of the united states, what would -- george osborn, versus the treasury secretary of united states, what would a day be like? " it depends on the person. -- >> it depends on the purpose. some of very careful about their speeches. some prepared speeches and they want everyone to have seen it before hand. most of these guys in there and they have people they trust and they want to do it at the last minute. people at the u.s. treasury would be tearing their hair out because larry and i would be discussing his crucial speeches at 3:00 a.m. what is really interesting and different is that the u.k. treasury is much more powerful in the u.k. than the u.s. treasury is. i was sort of amazed -- i

should have known this going in -- but when i went to the u.s. treasury, i was surprised that it does not have much control over the monetary policy because that is the fed's job. and it does not control budgetary policy. the president will set the budget. the budget he produces in january is currently receive and then ignored. -- kindly received and then largely ignored. here, if is much more powerful. the finance minister stands up on a certain day -- you saw the report i did in the spring -- they stand up in parliament and announce what they will do. they sit down and, in a week or so, it will have happened. there is none of the debate or back-and-forth that to having congress. that is the key difference.

congress is much more powerful. -- the treasury as much more powerful. but in the rest of the world, nobody really cares what the u.k. treasury thinks. some people said that too much control of their policies at the imf and some were surprised that we have much more control over others monetary policies to the imf. >> the republicans saying "no" to everything on purpose, another will get the house of representatives back. looking back on what happened during the blair years, what is the difference, what the tories could do when tony blair was in charge versus what the republicans can do in the united states when they were not in charge? >> what happened in our time, we inherited -- we left for the

other government a very prosperous economy. they held the line for a bit. then something went wrong with spending. we criticize them pretty roundly at the time. you're not mending the roof when the sun is shining. and when it rains, we'll get wet. that is what happened. it is much more difficult now, starting from a difficult position and to get back into the economy. i do not know if i am fair about this. but there is one thing which i have noticed about politicians. if they will lose in the vote because they do not have a majority, they can say some pretty outrageous things in terms of criticizing their opponents, knowing that their opponents will get the thing through anyway and they want to be on the safe ground of criticizing so that they can be

ready in the years to come to say that this did no work and that did no work and so forth. i suspect that, if they had been the other way around, the party is the other way around, the other parties would have beach said similar things than they are saying. in other words, when you are in government, you are faced with some pretty horrendous problems and there is no way of ducking them. you have to try to deal with them. when you are in opposition, you can pick and choose what you will make a fuss about and what you will let get by. no doubt, from where i sat, some of the major industries in the united states, particularly the car industry, had built up over the years some very, very deep-seated problems which had to be resolved. i had it a little bit in the coal mining industry in this country where, if i remember rightly, we had nine pensioners of the coal industry for every one employee in the company.

and no company can survive that sort of historical on cost and big decisions have to be taken. opposition sometimes criticize a bit, knowing perfectly well they may have to do some of the things they cells -- some of the things themselves if they found themselves in government. >> we have a thing called -- you have something called vat. we do not have it. we have the sales tax, but it generally does not go up beyond 10%. there is no national sales tax. explain the vat. >> of course, we do not have a state system in the way that you do. we do not have smaller units of government within the overall state that are capable of organizing their own budgets and their own tax-raising system. there is charges of various kinds, but all the expenditure is raised by the central state

and spent by the central state the value added tax is -- central state. the value-added tax is so that each individual along the chain, from the production of an item to the final sale, pays tax on the proportion of value while it was in those hands. from the point of view of the ordinary citizen, all you know is that, the prices when code, you had 17% to that. now that is going up to 20% very suit in deed -- very soon indeed. >> so everything will have a 20% tax. >> everything except food, children's clothing, newspapers, magazines, charity. there are a few the zz items. -- the u.s. exempted items.

>> it was the new tax rises the this administration announced, although they all said it with -- offset by some of the payroll tax rise. instead, they are doing a consumption tax rise. in the 1980's, margaret thatcher rose to vat sharply in the recession of the early 1980's. in some generations, that still has resonance. we should remember the that is 20%. in the u.s., they do not think of it in those terms. here, that is a tax on everything except food. it is 20%. >> do you have property taxes? >> not really. we have taxes on transfers of property. whenever you transfer of property, you pay a proportion of that as a tax.

we also have domestic rates, called the council tax. this is for your local authority, your town hall or whatever. you pay tax according to the value of your property. but all of these taxes are small compared to vat. >> going to the council tax, what percentage of your income or your property value would you pay per year? >> i think i pay about 1,500 pounds a year. i have a high-valley property. >> so that -- i have a high- valued part. >> so that is about $2,500. >> yes. on a property worth about $2 million. it is not enormous. >> in the u.s., you can pay $15,000 for something like that.

what other kinds of text you -- tax do you have? how much of this will go up. >> who date are higher -- they are excise taxes, like on tobacco and alcohol. we have a very high tax on fuel, more than half of a gallon or liter of fuel is now tax. >> there are three leaders or -- leader four leaders to a gallon? >> yes. >> thomas is a leader? >> nearly $4 per -- >> there are three litres or four litres to a gallon? >> yes. >> how much is a litre? >> nearly $4. half the cost of a bottle of wine is the duty.

those are causing difficulties for the government. on the other side of the interest channel in the european union, they do not pay anything like that amount of tax on alcohol or tobacco. we are all in a customs union together. people are just getting on to the ferries with trucks and coming back loaded with beer and cigarettes. so the exchequer is being deprived of quite a lot of revenue. so there is an automatic balancing or leveling or equalizing of taxation going on in the european union. if one country pays a helluva lot more tax for anything, people will go to another country to get it. >> we cannot have a religious right. issues like abortion, we have access to abortion in this

country. people can debate about the time. you can have an abortion in this country easily if the child in the womb is too far advanced. there is no idea in this country of their right to bear arms. gun control is not an issue in this country because, actually, they are unusual. out in the country, people need guns to shoot. the number of people that care about guns in london in a year is not close to those in new york.

the whole issue of civil partnerships and gay marriage, these are not subject of dispute. all of the lifestyle and ethics issues are not politicized in this country. >> why not? >> because the british do not think it is right. the british thinks that these are matters of conscience. the matter of abortion came up to the british parliament. [inaudible] there are members of parliament who were catholic who voted against abortion. but the majority of m p's are in favor of it. we have not had death sentence for years and years. we do not think it is humane. >> you have been four years openly gay and a member of the conservative wing of politics -- you have been for years openly gay and a member of the conservative or right-wing of politics. in the united states that might

not be easy. >> you can believe that the people are equal citizens and believe that relationships between people of the same sex are not necessarily an anti- social, dangers, or personally damaging. it is not inconsistent with being a conservative, with being a fiscal conservative, with the leading in a small state, -- be leaving in a small state. indeed, with believing that the state should not travel with people's private lives, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech. these are all the things that a conservative ought to be will to support. andrew sullivan is only an honorary american, but talk with andrew sullivan in the united states and you will get the same story from him that you will for me and millions of other conservatives. >> >> plame your policy of

having a partner and two children -- explain your policy of having a partner and two children. >> i think it is pretty common. last year was the first time that more than half of the children born in u.k. were born out of wedlock. we thought the we would get married, but it was one of those things that ended up -- in the modern world, you spend more time looking for a house and starting a family and then you think, we're not married, and we will have to fix that sometime in the future. >> some groups, is as high as 70%. what is your philosophy of not marrying? >> i do not think it was a conscious decision. if you meet someone later in life -- we met ehrlich-30's. you end up feeling a lip -- we

met an hour late-30's. you end up feeling a little -- i never dreamed about what my wedding would look like. it seemed like a bigger priority to find somewhere to live together and to start a family than to get married. also, the family started quicker than we thought. >> how old are they? >> two and four. >> uc tight security -- you see tight security. hear, when you ride the subway, you do not see security. you had a tragic highway -- subway accident. terrorist killed 150 people. what has that done to the society? i know you had the ira and the bombs over the years.

>> during the second world war, we were bombed. of course, we had the ira during the 1970's and the 1980's. i live in london and i take the subway. after the attack, was back on the subway and so is everybody else. there was this mutual feeling, getting on the subway and going to work. british people are more pragmatic about that than americans. it's a little bit of that stiff upper lip. >> i want to run a little clip of an interview we did in 1988 because it tells a little bit of a story that we should know about you before we go any further. >> and ira bomb went off, which was designed to blow up the british government. i was unfortunately in a bedroom that was very near to

the bomb. my wife was killed there instantly. there were four other people killed and many people wounded. i was badly wounded. and there were seven hours under the rubble before managed to be digging now -- before they managed to dig me out. wasn't think anyone else under for more than three hours. they got me out of life, just about. then i had to rebuild my life. >> go back to when that happened. >> i was fortunate enough. i got married again fairly soon, a great friend of my first wife. i have one more sun. so i have three sons. we have just celebrated our silver wedding. my second wife the night.

that was 25 years ago since that happened. i have rebuild my life in that sense and i have was a wonderful family around me, which helped. and still have trouble with my legs. that there -- i was in hospital only a few days ago. i get up flareup of difficulties. they can sort it out. that side is not completely cured. but here -- the human spirit does recover. i think that is the key difference. it was just over 25 years ago. >> that is the ira? >> yes. a lot happened in the political scene as well. so far as they is concerned, we try to work together with them in northern ireland. we had some success. >> are you surprised that there

is no more of the bombing going on? >> there are still a small element that they would try to like to get the bombing going again. they have not got much popular support, even with the elements in iris society they would have been in favor of a united ireland. i think so far things are reasonably under control. but it has been a lot of hard work, and gradually getting things going again. >> that was a party of men, the conservative party meeting? >> the annual convention. >> how many people were killed? >> pipe -- five people were killed in the hotel i was in. because i was the government she whipped at the time, i was in the next room to mrs. thatcher. it was mrs. thatcher they were after. the bomb went off in the room above and i felt four stories in the hotel.

they dug me out seven hours later. the only reason i survived was really locked. occur from the hotel came down and stop the hotel crushing me -- girder came down and stop the rubble from crushing me. a spring mattress came down and gave me air. >> is there anything about americans looking at 9/11 thinking that it will never be over? >> if you have the combination of strong security, new york trying to frustrate, you need very good intelligence and some very brave men, who had infiltrated some of these organizations to find out what is going on. but at the same time, political leaders have got to be able to

start some sort of dialogue with these people, because however evil the overall organization might be, there are some less evil people in, who can be persuaded, and what you must not do is drive them all the other way. in all the successful things, there have been some negotiations for the moderate people are gradually drawn away from the real hard-liners and it can make a difference. >> when did you run for the house of commons and the first place? >> i wanted to speak up for people who did not have a voice. there were very few women out of 650. thereabout 20 women. there were no black people at all. i was the first black woman elected to parliament. i was very proud because i speak

up for people who would not have been heard otherwise. >> first black woman to be in the parliament of this country. >> yes, and i think, was elected 150 years after the abolition of slavery in the british empire. it shows you the progress. on both sides, the conservative party have done very well actually. there have been half a dozen white members when they did not have any when i first came in. -- black members when they did not have any when i first came in. >> given the system and you are aware of what goes on in the united states, we have over 40 members of the u.s. house of representatives out of 435, the total number is 3% of 646

members? >> i think it is about 20- something now. >> under your system, how you get more minorities to elect -- elected? to the in the analysis, you have districts. under most circumstances, they will elect a minority member. we do not have that here. we've had a history of segregation and so on. in the labor party, but in the conservative party, [unintelligible] they or encouraged local associations. some very good people coming from the conservative side. day you have a lot of

associations their regular like? >> [inaudible] in the media, [inaudible] -- you could not or you could? >> you could. >> sky network is a very different station from fox. [inaudible] they knew they'd need to be balanced. >> to you feel that the news's balance? >> yes. [inaudible] >> american say that this is freedom to say whatever you want to say, freedom to have a gun in your house if you want that have it, all of the things that we

have been talking here. the first amendment protect speech -- you would be about said spend whatever you want to one politicians. >> its and of -- it's the freedom at the expense of the port. -- of the poor. the freedom to spread untruths is extraordinary. how many americans believe the barack obama is a muslim? to continue to say things that are wholly misleading, people are accustomed to hearing things without contradiction. >> is there a difference in journalism between the two countries? >> i have worked with the financial side of the times, there is a little bit -- a trust their journals more origin and say they have much lower standards in terms of everything else.

they basically leave the journalists to make their own judgments on many things. that is in the u.k. and many newspapers, that means there is less -- there are a lot of stores that are not true. the great thing about the sunday is that the stores do not have to be as true. i thought i was a very worrying. you would never hear that in any serious newspaper in the u.s. i was taken aback initially and then rather compressed about them that -- the impression of -- the attention to detail and in new york. >> i ran the press complaints commission. >> who controls it? >> it was an attempt by the

newspaper industry to demonstrate that they had set up a body to seek to raise press standards, particularly standards of invasion of privacy and inaccurate reporting. partly to stop either political party that won the election to bring in any controls of the press. they wanted me to run it after the first -- he had not made much of an impact, and i tried to run up standards by getting the public to complain about anything they thought was unfair, wrong, inaccurate, distorted, invasion of privacy, things of that sort. but we had no actual legal penalties. we could not find people but we could criticize heavily and the

newspaper hated that. they hated that completely. it was also free to make a complaint. you never get charge anything for making a complaint. all lawyers were not involved. and i think we did raise the standards over the years. >> who paid for it? >> the newspaper industry paid for it and i is the chairman had to maintain our independence from the newspapers. i had to be sufficiently respected by the people to say that i was not their tool because i was being paid by the newspaper industry. >> when did you running? >> i think i started in 1995 and then i went to 1981 or 1982. >> but took on someone publicly in that time period, a guy named pierre is morgan. he is going to take over the larry king show. >> i'm very fond of him. he is a very successful man and he will be very successful in

america and no hard feelings at all. but it was when i was first garden. -- first starting. he published photographs of the first earl of spencer's wife who was walking in the grants -- on the grounds of a nursing home where he engine -- where she had gone for mental breakdown. he is the brother of princess diana. he is one of our big landowners and a big aristocrats of the old school. i am an aristocrat of the new school. i do not have any land. he is one of the big ones. this was right at the heart of what we were trying to stop. the intrusion of someone in the hospital. i said this was a very serious breach of the code, and it was right at the beginning, so i went to rupert murdoch, and i said in the end, it is used that

has to have people that you have confidence and running your show. >> he ran news of the world. >> the popular newspaper. he said very famously the conduct of this young man is unacceptable. and he shortly afterward left. he got a better job with another newspaper. i invited him to lunch and we had lunch together and we're good friends. there is no hard feelings about it at all. it was part of the process of trying to demonstrate a free newspaper system did not require government intervention and loss to stop it intruding into people's privacy. >> what is more like in different? -- a alike than different? >> i think we are all liked -- you have a written constitution. you have a written constitution.